Would that mean that people who watch lots of movies involving police officers and serial killer wouldn't have much of an emotional reaction to actually shooting somebody in person?
There's a huge difference between fiction and reality. Anybody who takes "mechanics" into their own lives are making a choice to do so - and it's likely that the pornography they watch isn't, itself, responsible for anything. (Although it may serve as a good rationalization / excuse for not owning up to their own responsibility in the matter.)
To compare this to something else again, I don't believe this to be any different from all of those people who say that video games are an evil influence and should be banned...
I find that hard to believe - given the quality of the discussions and many of the reviews of movies that you can find on this board.
But it's a generalization. Depends on the guy. She may have been with a few inexperienced guys who watched way too much porn. That would be different from someone who'd had sexual experience before getting deeply into porn.
It would be naive to think that extensive porn watching had no effect, or that it affected everyone positively, or that it affected everyone negatively.
Oh, please! Guys (and gals) have been bad in bed since forever. Misconceptions didn't just happen when porn came along, they've existed since time immemorial. Couple that with people being too embarrassed or too rigid to discuss their sexuality and you've got a recipe for disaster, no porn watching required.
Considering that for much of recorded history entire families have lived in one room, I question the writer's belief that WATCHING other people have sex is so abhorent and unnatural. Furthermore, I get a laugh out of porn watchers being 'mechanical and just out of tune in general when it comes to erotic enjoyment,' because I have to wonder who's version of erotic enjoyment is being employed.
Sounds fishy to me. It *is* a generalization after all. Maybe some porn watchers ARE horrible lovers. But then, I think some porn haters are horrible lovers too. As are some of these "sensualists" the writer seems to be lauding. Fact is, there are bad lovers all over the place.
Now, if you wanted to discuss the effects of long term porn viewing on what a person views as erotic/sexually acceptable, that might be a conversation I'd actually be inclined to *listen* to. This one, on the other hand, is surely pure trash.
A generalization, to be sure, but more likely to be true, I think, if a guy watched a lot of porn for a long time before he ever had sex.
I first saw this issue raised in Ken Kesey's Garage Sale (wish I still had a copy). There's a conversation in which Kesey asks someone if he thought his son (a young teenager) would become a better lover if he started watching porn now. They agreed that he would more likely become a better lover if he had some experience first.
It's my understanding that the Ms. forum screens all postings, and that SueR had to wait two weeks for her posting to go up. That's what I heard, anyhow.
It sounds like this woman either had sex with loser guys who probably didn't have a clue as to what to do with a woman, or she doesn't have enough confidence in her own body to feel comfortable with being watched. I understand that watching a lot of porn may cause someone to become more visually oriented in the sack, and that this can take away from sex for people who like tactile sensations better. But many women lack confidence in themselves and the beauty of their bodies, and this can put an even more harmful damper on sex. For example if a woman can't touch herself in front of her lover, or won't sit upright in the cowgirl position because she can't stand to be looked at, these are signs of a low self image. I love looking at women, and exploring their bodies with my hands, and I would equally enjoy this kind of attention being paid me. On the other hand, most of my friends that are into porn got into it because they couldn't get laid and inexperience mixed with porno can be a bad thing. Porn sex is made for a camera, not for an orgasm. Many of the positions, and more importantly the sexual and social interactions taking place in porn would not be considered pleasurable to the average woman (at least I imagine). So if she stumbled into this kind of bad sex then she has a point, but maybe she should raise the bar on the guys she bangs instead of knocking porn.
I think the statements made in this quote suggest the writer has a problem with people who watch porn, period. There are all kinds of logical errors in her contention that porn makes for lousy loving, most of which reflect back on her antipathy to porn itself.
First, the notion that they are desensitized to sex. Actually, I would think that watching a lot of porn would only make you desensitized to more porn.
Obviously this person finds the idea of watching other people having sex to be disturbing. In any context. "Very unnatural", she asserts. Hmmmm. And I know people who like to watch who never view porn at all.
Porno as objectification. Well, perhaps. But how does this relate to "mechanical" performance?
How does it follow that an interest in visual erotica means a deficit in sensitivity to tactile sensations?
I have never considered the distinctions between erotic, explicit, and lewd . . . in the middle of having sex. The writer apparently has. Now, if we're describing kindness and consideration for a partner, and how porn watching can erode that in a person's treatment of their partner in real life situations . . . well, there may be a case for that. It's an interesting issue, the way sexual depictions in pornography might effect sexual behavior. The the writer isn't asking this question. She just repeats many of the usual prejudices non-porn watching folk project on those who like the stuff.
A few others have already hinted at this, but there is at least one error in her reasoning from the get-go. The notion that visual involvement militates against tactile involvement is completely false, in my experience. Shouldn't lovemaking be a feast for ALL the senses? Why do we keep coming back to this myth, that women aren't visual?
As for people's obsession with the women not being visual, I don't know. It's like saying guys get no enjoyment from tactile stuff, both of which are blatantly false. I think it's just that people have these ideas beaten into their heads by society, to the point that many even believe it about themselves. I personally think either of the above is a silly assertion, based a.) on my personal appreciation for tactile, auditory (come on guys, try to imagine how lame sex would be without your partner making all those great noises), and even olfactory things...b.) my long term SO's affection for watching hardcore pornography either alone or with me. This is to say nothing of all the things people on these boards say that seems to back up the whole "women are not visual" etc. as being a myth.
So I guess, to sum things up, I think it's a matter of what people are socialized to believe. Much like a lot of the more ridiculous gender differences are, but that's starting to creep into another thread.
This kind of anecdotal crock is very common on message boards. Certainly nothing to be concerned about. And possibly posted by someone who simply has "issues" with people who are not finger pointing prudes. (shrug)
SNP: It does take a week or two to get your membership on the Ms. boards approved. I am A2MMom. (bowing...thank you, thank you...)
So far, I have resisted posted anything, much less that would get me banned. I only have time for ADT (not really, but here I am).
Regarding the pornwatcher post: We see where she's coming from (since we're all so *visual*, it's not much of a stretch), but mechanical? Isn't the physical aspect of sex mechanical to begin with? I bet she never came without having her clitoris mechanically stimulated.
Subtlety is overrated. How subtle is having your tongue up her snatch while she masturbates in the first place? Oh, that's just explicit and lewd. Oh, well, guess I'm a bad lover.
I may be a more sensitive lover when I *DON'T* watch a lot of porn, though, but not BAD . Is she saying a "bad lover" may make you have multiple body-wracking orgasms, but makes you feel objectified while doing it? Objectify me then, I don't have self-esteem issues. I'd rather have better sex than respect myself in the morning!
I registered a few days ago and I'm chomping at the bit to get on their and have a few posts.
It's not that I'm anti-feminist but some of these posters are anti-social nutcases. Have a look at this thread and scroll down to where the Swedish 'female' (must start learning to be pc) who starts the thread posts the email she has received from her work colleague. Whether or not you find this list funny several things are undoubtedly true: 1) It isn't poking fun at females but rather the differences between females and males. 2) In many of the jokes it is male ignorance and therefore males who are the brunt (ie 'ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for example, is a fruit, not a color. Pumpkin is also a fruit. We have no idea what mauve is') 2) This email was clearly sent as a friendly gesture to make her laugh. 4) It is in any case merely a response to the standard equally funny/unfunny 'rules for men' we often see on refridgerator doors and tea towels.
Now read further down and note that these nasty nasty people (who elsewhere on the board bemoan the way men cannot empathise with other people) encourage the poster to try and get the poor bastard who sent this email dismissed from his job. Some of the posters on that board are truly unforgiving and vindictive people (not all of them, some).
It really amuses me that someone asks whether Sweden has any 'hostile work environment' legislation. The irony is that if this swedish female does decide to get her male colleague fired for trying to cheer her up it will,in all likelihood,be the single most hostile, morale destroying and disruptive act that office has ever experienced.
Speaking personally, I saw at least as much there that was legitimately hostile towards women. Parts of it were funny, other parts were offensive. I've seen similar humourous lists before - but this one actually shocked me because some parts of it couldn't be taken as anything other than misogynist. (The fact that it's all wrapped within other list items that could be considered funny, and some that poke fun at men, only sets it up so that there's a handy "reason" to excuse it.)
The people on the board, IMO, were right to respond as they did. Some of those lists items weren't just friendly tongue in cheek humour. On the other hand, it may have been a misguided attempt at levity, and the sender honestly didn't mean anything by it. But, if so, the fact that he didn't see anything wrong with it is, perhaps, even worse than if he'd meant it intentionally...
Since the short version appears to have gone stratospheric, and with apologies for my boorishness, here goes the long and winding one:
Specifically, I didn't see anything 'legitimately hostile towards women' in that list. I saw lowbrow humor that caricatured both sexes. Caricatured. Both sexes. Now, here's today's lesson in equality - if you're going to laugh at my caricature then you'd better be prepared to laugh at your own. Furthermore, the suggestion that 'laugh at me' is fake while 'laugh at you' is real smacks of paranoia, a lack of self-worth, or disrespect; take your pick and it's multiple-choice.
Step back and consider the number of comics making a living off of lowbrow humor these days. Having done so, I'm actually surprised anybody takes this list seriously. Sure it's stupid. Sure it's offensive. Sure it's sophomoric and dumb and barbed. So what? That hardly makes it stand out. It's only about you if you make it so, and therein lies my problem. Just because a woman pokes fun at males doesn't mean I have to feel insulted by her generalization. Hell, I'm happy to laugh with her. After all, I'm a dumbass. If you want somebody who's perfect and above reproach go look somewhere else. When somebody suggests to me that they are above poking fun at and can't take a joke, then they're likely to go on my stuck-up asshole list, certificates available upon request; sympathy not included.
The only thing I find remotely questionable is the guy's assumption that 'Catarina' was sufficiently embedded in the group to feel comfortable with that kind of stupid, sophomoric humor. But then, he probably assumed he was dealing with an adult who would understand that being included in the sophomoric goings-on helps make one part of the group in the first place. Silly man, didn't he know 'Catarina' belongs to a special clan that has no truck with males and worships the god Seriousness ? (That wasn't too misogynistic was it? )
PS - If you're going to suggest that stupid humor has no business in the workplace then you can count me out of your universe. I'd much rather deal with real people, warts and all, than plastic perfecto-men (and women).
Mythsong wrote:This is all slightly irrelevant though. What had really shocked me was not that anyone would find it offensive but that they would consider it serious enough to have someone lose their job over it. That isn't so much an overreaction as just plain hateful.
That said Mythsong, can you explain to me what topics are humorous that you can guarantee no-one will be offended by. Secondly, do you feel humour should be banned from the workplace (even if it means 99 workers are made unhappy 40 hours a week to please one worker 40 hours a week)?
Once again, I want to mention my trepidation over any of us joining that board and making trouble, even though they richly deserve it, IMO, and every time I visit (I'm still hooked in a rubbernecking-at-a-car-crash way), I want to do so.
Mainly, the problem is they're going to see it as a vicious attack, organized by barbarians from a "pron" site, where only abusers and criminal proto-rapists dwell. They won't see it as an open discussion; they won't welcome reasoned debate. It'll only make their paranoiac mind-set worse.
I mean, look at this response to the stupid joke list: "My bet is these charming dears have sniffed you out as a feminist, don't want one working in the office, and are trying to make you as uncomfortable as possible so that you'll quit."
She's not exaggerating. She really believes this. She sees every action taken by any man in the worst possible light, as an attack on her and on every woman. And she's not alone in her delusion.
I just don't think anything can be accomplished over there except making them go even further off the deep end -- and then god help any poor bastard (male or female) who has to deal with them in real life.
Seems like Cobalt60, SNP and I will be having some fun on those boards.
<G>
Like SNP, I just couldn't resist. I enjoy a good mental debate. Hell, I've made full-borne "all violence is evil' pacifists admit that "Some people just *need* to die.
And in a vain attempt to bring this thread BACK on track, has anyone had any experience in the opposite direction of that original post, where porn has *enhanced* things or opened people's minds to a new sexual idea? I think that repeated exposure to porn can really change the way you look at sex and sex acts in general. I mean, years ago, the thought of sticking any part of me up a woman's rear end was not appealing. OTOH, these days, I'm more than happy to stuff fingers and the like in my SO (still haven't gotten around to anything else...yet, just haven't been around each other lately). Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is open to debate. I think it's good personally since my SO really seems to get a kick out of it and likes it. Anyone else have such experience?
SaitamaLoki wrote:I must point out that I fully intend to post on that board in a sensible non-provocative manner. There are some questions and issues I would genuinely like to discuss there althout, as ObiBong points out, that may not be possible.
My first post there will be to ask a question I have already asked here. To quote the board itself 'Feminism: Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes'. My question concerns the hypocrisy of using a gender specific term to describe gender equality itself. Given feminists general distaste for male gender specific terminology to describe non-gender specific roles, (chairman, fireman) surely this choice of term is highly inappropriate ?
I too believe that if you join you should discourse in a friendly and open-minded way, and not as infiltrating snipers. It's their board, and you should be enhancing their experience of it. We would not like it if they trooped over here in groups, or if a bunch of religious anti-porn wingnuts trooped over here, for the sole purpose of getting in our face with an agenda.
Actually, I think that a good many of us would enjoy that a lot, if there was an actual back-and-forth discussion. I know I would. And I know people here would be emotionally equipped to handle it a lot better than the Ms. denizens will be.
I hate to seem, I don't know, paternalistic, but I think evidence suggests that those delicate little flowers (who ironically think of themselves as strong women) can't even begin to cope with any kind of questioning of their dogma.
Sir Noel's question about the word "feminism" is pretty good, though.
We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.
Those are not statements that could be humourous digs at somebody's behaviour. (The ones that I didn't list could be.)
There is an objective difference in type of statement between any of the above and, for instance, "If something we said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one." That doesn't do anything to denigrate the other person - it just (attempts to, whether successfully or not) make light of a certain situation.
But, all of the four I listed above effectively either say say "I couldn't care less about you and your problems," or "You're a worthless human being who I simply tolerate."
I should also mention that I'd be just as offended if a woman had said any of those things about a man. It just so happens that, in this case, it was directed towards women.
Certainly not. I didn't find much of it humourous at all - but recognize that some people might. However, there is an objective difference between trying to make light of a situation and saying something that can only be taken as non-caring or offensive towards another person specifically . It's not just that the four examples I give I find to not be funny - but that, semantically, the subject of the messages, and the content of that messages, are of a different order than the rest.
With all due respect, I think you're terribly wrong here, and taking them out of context.
The full version is: "Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for."
This is a comment on the well-documented social differences between men and women in conversations about problems. Men tend to discuss how to fix the problem; women tend to show empathy for the feelings involved. Whole books are dedicated to this issue (look for Deborah Tannen).
Again, the full text: "If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing," we will act like nothing's wrong. We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle."
The gag is not that the woman isn't worth the hassle or is a liar in general, it's about men's preference for face value and aversion to working really hard to get into an emotional discussion. I don't think it's outright hostile.
Even the fat one, which is the most questionable of them, changes in character a little bit when you include what you omitted: "If you think you're fat, you probably are. Don't ask us."
It's another riff on not asking questions the answers to which you do not want to hear. Clearly, that's the emphasis of the gag, not the "fat" part, as you imply with your editing.
"Crying is blackmail" is the only one you cite that is unaltered, but it's also one I pretty much agree with.
This was long and off-topic, but worth addressing, I think, for people who didn't jump with the link to see what actually is on the list. And these are the worst examples out of 25.
Putting them back in context doesn't make them any better, so I didn't bother.And I can just hear the sneering, sarcastic tone of voice, indicating that he doesn't care to be sympathetic to her problems. As if how somebody feels about something is somehow not worthy of notice - whereas intellectually solving the problem that caused it is. (In thinking about it, this is almost as demeaning towards men as to woman because it says that men don't care about, or have any, feelings themselves.)I'm not disputing that (perhaps true) generalization. I'm objecting to the fact that it takes it and turns into into a personal attack - of sorts. (And to both sexes, although more to women.)Replace the whole thing with "If we ask what is wrong and you say 'nothing,' we will act like nothing's wrong. We may suspect differently, but we won't have the energy to find out." Phrased that way, it's no longer offensive and has the same meaning that you ascribe to it. "We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle," simply is hostile. "We know you are lying" isn't really open to interpretation. Calling somebody a liar is a perjorative action - there's no good spin on it.Actually, adding back in "Don't ask us," just makes it worse. Not only is there the original claim of calling somebody fat, but there's now the added statement that "we also don't care how you might feel about your weight".There are far better ways of expressing that, that don't make it personal.Here's what I get out of that one: Don't cry, don't express your feelings. If you do cry you're only doing it to get your way - and you know it. Which makes you a bad person. You don't have a right to be sad because I don't know how to deal with it.Those were the only ones that I found clearly hostile. I wasn't complaining about the rest.
Well, this will probably be the final post that gets this thread locked, but I just wanted to clarify something so people don't get a hellaciously wrong idea of me...that I have no intention of hopping on the Ms. Boards and going on a ranting spree. However, I did want to try and raise some interesting issues with the people of said boards. Sir Noel already has the same idea as me for one, and another question I wanted to pose was that isn't it rather hypocritical to claim to stand for gender equality and become offended if a male makes some sort of negative assertion about women as a whole ("Women are so..." etc.) and yet count one as part of a group that often seems outright hostile to men, or at least dismissive (The threads on said boards about how "men lack empathy" and "Men are all X" and so on being my point) of them.
My aim is rational discussion to make people seriously question how well they adhere to their own beliefs. Not a sniper. I just can't resist the chance to jump into a discussion as lopsided as some of the ones over there.
Speaking of lopsided...is this thread ever gonna' come back on topic, or is it dead on that? I tried, I really did! Hehehe.
Interestingly the thread on the 'empathy' issue mirrors the comment quoted by Mythsong:Now Mythsong, you replied to my commentwithI think you misunderstood my request. What I am asking is for you to tell me, if we are all going to walk around our workplaces treading on eggshells in case we say the wrong thing, what subjects can we joke about (not what parts of this list were funny)? It seems to me that most humour requires someone, or some group, to be ribbed a little bit but if we are all going to take offence whenever it is our turn wouldn't it be better to ban humour from the workplace altogether? What I am asking is for you to tell me some jokes that you can guarantee no-one will be offended by (and have at least the possibility of inducing laughter).
SNP, here's something:Hmm...we can't use that one, because it involves a bar, which might upset the alcoholics in the workplace. Nix that.Offends no one, but may not meet your criteria of being funny.
How about this:
Damn, that pesky bar. And it mentions religious figures, which might offend the atheists. Let's try again (my apologies to Bob):Ah, lawyer jokes!! As long as you don't work in a law firm, these are good. But you're right, they require ribbing a certain group of people. I've tried to think of jokes that don't, and all I can come up with are puns.
Puns, then. But only certain ones. Here's one, since the Christmas shopping season is now officially upon us:
...but now we offend Jews, atheists, Muslims, and any other group who does not celebrate Christmas.
(GROAN). Never mind, then. It's more fun making fun of people. If they can't take a fucking joke, take them out back and shoot them. It's the only merciful thing to do.
Joke 1 seems rather insulting to men to suggest that 75% of us would, as the joke turns out, walk into a head high object. If you change the joke to 'Three persons walked into a bar...' etc that would seem fairer.
Joke 2 is, as you point out, most unfunny. This is the kind of twee humour that people laugh at out of politeness: no-one has ever had to hold their sides in uncontrollable hysterics over a joke like this.
Joke 3 may not make fun of Rabbis, priests and insurance salesman but it does rely on jokes that DO! This is my problem with this joke, by allowing humour like this to pass you are encouraging, and in many ways condoning, the original inappropriate jokes.
Joke 4 - my Aunties brother-in laws neighbours wife is no doubt a lawyer so if I have a 'sense of humour bypass' I can fully justify trying to get you dismissed from your job.
Puns it is. Here we have a fine example that should offend no one:It just really isn't all that funny, is it? Another, then, in honor of Arnold winning in the CA recall election:These should only get you fired for being annoying.
A poster on the Ms. Boards admitted that seeing *anyone* in any context having a real sex act would be negative for her. This is the issue I want to separate from the sins of the porn industry. If one acknowledges that she doesn't want to see sex portrayed in any context, that's a different mindset than disliking the patterns in the images of the porn industry.
I'm not sure I'm following where you're going with this SueR. I agree that a dislike of watching sex differs from a dislike of sexual gymnastics. Nevertheless, I would suggest to you that both come from the same roots.
I agree that the variety of sexual acts which can be learned by watching porn can create a knowledge gap, but is that really the issue? Speaking from experience, boys and girls growing up on the farm had ample and equal opportunities to see animals having sex. They had a damn good idea about how to get tab A into slot B. This didn't prevent them from absorbing the mixed signals society sends to men and women regarding 'normal' sexual behavior and so coming to grief in the bedroom.
Hardware, animals are not humans. We see animals on the farm eat, but don't learn to eat from them. Besides, sexuality is not tab A into slot B. That thinking, in fact, is part of what is fucked up about our sexual culture. Sure, any pig can fit slots together, but do swine exchange oral?
*waits for someone who raises pigs to say "yes, they do!"*
When I talk about the difference between disliking porn and disliking any portrayal of explicit sexuality, I mean that there is a mindset that wouldn't mind watching a sex scene if Elaine May directed it, and there is a mindset that feels disgusted by any display of sexuality. It's the difference between someone who hates ice cream and another who only eats Ben and Jerry's. One doesn't like the product at all, the other only wants the best of the product. My thought is that if mainstream Hollywood starts making explicit sex scenes, there is a set of women who don't now watch explicit sex who will then watch it. There is another set of women who, even when the scenes are "high quality", will not watch them.
Not disagreeing exactly , but what reason would this supposed subset of female viewers have for suddenly finding explicit imagery acceptable . Is it the fact that 'Hollywood' is producing it and therefore any stigma associated with the product is lessened ? Or do they ( in your opinion ) fear the unknown and separate porn industry , and worry for the protection of the girls amongst those backstreet pornographers ? Maybe there is a degree of snobbary mixed in as well ?
I can kind of see that this may be true . If a Hollywood studio truly did produce a porn feature then these open-minded ( not actively looking ) women may decide to give it a go . However , the film itself would be very unlikely to match the best product that has already been produced . The conflict between production values and raw sexual heat would be very difficult for a director new to the genre to balance . How would they weigh these competing aspects of the film with a $20 million budget when $100,000 seems too much for people who have dedicated a great deal of time to this task ? Having seen one attempt isn't it possible that most of these women would simply give up ?
Back to the topic of the thread , I don't think porn has effected me overall in a positive or negative way . As for learning anything about sex or sexuality from porn watching . I'd guess that depends on what you already knew and what porn you've chosen to watch . Many people seem extremely closed off about sex . It's a strange irony that the people who could benefit most from watching pornography are very often the ones who are most vehemently opposed to it .
Apparently we've gotten crosswise, as your discussion re' basketball seemed to be about the mechanics; hence my A-in-B observation. Now you're agreeing with me that sexuality isn't just tab A into slot B. I've reread your basketball comparison and I still don't get how it relates to anything but the mechanics because, to my mind, porn is about eye candy and sexual acrobatics. Yes, I want the performers to enjoy themselves, but that really tells me little about the complex interplay that is sex in my world, which was the point of my previous.
PS - No, swine don't exchange oral, but dogs do anal, if that's of any interest.
