Opinion of pornography

[Alcon]

I've looked over this thread, and there's plenty of dismissive, flippant behavior to go around (although I don't see any ad hominems offhand.)  Honestly, this thread would go a lot better if folks didn't latch onto their knee-jerk responses and go from there -- but if you want to do that, it's technically not against the rules.  If that's what you're going to do, enjoy the inevitable disappointment.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, it's pretty telling of this forum that pornography is an issue that fosters some of the most passionate arguments.

[rejectamenta]

Apparently "Hey maybe porn addiction isn't equal to true chemical dependency." is a shockingly controversial position to take. I'll make sure to insult and belittle anyone adhering to this position as a knuckle dragging retard in true detached internet weirdo fashion from now on, nothing overboard about that or anything.

[memphis]

I've looked over this thread, and there's plenty of dismissive, flippant behavior to go around (although I don't see any ad hominems offhand.)  Honestly, this thread would go a lot better if folks didn't latch onto their knee-jerk responses and go from there -- but if you want to do that, it's technically not against the rules.  If that's what you're going to do, enjoy the inevitable disappointment.

It's not just this thread. The women's thread aslo. I'm not trying to start some Atlas forum board style drama, but I strongly question Gus's position as a mod. He hasn't shown the requisite judgement lately.

[Alcon]

Gustaf came close to a weaksauce personal attack like twice ("surely you're not that stupid" especially) but that's not really why this thread sucks.  This thread  sucks because threads suck when multiple people involved are condescending, dismissive, and flip.  The standoffishness inevitably escalates and you get this crap.

(If you have a concern about moderating stuff, by all means, bring that up in the appropriate place, but my main concern is why this thread is so completely terrible, when it could be genuinely interesting.)

[Gustaf]

Gus, I'm getting tired of the personal attacks. You're not living up to the TOS for members, much less the behavior expected of a mod. If you can't disagree without resorting to ad hominem, you have no business here and certainly should not be in a position of authority. Grow up.

I pointed out that your positions and attitudes are horrible. If you want to defend them, defend them. If you can't, don't cry me a river about it.

I'm not a moderator on this board and even if I were I'm not going to sit back and let you spew the kind of nonsense you're spreading in this thread and the one about women unchallenged. And it's frustrating to argue with someone who makes completely ridiculous claims.

I'm still waiting on you to defend the position that a) pornography can't be addictive and b) there is no discrimination of women in the workplace (in fact they have it easier than men). I've provided sources for my positions, yet you have done nothing. You can run away from losing the debate by crying about ad hominems all you will but it'd certainly be more mature to actually defend your position or give it up.

[© tweed]

there is some question as to whether compulsive use of pornography functions as an addiction (see drug use) or as an impulse-control disorder (see compulsive handwashing).

[Kitteh]

there is some question as to whether compulsive use of pornography functions as an addiction (see drug use) or as an impulse-control disorder (see compulsive handwashing).

Regardless of the mental mechanism, I think we can agree that porn has a higher chance of being addicting/compulsive than hand washing.

Which doesn't necessarily make it bad, just like how alcoholics don't mean that alcohol is evil and we should go back to prohibition. But it does make the case for moderation. Everything in moderation is a good motto

[memphis]

Gus, I'm getting tired of the personal attacks. You're not living up to the TOS for members, much less the behavior expected of a mod. If you can't disagree without resorting to ad hominem, you have no business here and certainly should not be in a position of authority. Grow up.

I pointed out that your positions and attitudes are horrible. If you want to defend them, defend them. If you can't, don't cry me a river about it.

I'm not a moderator on this board and even if I were I'm not going to sit back and let you spew the kind of nonsense you're spreading in this thread and the one about women unchallenged. And it's frustrating to argue with someone who makes completely ridiculous claims.

I'm still waiting on you to defend the position that a) pornography can't be addictive and b) there is no discrimination of women in the workplace (in fact they have it easier than men). I've provided sources for my positions, yet you have done nothing. You can run away from losing the debate by crying about ad hominems all you will but it'd certainly be more mature to actually defend your position or give it up.

.
I'm not crying at all. You've been, by far, the one with the more emotional attitude throughout. I've not been the one to say things like "surely you're not that stupid" or "You really might want to educate yourself a bit on this issue before offering opinions about it because you come off as totally clueless" or "You're being a fairly disgusting, entitled idiot." That's not my style of debate.  And it shouldn't be the style of any moderator. There was the whole incident with Bushie and Ameriscam and what not. Moderators are held to a high standard.
If you want to lower the threshold for addiction all the way down to porn, you're going to have a lot of addictions out there. Is Honey Boo Boo addictive? Is hunting? How about model railroading. Lots of people lose themselves in these activites.
The wikipedia article you linked was mostly about criticism of the idea of porn addiction as quackery. You have, in fact, presented very little evidence that women routinely face undue burdens in the workplace. You've found a survey that indicates that some women perceive it. That's not quite the same as the outright discrimination that you've been harping about for several pages. At first, you presented a highly dubious anecdote about some girl you know. I'm not saying you deliberately misrepresented it. Wouldn't surprise me it all if she misrepresented the incident to you. People are always misrepresenting things that happened to them to make their lives look more interesting. And, just as important, you've presented no evidence that sexual harassment is a problem unique to women. I've had slimy female bosses. All you have to do to explain to a boss how things are in that department, they will almost always back off. They don't want trouble with their bosses. But in your world, women are too weak to say no to the uncomfortable flirtations that come their way.
There are a million real problems in the world. Diseases. Poverty. Homelessness. Religious Mind Control. Being a woman in the West or enjoying porn doesn't even register.

[Gustaf]

Gus, I'm getting tired of the personal attacks. You're not living up to the TOS for members, much less the behavior expected of a mod. If you can't disagree without resorting to ad hominem, you have no business here and certainly should not be in a position of authority. Grow up.

I pointed out that your positions and attitudes are horrible. If you want to defend them, defend them. If you can't, don't cry me a river about it.

I'm not a moderator on this board and even if I were I'm not going to sit back and let you spew the kind of nonsense you're spreading in this thread and the one about women unchallenged. And it's frustrating to argue with someone who makes completely ridiculous claims.

I'm still waiting on you to defend the position that a) pornography can't be addictive and b) there is no discrimination of women in the workplace (in fact they have it easier than men). I've provided sources for my positions, yet you have done nothing. You can run away from losing the debate by crying about ad hominems all you will but it'd certainly be more mature to actually defend your position or give it up.

.
I'm not crying at all. You've been, by far, the one with the more emotional attitude throughout. I've not been the one to say things like "surely you're not that stupid" or "You really might want to educate yourself a bit on this issue before offering opinions about it because you come off as totally clueless" or "You're being a fairly disgusting, entitled idiot." That's not my style of debate.  And it shouldn't be the style of any moderator. There was the whole incident with Bushie and Ameriscam and what not. Moderators are held to a high standard.
If you want to lower the threshold for addiction all the way down to porn, you're going to have a lot of addictions out there. Is Honey Boo Boo addictive? Is hunting? How about model railroading. Lots of people lose themselves in these activites.
The wikipedia article you linked was mostly about criticism of the idea of porn addiction as quackery. You have, in fact, presented very little evidence that women routinely face undue burdens in the workplace. You've found a survey that indicates that some women perceive it. That's not quite the same as the outright discrimination that you've been harping about for several pages. At first, you presented a highly dubious anecdote about some girl you know. I'm not saying you deliberately misrepresented it. Wouldn't surprise me it all if she misrepresented the incident to you. People are always misrepresenting things that happened to them to make their lives look more interesting. And, just as important, you've presented no evidence that sexual harassment is a problem unique to women. I've had slimy female bosses. All you have to do to explain to a boss how things are in that department, they will almost always back off. They don't want trouble with their bosses. But in your world, women are too weak to say no to the uncomfortable flirtations that come their way.
There are a million real problems in the world. Diseases. Poverty. Homelessness. Religious Mind Control. Being a woman in the West or enjoying porn doesn't even register.

This is becoming priceless. Yes, plenty of things can be addictive to different people! This is true for everything! Smoking isn't terribly addictive to everyone either. As I mentioned, both my mother and grandfather quit it without any problem at all. People have different experiences. Which is why addiction is defined the way it is. The article also does not say that! You can't just make things up.

"The new ASAM definition makes a departure from equating addiction with just substance dependence, by describing how addiction is also related to behaviors that are rewarding. This is the first time that ASAM has taken an official position that addiction is not solely "substance dependence." This definition says that addiction is about functioning and brain circuitry and how the structure and function of the brains of persons with addiction differ from the structure and function of the brains of persons who do not have addiction. It talks about reward circuitry in the brain and related circuitry, but the emphasis is not on the external rewards that act on the reward system. Food and sexual behaviors and gambling behaviors can be associated with the "pathological pursuit of rewards" described in this new definition of addiction."

It then goes on to detail several studies indicating the prevalence of porn addiction. And no one there argues that it can't be a serious problem to people.

I found evidence. You did not. The survey indicated that a majority of women experienced it! It also goes on to argue that this is rooted in reality, using other measures. But I guess that in spite of your obsession with evidence you didn't actually read the article, did you?

Also, you said specifically that evidence would consist of court cases. So I gave you the figure for it. Seems to be a fair number of such cases, proving the law is violated, by the standard you yourself provided.

And, now, suddenly, women who claim they've been discriminated against probably made it up? Based on what? See, when I say you're disgusting that's not an emotional ad hominem attack. It's an observation based on things like this, where you actively uphold oppressive structures for no good reason. If you want to argue that men routinely face sexual harassment from women or that women usually make up these claims or that the girl I knew was probably lying (!), please. Provide evidence. That was so important to you, right?

I have to say, you're providing one of the worst arguments for a position I've seen in a long time. Failing to understand even a wikipedia article I think gives credence to those statements you thought were personal attacks, that I previously made.

[opebo]

there is some question as to whether compulsive use of pornography functions as an addiction (see drug use) or as an impulse-control disorder (see compulsive handwashing).

The real reason for this isn't anything particularly attractive about pornography, it is that there is something wrong with a society in which it is so difficult for so many males to get sexual intercourse.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

there is some question as to whether compulsive use of pornography functions as an addiction (see drug use) or as an impulse-control disorder (see compulsive handwashing).

The real reason for this isn't anything particularly attractive about pornography, it is that there is something wrong with a society in which it is so difficult for so many males to get sexual intercourse.

True.

I blame Disney movies.  They make every little girl in this country think she's some perfect princess that has to wait for frickin' Prince Charming to come along until she gives herself up.  If we just told them they are decaying bags of meat like everybody else we'd all be getting it in a lot more. 

[Gustaf]

there is some question as to whether compulsive use of pornography functions as an addiction (see drug use) or as an impulse-control disorder (see compulsive handwashing).

The real reason for this isn't anything particularly attractive about pornography, it is that there is something wrong with a society in which it is so difficult for so many males to get sexual intercourse.

True.

I blame Disney movies.  They make every little girl in this country think she's some perfect princess that has to wait for frickin' Prince Charming to come along until she gives herself up.  If we just told them they are decaying bags of meat like everybody else we'd all be getting it in a lot more. 

Oh, Atlas. The reason women won't sleep with you is because there is something wrong with them. Of course.

[Kitteh]

there is some question as to whether compulsive use of pornography functions as an addiction (see drug use) or as an impulse-control disorder (see compulsive handwashing).

The real reason for this isn't anything particularly attractive about pornography, it is that there is something wrong with a society in which it is so difficult for so many males to get sexual intercourse.

True.

I blame Disney movies.  They make every little girl in this country think she's some perfect princess that has to wait for frickin' Prince Charming to come along until she gives herself up.  If we just told them they are decaying bags of meat like everybody else we'd all be getting it in a lot more. 

The attitude expressed in this post contributes far more to you not getting laid than Disney does.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

there is some question as to whether compulsive use of pornography functions as an addiction (see drug use) or as an impulse-control disorder (see compulsive handwashing).

The real reason for this isn't anything particularly attractive about pornography, it is that there is something wrong with a society in which it is so difficult for so many males to get sexual intercourse.

True.

I blame Disney movies.  They make every little girl in this country think she's some perfect princess that has to wait for frickin' Prince Charming to come along until she gives herself up.  If we just told them they are decaying bags of meat like everybody else we'd all be getting it in a lot more.  

The attitude expressed in this post contributes far more to you not getting laid than Disney does.

I don't have a problem getting laid, I was just trying to be funny.  And I like responding to opebo's posts.  

EDIT: but, would you not agree that women who live in a more open society about sex are not so picky when it comes to partners? 

[Ban my account ffs!]

there is some question as to whether compulsive use of pornography functions as an addiction (see drug use) or as an impulse-control disorder (see compulsive handwashing).

The real reason for this isn't anything particularly attractive about pornography, it is that there is something wrong with a society in which it is so difficult for so many males to get sexual intercourse.

True.

I blame Disney movies.  They make every little girl in this country think she's some perfect princess that has to wait for frickin' Prince Charming to come along until she gives herself up.  If we just told them they are decaying bags of meat like everybody else we'd all be getting it in a lot more. 

The attitude expressed in this post contributes far more to you not getting laid than Disney does.

I don't have a problem getting laid, I was just trying to be funny.  And I like responding to opebo's posts. 

EDIT: but, would you not agree that women who live in a more open society about sex are not so picky when it comes to partners? 

I think you're right.  We don't so much raise women as being equal.  We raise them as being "special".

[memphis]

there is some question as to whether compulsive use of pornography functions as an addiction (see drug use) or as an impulse-control disorder (see compulsive handwashing).

The real reason for this isn't anything particularly attractive about pornography, it is that there is something wrong with a society in which it is so difficult for so many males to get sexual intercourse.

True.

I blame Disney movies.  They make every little girl in this country think she's some perfect princess that has to wait for frickin' Prince Charming to come along until she gives herself up.  If we just told them they are decaying bags of meat like everybody else we'd all be getting it in a lot more.  

The attitude expressed in this post contributes far more to you not getting laid than Disney does.

I don't have a problem getting laid, I was just trying to be funny.  And I like responding to opebo's posts.  

EDIT: but, would you not agree that women who live in a more open society about sex are not so picky when it comes to partners?  

I think you're right.  We don't so much raise women as being equal.  We raise them as being "special".

Of course we do. We don't need all the males running around. They're a dime a dozen and their "job" as it were biologically can be done by a small population. Send the rest down a coal mine or off to war. They will go down with the ship. The uterus must be protected/rescued for the survival of the band.

[opebo]

The real reason for this isn't anything particularly attractive about pornography, it is that there is something wrong with a society in which it is so difficult for so many males to get sexual intercourse.

True.

I blame Disney movies.  They make every little girl in this country think she's some perfect princess that has to wait for frickin' Prince Charming to come along until she gives herself up.  If we just told them they are decaying bags of meat like everybody else we'd all be getting it in a lot more. 

The attitude expressed in this post contributes far more to you not getting laid than Disney does.

Oh, Atlas. The reason women won't sleep with you is because there is something wrong with them. Of course.

Guys, the point is that not all men are outgoing, alpha-type Adonises like you.  They can get laid too if there is a decent prostitution industry.

[Gustaf]

there is some question as to whether compulsive use of pornography functions as an addiction (see drug use) or as an impulse-control disorder (see compulsive handwashing).

The real reason for this isn't anything particularly attractive about pornography, it is that there is something wrong with a society in which it is so difficult for so many males to get sexual intercourse.

True.

I blame Disney movies.  They make every little girl in this country think she's some perfect princess that has to wait for frickin' Prince Charming to come along until she gives herself up.  If we just told them they are decaying bags of meat like everybody else we'd all be getting it in a lot more.  

The attitude expressed in this post contributes far more to you not getting laid than Disney does.

I don't have a problem getting laid, I was just trying to be funny.  And I like responding to opebo's posts.  

EDIT: but, would you not agree that women who live in a more open society about sex are not so picky when it comes to partners? 

No, I think it's the other way around. Societies that are more sexually conservative tend to value women less making them more dependent on finding partners. US girls don't seem to be especially picky (and certainly don't have a reputation for it globally).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's the possibility that it would do the for the most part execrable construct of the heterosexual male a world of good to concern himself with matters other than getting his dick wet.

[opebo]

There's the possibility that it would do the for the most part execrable construct of the heterosexual male a world of good to concern himself with matters other than getting his dick wet.

Why, Nathan?  That would only be pretense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's the possibility that it would do the for the most part execrable construct of the heterosexual male a world of good to concern himself with matters other than getting his dick wet.

Why, Nathan?  That would only be pretense.

It would be a boon to the people in this world who don't fit into such execrable construct, who outnumber and are as a group morally superior (since undeservedly oppressed, which can be redemptive) to those who do. This particular sort of slavering, bestial sexuality really isn't all that important to most people, or if it is it is so for all the wrong reasons.

[opebo]

It would be a boon to the people in this world who don't fit into such execrable construct, who outnumber and are as a group morally superior (since undeservedly oppressed, which can be redemptive) to those who do. This particular sort of slavering, bestial sexuality really isn't all that important to most people, or if it is it is so for all the wrong reasons.

Speak for yourself!

And after all, what do you mean 'morally superior'?  Doesn't mean a thing to me.  Have you ever had your hormone levels checked?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It would be a boon to the people in this world who don't fit into such execrable construct, who outnumber and are as a group morally superior (since undeservedly oppressed, which can be redemptive) to those who do. This particular sort of slavering, bestial sexuality really isn't all that important to most people, or if it is it is so for all the wrong reasons.

Speak for yourself!

I really don't think heterosexual male sexuality as folks like you express it is terribly important in a positive way for most people, unless non-heterosexual-males are discounted as people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I care as much about my hormone levels as you care about your moral standing.

[memphis]

Heterosexual male sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. They have a dog in this fight too.