Slashdot Mirror
Pornified
stern writes "Pamela Paul’s Pornified surveys the effects of pornography in America. On the basis of the book jacket, this might seem more appropriate material for iVillage than Slashdot, except for one thing: pornography pervades the Internet and drives the adoption of new technologies. You can’t fairly tell the story of one without the other." Read on for the rest of Stern's review.
Pornified
author
Pamela Paul
pages
320
publisher
Times Books
rating
Worth reading
reviewer
Stern
ISBN
0805077456
summary
A study of the technology-fueled expansion of pornography and its effects on those who use it
Paul spoke with researchers and therapists, she surveyed the academic literature and commissioned her own study, and then, most remarkably, she tracked down more than 100 people who were willing to talk about their experiences with pornography. Men and women, detractors and fans, casual users and perverts. She arranges this material into chapters about how pornography affects men, on how it affects women, another on children, and so forth.
This is not a “gee whiz, look at all the dirty pictures” screed urging us to hang up our mice and go to church. It is more a summary of research than an opinion piece, and though the preponderance of the research presented is damning to pornography, defenders appear in most sections as well.
The book is remarkable in two ways. First, it presents a greater amount of hard data than I have ever seen on this topic before. Second, the interviews are amazing. Where does she find these people? The military man who masturbates by the side of the highway, the child porn addict who fantasizes about the girls he is teaching in Sunday school, the adult virgins with the almost clinically precise descriptions of what they expect in a woman (“I’m a big fan of full shaved,” etc.).
Pornified is worthwhile for this research and these stories, even if you disagree with the conclusions that Paul draws from them.
I found fascinating, for example, that a number of double-blind studies of the effects of pornography were completed over twenty years ago, but that the results were so damning that it has been difficult to follow up on them. The effects of dirty movies on the people who look at them were so profound that ethics boards at universities deny researchers the approval to show them to human subjects.
What are these effects? The book devotes chapters to this, and I can summarize only very briefly. For many people, porn has quasi-addictive characteristics, requiring escalation to maintain a constant level of stimulation. It dampens empathy, it changes expectations, and it damages relationships. The interviews in the book back this up; it contains example after example of people who started with modest porn searching online, then graduated to more heinous stuff.
And this is all about the Internet. Paul pays lip service to Playboy and smutty VHS tapes, but this is a story about X-rated websites, Usenet groups, and p2p file sharing.
Paul cites a study from 2000 that ties that the expansion of technological avenues for pornography to its growing more explicit, more dehumanizing, and more violent. In other words, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica was pretty tame. But then a.b.p.e.blonds and a.b.p.e.asians appeared, and these refined the expectations of their users, paving the way for the creation of a.b.p.e.bukkake and a.b.p.e.rape. And where the original newsgroup probably didn’t cause too much damage to anybody, the same can not be said for its increasingly brutal descendants.
Consider this — prior to the Internet, law enforcement believed that child porn had been basically wiped out. It was a crime from a previous age, like body snatching. But then came the Web. Between 1996 and 2004, child-porn cases handled by the FBI increased 23 fold. The research presented in Pornified argues that technology does not merely make it easier to serve an existing desire, it allows deep exposure that for many people results in stronger and more specific versions of the the original demand.
Paul presents most of this neutrally, but you can sense contempt for non-pornographic websites that link to porn sites, or endorse them. She doesn’t name any names, but the savvy reader will recognize Fark as one of her targets, and I suspect that Farkers figure among her interviewees.
Such “smut” can be defended, of course, and the book gives defenders their say. The obvious response is “porn has been around forever, so stop complaining that it is suddenly a threat to society.” But it seems to me that this response is disingenuous. You can’t compare an issue of Playboy and the Atari 2600 cartridge of “Custer’s Revenge” to the seamless infinity of smut that lives on the Internet today.
The second major response to the claims in this book follows the First Amendment. Regardless of harm, we must not start down the slippery slope of restricting access to objectionable material. Paul considers this, but her the book discusses concrete harm, and she argues that civil liberties are not absolute where one person’s rights hurt other people (not many argue for their right to cry “fire” in a crowded theater, for example).
Though Paul did not set out to explore the industry of porn production and distribution, in the course of her research, she did discover things I didn’t know. For example, she interviews one man who works in the oil industry and spends 25% of every working day surfing porn sites and submitting reviews to “porn aggregators” for a fee. It’s not about the money, though; he feels pride in his influence as a kind of porno tastemaker.
The material about pornography and children, and the chapter about sex addicts, were particularly strong.
Some of Paul’s interviewees play off the awkwardness of the topic, and one in particular starts something like a stand-up routine, criticizing the porn movies of the early 1980s for their lack of strong plotting. Personally, I thought it was funny that two women independently complained about the “cheesy... crappy” quality of black porn, relative to porn made for whites.
What’s bad? The topic is a difficult one, and perhaps impossible to approach without prejudice. Some readers will dislike Paul's conclusions and will dismiss the entire book as a result. Also, in the interviews, some stories leave out details the reader is bound to want to know. One of the interviewees is the “former CEO of a large international corporation,” who “lost his job due to pornography.” How? What happened? Did he dress in a leather teddy at a board meeting? The chapter about porn and relationships was less interesting to me than the rest, but your mileage may vary.
Paul comes to strong conclusions, and each reader will have to decide for himself whether or not he thinks her recommendations are wise. Her main goal, however, is probably to change the debate on pornography so that it is no longer simply about morality and free speech, but also includes a discussion of whether or not technology-fueled porn hurts people. In this regard, I think she is apt to be successful.
You can purchase Pornified from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Paul spoke with researchers and therapists, she surveyed the academic literature and commissioned her own study, and then, most remarkably, she tracked down more than 100 people who were willing to talk about their experiences with pornography. Men and women, detractors and fans, casual users and perverts. She arranges this material into chapters about how pornography affects men, on how it affects women, another on children, and so forth.
This is not a “gee whiz, look at all the dirty pictures” screed urging us to hang up our mice and go to church. It is more a summary of research than an opinion piece, and though the preponderance of the research presented is damning to pornography, defenders appear in most sections as well.
The book is remarkable in two ways. First, it presents a greater amount of hard data than I have ever seen on this topic before. Second, the interviews are amazing. Where does she find these people? The military man who masturbates by the side of the highway, the child porn addict who fantasizes about the girls he is teaching in Sunday school, the adult virgins with the almost clinically precise descriptions of what they expect in a woman (“I’m a big fan of full shaved,” etc.).
Pornified is worthwhile for this research and these stories, even if you disagree with the conclusions that Paul draws from them.
I found fascinating, for example, that a number of double-blind studies of the effects of pornography were completed over twenty years ago, but that the results were so damning that it has been difficult to follow up on them. The effects of dirty movies on the people who look at them were so profound that ethics boards at universities deny researchers the approval to show them to human subjects.
What are these effects? The book devotes chapters to this, and I can summarize only very briefly. For many people, porn has quasi-addictive characteristics, requiring escalation to maintain a constant level of stimulation. It dampens empathy, it changes expectations, and it damages relationships. The interviews in the book back this up; it contains example after example of people who started with modest porn searching online, then graduated to more heinous stuff.
And this is all about the Internet. Paul pays lip service to Playboy and smutty VHS tapes, but this is a story about X-rated websites, Usenet groups, and p2p file sharing.
Paul cites a study from 2000 that ties that the expansion of technological avenues for pornography to its growing more explicit, more dehumanizing, and more violent. In other words, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica was pretty tame. But then a.b.p.e.blonds and a.b.p.e.asians appeared, and these refined the expectations of their users, paving the way for the creation of a.b.p.e.bukkake and a.b.p.e.rape. And where the original newsgroup probably didn’t cause too much damage to anybody, the same can not be said for its increasingly brutal descendants.
Consider this — prior to the Internet, law enforcement believed that child porn had been basically wiped out. It was a crime from a previous age, like body snatching. But then came the Web. Between 1996 and 2004, child-porn cases handled by the FBI increased 23 fold. The research presented in Pornified argues that technology does not merely make it easier to serve an existing desire, it allows deep exposure that for many people results in stronger and more specific versions of the the original demand.
Paul presents most of this neutrally, but you can sense contempt for non-pornographic websites that link to porn sites, or endorse them. She doesn’t name any names, but the savvy reader will recognize Fark as one of her targets, and I suspect that Farkers figure among her interviewees.
Such “smut” can be defended, of course, and the book gives defenders their say. The obvious response is “porn has been around forever, so stop complaining that it is suddenly a threat to society.” But it seems to me that this response is disingenuous. You can’t compare an issue of Playboy and the Atari 2600 cartridge of “Custer’s Revenge” to the seamless infinity of smut that lives on the Internet today.
The second major response to the claims in this book follows the First Amendment. Regardless of harm, we must not start down the slippery slope of restricting access to objectionable material. Paul considers this, but her the book discusses concrete harm, and she argues that civil liberties are not absolute where one person’s rights hurt other people (not many argue for their right to cry “fire” in a crowded theater, for example).
Though Paul did not set out to explore the industry of porn production and distribution, in the course of her research, she did discover things I didn’t know. For example, she interviews one man who works in the oil industry and spends 25% of every working day surfing porn sites and submitting reviews to “porn aggregators” for a fee. It’s not about the money, though; he feels pride in his influence as a kind of porno tastemaker.
The material about pornography and children, and the chapter about sex addicts, were particularly strong.
Some of Paul’s interviewees play off the awkwardness of the topic, and one in particular starts something like a stand-up routine, criticizing the porn movies of the early 1980s for their lack of strong plotting. Personally, I thought it was funny that two women independently complained about the “cheesy... crappy” quality of black porn, relative to porn made for whites.
What’s bad? The topic is a difficult one, and perhaps impossible to approach without prejudice. Some readers will dislike Paul's conclusions and will dismiss the entire book as a result. Also, in the interviews, some stories leave out details the reader is bound to want to know. One of the interviewees is the “former CEO of a large international corporation,” who “lost his job due to pornography.” How? What happened? Did he dress in a leather teddy at a board meeting? The chapter about porn and relationships was less interesting to me than the rest, but your mileage may vary.
Paul comes to strong conclusions, and each reader will have to decide for himself whether or not he thinks her recommendations are wise. Her main goal, however, is probably to change the debate on pornography so that it is no longer simply about morality and free speech, but also includes a discussion of whether or not technology-fueled porn hurts people. In this regard, I think she is apt to be successful.
You can purchase Pornified from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This is a bit offtopic, but I gotta ask...
[Porno] drives the adoption of new technologies
Other than VCR/DVD/Internet (video in general), what other technologies has Porno driven? We see people say it here on the Slashdot forums quite often, but I wouldn't say its a large number of technologies if I can count the list on one hand.
Maybe I haven't visited enough porno sites to know?
As Billy the Bionic Badger so delicately put it to Space Moose: "You bet your fragrant ass."
Cyberspace Moose.
Anyone else remember those old Maxell commercials?
Does anyone agree with me on this?
Half and half. While it doesn't spur much new technology it does add to the funding of a lot of technologies companies to R&D new technologies.
The Internet is a great place for Joe Sixpack's dirty little feelings... he can express them under an assumed identity and get his regular "fix" or pr0n and such without being caught browsing in the local adult "book" store. I think a lot of Joes out there have bought PCs and (even more so) broadband because of the pr0n industry. It's safe and secure under Joe's roof with little to no chance of being shamed in his local community.
This is the same reasons that the kiddie porn crowd is so strong on the net. I'm sure there are many other subcultures that feel better about trading their wares and creating a social environment on the net as to not reveal their true identities.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Secondly, I think internet porn is so pervasive, it's rediculous to talk to addicts, etc. and say this is what porn is doing.
This is an excellent point. In 1954, Dr. Fredric Wertham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredric_Wertham) published Seduction of the Innocent, an indictment of comic books. Among other things, he interviewed a number of juvenile delinquents, and found that they read comics. Well, just about every kid in the 1950s read comics; most of those of course weren't juvenile delinquents, but his skewed sample provided ample grist that resulted in Senate hearings on the topic.
It comes down to down to tone. The review was put in a rather nice and measured tone. The response started with the phrase 'what the fuck'. Typically, if somebody says 'fuck' in the first sentence of their reply, it isn't going to sound very nice.
Now you may think this is all 'Ms manners' bullshit, but in the past I have argued, that one of the reasons that Bush won was because those that were opposed to him came off as total ass holes. You don't persuade people by swearing at them. The Kerry supports came out spent several month say 'You are a total fucking idiot if you vote for Bush', and all that ended up doing was solidifying Bush's support. And now look at the mess we're in. We should really learn from this, or it's just going to be a repeat in 2008.
Keep the right-wing ideals out of site and off of Slashdot.
And I love your dedication to free speech.
Steve: Oh, because it's got naked women in it! Look, I like naked women! I'm a bloke! I'm supposed to like them! We're born like that. We like naked women as soon as we're pulled out of one. Halfway down the birth canal we're already enjoying the view. Look, it's the four pillars of the male heterosexual psyche. We like: naked women, stockings, lesbians, and Sean Connery best as James Bond. Because that is what being a bloke is. And if you don't like it, darling, join a film collective. I want to spend the rest of my life with the woman at the end of the table here. But that does not stop me wanting to see several thousand more naked bottoms before I die. Because that's what being a bloke is. When Man invented fire, he didn't say "Hey, let's cook!" He said: "Great! Now we can see naked bottoms in the dark!" As soon as Caxton invented the printing press we were using it to make pictures of - hey! - naked bottoms. We've turned the Internet into an enormous international database of... naked bottoms. So, you see, the story of male achievement through the ages, feeble though it may have been, has been the story of our struggle to get a better look at your bottoms. Frankly, girls, I'm not so sure how insulted you really ought to be.
"What the masochist doesn't know can't hurt him."
The best documentary on the business of pornograrphy (from "mom and pop" operations to Fortune 500 companies) is American Porn, produced by Frontline for PBS. It's hard to imagine that the need to feed thousands of websites and their user/subscribers with high quality/high bandwidth pictures isn't significantly driving both internet bandwidth demand and digital photography. BTW, you can watch a streaming video (MS Media Player or Real Player) of that entire documentary for free at Frontline: American Porn
I suspect we're politically similar - old-school Republican, none of this pro-value, neo-con rubbish.
But why the vitriol? I suspect Ms. Paul tends more towards feminism than 'new age' conservatism, and her work probably stems from the (in my opinion) interesting concern that we're objectifying not just women, but sex in general. (not saying 'outlaw pr0n' or 'it's absolutely a problem', but just that it's worth studying) If the data says it's causing problems - child porn going from a non-existent problem to an FBI priority is pretty telling - how do we argue with this? I don't think mainstream adult entertainment is causing problems, but the Internet has certainly provided a mechanism for the wackos to correspond.
Note that I'm certainly not calling for the return of puritanical values and guilt-with-every-pleasure feelings that so many fundamentalists lust for, but I also do not subscribe to the 'it feels good, it must be okay' camp. Why not research?
Absolutely true that this is all corollary data, not definitively causal - I'm not defending or damning her study, just wondering why you're so vehement.
You know, the author's results look like they've been cribbed straight from the Meese Report. You can read some information about the Meese Commission, about how the results of research were simply thrown out when they didn't fit the commission's prejudices.
There was real science done on this; see the Presidential Commission of 1968 or thereabouts, which was swept under the rug.
If the local porn zealots seem more vigorous than usual, it's only because we recognize the same discredited bullshit we've seen before. Last year it was "erototoxins"---do you remember?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
That's a very good way of looking at it. We really do need to take into consideration the puritanical history of this country which really skews our views of sexuality, regardless of where on the spectrum you are.
Makes me feel a bit better about my so-called addiction (really, I'm serious). Maybe I am a European stuck in an America's body. I certainly love European women because they ooze sexuality 100x more than most American women, that's for sure...
(From The Economist print edition August 18th 2005)
Consider the original Kinsey study, as an example. In a time pervaded by rigid ideas of "normal" and "deviant", the study shattered all of those ideals through an anonymous interview process. While there are definitely some rough edges to his data, even when "scrubbed" to remove the biases that people claimed came from the ~5% of the sample data which came from homosexual prositutes, and the ~25% of current or previous penal inmates, the numbers stayed essentially static.
If people think they're contributing to science, they'll talk about just about any aspect of their lives.
There is of course evidence to suggest they'll tell interviewers what they think they expect to hear. I read about a study in which people headed into a washroom were interviewed about handwashing, and a shockingly large number lied, despite knowing they would be videotaped shortly thereafter, and thus they would be caught.
Before you too readily sneer at my assertion that I'm an addict, consider this:
- I used to surf porn at work ~ when I knew there was a zero tolerance policy and I would well lose my job. I _wanted_ to stop. It wasn't _doing_ anything for me. But I _couldn't_. (and don't give me any shit about "if you wanted to you could." Know any alcoholics? Ask them just how easy it is to "just say no"...)
- I'm in fucking IT (heh), so I know there is no such thing as "anonymous" access.
- Yes, I've pulled the NIC from my system after one binge out of fear that I'd be traced.
- Porn does kill intimacy. It objectifies the opposite sex. It conveniently numbs pretty much everything emotion-related. (as a survival mechanism for dealing with life not being happy, it works well)
- Porn is NOT a problem for everyone ~ just as alcohol and illegal narcotics had zero appeal to me not everyone will get "hooked" on porn.
- That said, it is a very, very powerful draw. Seemingly anonymous and free, (ha! tell that to the men and women in my SAA group that have spent hours and hours and hours and lost marriages/families/self respect!) it seems like a perfect "clean", and harmless addiction.
- like any good drug addiction, it does need to have the ante upped. I started with soft core stuff, but with the availability via the internet I was able to progress...rapidly.
Sound like insane behavior? Risking your job, your family (yes, I'm married and have 3 kids) for looking at some (not-even-real) titty? Sounds insane to me. Even when I was doing it and couldn't stop, it sounded insane.Does this make "the internet" bad? Of course not. I'm just saying that's how I got to it.
Does this remove responsibility for action? Absolutly not. I decided to do what I did. There were reasons for it, but ultimately I am responsible for my actions.
Those who haven't experienced the insanity of an addiction cannot empathize, and really cannot understand. And I accept that. But for those of you out there who are struggling with this you're not alone. It is real. And no, you can't stop on your own. You've tried ~ remember? You've promised yourself never again (after being picked up/jailed/publically humiliated).
All that to say, porn isn't really the core issue. As with drugs/alcohol/workaholism/etc, it was my way of dealing with life/stress/pain.
Patrick Cairns: Out of the Shadows is an excellent book dealing with both sex addiction as well as underlying issues.
Need to get help? Sex Addicts Anonymous and Sexaholics Anonymous are both based on the 12 steps of AA and work well. It's hard work, but recovery is possible.
I'm (trying) to blog bits and pieces of mine at http://cluelessrealist.blogspot.com/
My .02.
Peace.
-adb
I had access to porn at a very young age (10 - 11 years-old)
I don't think it has affected my view of women and sexuality at all. Or if it has it has done so positively.
I have never forced myself on a woman. I have never hit a woman etc. I have never even gone out to a club with the express intent of getting laid.
I met my wife when I was 15, we became high school sweethearts and have been together for the last 8 years and have two children together. I have never cheated on her. Never forced myself on her etc.
I don't understand how my views and expectations were skewed or affected at all due to looking at porn when I was 10 years-old. If anything I think I am a better lover. We have a very healthy sex life.. we're comfortable experimenting and asking eachother for 'favours' or trying new things etc.
Honestly.. how has porn given me a negative view on women and changed my expecatations? I don't understand where this argument comes from.
I'm certainly not a philanderer and I have great respect for women. If anything porn has taught me to make sure that I'm always concerned about my partners pleasure rather than just getting myself off quickly.
No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
What the author of the book (at least, according to the reviewer) said -- Some people have problems, they are addicted, they can't stop on their own... and everyone else's right to view this must be restricted to protect them.
I can sympathize & understand the first statement. The second makes me want to scream.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Interesting, I never thought of it that way. It's like polygamy for polygons. Polygomy?
http://www.abc.net.au/science/wings/episode5.htm
The above link is an interesting discussion/review from a perspective of innovation, that suggests that sex appears to have driven some tech. Perhaps not from nothing (big bang reference not fully squelched) into existence, but certainly the direction of the tech. Some tech listed in the discussion included the Polaroid camera, the low light settings on video cameras, phone sex, interactive sex CDs/games, and teledildonics. Yes you read that correctly. Think Internet connected body suits for long distance sex sessions.
The Holodeck is far off in the ST:NG universe. But did we really think Picard only played Film Nior Mystery games in there? Would the average user?
Most of the games I play with my computer today are not that prurient. Perhaps after a quick fling in the Holodeck, like most people I bet, the reigning obsession would be the hero in Battlefield 2 or a great mage in the World of Warcraft or Diablo universe.
Sure perhaps after winning the big battle or after a hard day of magic, I might want to have a bevy of buxom beauties (or a hill of handsome hunks) surrounding me, but only until the next real challenge in the Holodeck.
Any of this sound reasonable?
When a Ball Dreams, It Dreams it's a Frisbee.
Sure 100 people's lives were destroyed, but COME ON, I could find hundreds of thousands whose lives have been destroyed by lack of medical care or tens of thousands whose lives have been destroyed by credit cards.
First of all, those 100 people's lives weren't "destroyed". They suffered negative consequences, but not world-shattering such.
Second, I very much doubt you can find controlled double-blind studies about people given credit cards and having their lives destroyed, or whatever strange thing you are proposing in your confused mind.
Third, even if your two unrelated and, frankly, quite bizarre points were true, it's irrelevant. That's not how science if done, and it's not what conclusions are reasonable to draw from such an experiment. The conclusion to draw from "100 people had their lives destroyed in a 100 people experiment" isn't "OK, so porn ruins lives, but lots of other stuff might too, so it doesn't matter", but rather something like "porn isn't all that good for you". Sounds reasonable to you?
Sheesh.