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.
Sure, you told your parents that you have them for computer games, but come on - we all know why they have both advanced so quickly.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
yeah, sure, wasn't it for tons of popups suddenly opening up and showing some rather grotesque cumshot scenes in front of your momma, popup blocking wouldn't catch up.
yay for pr0n as a new techs driving force!
I don't feel like it...
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?
kthx
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
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.
What the fuck is this garbage? I've been with the same woman for nearly five years and just married her this weekend. If anything, porn has STRENGTHENED our relationship through mutual viewing.
Are they trying to say that porno searching online is a "gateway" to become some sort of "sexual deviant"? Give me a fucking break. Just because people's conservative sexual knowledge and behavior is the prevailing behavior (and IMHO negative) it doesn't mean that "graduating" to a different behavior is heinous.
Mod -1 Flamebait/Troll
I'm sorry, but 100 people aren't going to tell the tale of ALL those that enjoy porn either in solitary viewing or in group situations. I'd like to read this pile of shit and actually give a true account of the book rather than an obviously biased and conservative viewpoint on it.
I'd like to know what technological breakthroughs were driven by Porn? Cameras weren't developed originally for Porn. Scanners weren't developed for Porn. Image viewers weren't originally developed for Porn. I find that to be the epitimy of Bullshit. Most of the continuing development of Computers happen to be for Highly Intense mathmatics. Video Games for instance are probably more of a driving force in technology's improvement than Porn! I can render all the porn I want on my DNS/Mail/Server. It happens to be running Linux and is only a 300 mHz pII. Yes it's old, and may take longer to render a picture than my Desktop, (1.8GHZ) but it'll never be able to run say Medal of Honor. Never! I just find that comment as ludicrous! Does anyone agree with me on this?
Generation Trance: What generation are you?
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.
Oil man's coworker: "Does anyone else smell Astroglide?"
All this talk about how bad pron is makes me scratch my head. I understand that there is validity to a lot of the statements. But personally, I'm more worried about how quickly we had gangs of thugs running through New Orleans. Which is the whole point of the subject line. Europe has a very liberated sexuality. America does not. Perhaps there is some causation to Americas reaction to porn because of the cultural stigma attached to sexuality.
Correlation does not equate to causation.
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
anyone else remember that when you d/l'd porn line by line at 9600 you could see that the top line in a trinitron monitor usually lined up with the nipples on a full body shot?
Remember, when Bram wanted folks to test BitTorrent, he put up a porn flic -- he knew there'd be enough who'd want to get it that they'd download and install BitTorrent, and then wait for the porn to (maybe) download.
I bet porn leads to people installing lots of software, good and bad.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
The review was in a reasonable tone and focused mostly on the data, so why did it provoke such a firebreathing response?
You're seriously joking right? This "review" was a biased advertisement stroking the right-wing conservatives egos that their missionary-position bi-monthly sex acts are acceptable and even encouraged while their co-workers' healthy and exciting sex life is deviant and unacceptable.
There is NOTHING worse than reading that someone else finds that your exciting sex-life is "bad" because you are a bad person.
Keep the right-wing ideals out of site and off of Slashdot.
On the basis of the book jacket, this might seem more appropriate material for iVillage than Slashdot
/. readership usually welcomes any story that lets them post countless old porn jokes and anecdotes about how they can never get laid.
No, I'm pretty sure the
It is not your usual porn that is referred to here. The type of porn in question is the hardcore demeananizing porn that the porn industry seems to have led to. As is described, online porn seems to lead from soft to hard core porn, and it is the rape and bukkake that damage relationships. This also brings up another side in the viewer, as I won't watch anal, nor anything worse than that, while others may enjoy the rape or bukkake that plagues the internet.
Foxed Design
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.
You might say the same things about many other non-porn things, like eating, or gaming, or dieting, or exercising, or anything pretty much. Some people are going to react in funny ways to anything. I've never heard of anybody that takes a stand against dieting, but there are many people with eating problems (anorexics, bulemics, etc) out there. To me, personally, this just looks like someone with religiously imposed morals trying to get their way.
The well-adjusted folk of the world who can look at porn, play violent video games, and eat fatty foods without going overboard and ruining their lives wish that everybody else would just get a freaking grip already.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
I too am skeptical of the authors intent and "research". It seems like over dramatized "sensationalized" reporting that is meant to sell books, not produce good reporting.
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.
Give me a break.
Nope, doesn't sound like you've made up your mind about the book already...
sarcasm ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm)
n.
A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
See, I didn't believe that the "reviewer" gave an unbiased account of the book while trying to claim that he was going his best:
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.
See, here he tries to imply that anyone that goes against the author is just dismissing it w/o reading deep into the pointless "conclusions".
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.
Ahh, the old "see -- a successful man was destroyed by foo." A popular tactic used in many forms of media including porn, pre-marital sex, and anti-drug messages.
Thanks for falling for the oldest propaganda tricks in the book.
"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."
i bet.
...because you never know who you're dealing with.
This review is 100% Bovine Excrement and if the book content actually reflect what is stated in the article then the book is B-E as well.
/. - not The Fascist Information Network
This biased, scientifically unfounded, completely fictional OP-ED on pornography and censorship [against the former and in favor of the later] doesn't belong on slashdot.
This is
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
FTR: "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 (emphasis mine)
WTF? I was always told it would make me go blind, but how much did they have to do it to go double-blind?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
For one, I bet that before the internet, the FBI simply wasn't aware of child pornography trafficking, maybe because of lack of resources, or infiltrants, etc. It's a lot easier to network up pedophiles on the internet, and trafficking is probably less riskier over the internet than postal mail or commercial delivery services. Maybe that's the point they're making, but I doubt that availability of child pornography makes more pedophiles.
Secondly, I think internet porn is so pervasive, it's rediculous to talk to addicts, etc. and say this is what porn is doing. It's hard enough to get some suburban dad to admit to digital pornography use, esp. to a stranger. If you interview weirdos, of course you will get a biased sample.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Have you graduated here yet My Wife.
My point: How far do you actually take the openness?
How far and how much is too much?
You and I both know what country we live in so you have to expect (not accept) these conservative views.
And with supreme court changes it isn't going to get better for you.
The effects of porn depend on context. For a lot of young guys, porn forms their impression of sex, which of course is very limited. This can leave them stunted, sexually and emotionally. They end up putting the "pussy on a pedestal," by forming unhealthy obsessions over it. (Quote from the 40 Year Old Virgin)
Parents need to be more open about sexuality, because that is where much of the unhealthiness beings. Much of society too needs to chill the fuck out too, and quit demonizing sex to teenagers.
Go to a country like Brazil, where sexuality is very open, and you won't find many of these problems.
Actually there is a little grain of truth in there. While there have not been any technological breakthroughs that I am aware of that were driven by porn, personal observation indicates that new web technologies tend to be adopted earliest by porn sites as a group. So porn may not drive innovation, but does seem to drive adoption. This encompasses everything from using Javascript in clever ways to serve images (or nastier stuff) to using Flash for page elements and attempts to make it hard to steal site content easily. There are a lot of tricks porn sites use for good or ill, that often eventually find their way to mainstream sites.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Back in 1991 or thereabouts, a friend of mine went to college at UCSC, where he was opened up to a whole world of new and amazing computing paraphernalia. We had previously both been computer geeks -- I on an Apple ][, he with a Kaypro, and both later on IBM PCs -- but this was the first time he had really been exposed to Unix, X terminals, big servers, fast Internet, and the like.
... all of these things have been pushed forward by the public's seemingly insatiable demand for porn. I'm not saying porn caused these things to be invented, though I suppose that's possible in some cases. I'm saying that people who sell porn make money, and they spend that money on technology, and in so doing they advance the technology industry. And I believe they do it to more of a degree than you realize.
I remember talking on the phone with him one time in particular, when he told me about the NeXT box they had down there. Now, at the time, NeXT hardware was amazing. 'Nuff said. We all wanted to fool around with these things. I thought he was a lucky bastard to be at a university that actually had one.
"What are they using it for?" I asked him.
"Not much, really," he said. "The hard drive's pretty much just full of porn."
I mention this not just because it makes me chuckle, but because at the time it didn't surprise me at all. And it still doesn't. Throughout my experience with computers, and in particular the Internet, wherever you found a significant technological advance, somebody had found a way to use it for porn.
So, you ask "what technologies has Porno driven"? And I would say to you: The Internet. Computers.
Fancy browser programming, plug-ins, encryption, fat storage, streaming media, e-commerce
Breakfast served all day!
Good little kook - remember the party line:
IT's All Bush's fault!!
Wow, I'm a Republican (not a New Aged GOP member mind you) -- I really doubt that the Republican Party's line is "It's all Bush's fault".
Please also note that I am vehemently against ANY conservative pro-value politicians or individuals (i.e. Hillary, Mrs. Gore, etc).
Please don't patronize me w/some trollish, uneducated, and unresearched comment about my political views. In the future, I seriously suggest that you take the time to read through my post history and learn how I really feel about many issues including this pro-conservative push for family first.
I don't know why we bother with science when we can just ask one random person for a subjective opinion, and then draw a conclusion based on that single piece of anecdotal evidence. Sheesh.
In other words, just because someone smokes cigarettes all their life and lives to be 90 doesn't mean that smoking doesn't dramatically shorten life on the average.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
My point: How far do you actually take the openness?
As far as anyone is comfortable bringing it -- as well as it remains within the law (we'll ignore such laws that define sodomy in order to make homosexuality "deviant" as that's an entirely different discussion.)
You and I both know what country we live in so you have to expect (not accept) these conservative views.
I have no problems with people expressing their opinions. What I do have a problem with is people using specific language that twists the meaning around and makes a propaganda piece out of a specific media type.
This conservative viewpoint was specifically worded to make "sexual deviants" feel uncomfortable about what they do because they may "hurt" someone else. Obvious trash.
Is that how it's being portrayed in Europe? No wonder you guys are so hostile towards Bush (I have my own reasons, but not because of misinformation).
No troops were withdrawn from the middle east. These national guard soldiers were home on a regular rotation, and instead of getting some time off, were ordered to disaster relief duty.
And AFAIK, the only people that the troops shot were part of a group that was itself shooting at some engineers working on a bridge. They got what they deserved.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
People are much more often and more deeply perverted by TV and the lives that people live on "Reality" TV shows.
:)
Buy this! Everyone has it except for you! It really MATTERS!
The sky is falling!!!
Good thing I've got my porn.
BenCurry.net
The items that porn has driven into the mass market:
- The VCR, especially VHS. Before the VCR you had to go to a porno thatre and sit in a dark room with abunch of other lonely guys doing things you didn't want to know about. With the VCR you could watch your porn in the privacy of your own home. Hell, you could even watch it with your wife, who would rather die than be seen going into a porno thatre. I was there. I saw it happen with my own eyes.
- The CR-ROM drive. The first three products that came out for the CD-ROM drive were Bible-search programs, MYST and porn. Porn was the main reason many people bought CD-ROM drives.
- DVD players/DVD-ROM drives. These made porn movies even easier to watch than VCRs as the discs were smaller, the image quality better (yay, the pimples on Ron Jeremy's butt are much more visible!) and you can skip to your favorite parts. And as of today, porn is one of the few genres in video to bother using the multi-angle option.
- Broadband Internet: What do people use all that bandwitdh for? Porn. More than pirated movies, warez, and music, it's porn. Look around Usenet sometime. The busiest newsgroups are the porn groups in the ALT branch.
Now, none of these technologies were created for the expressed purpose of make, selling, or dispributing porn. And the author didn't say they were. These technologies were first exploited by the porn industry.Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
But does this mean that child porn has actually increased or that the internet has just made it easier to find? I hate when people try to use a statistic like this to prove some point, becuase it doesn't really prove anything.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
Does it have pictures?
No? How about:
You have presented one single, solitary, biased anecdote and stated that your personal results apply equally to everybody across the board with no variations. Do you really not see a problem with this? Anybody who disagrees with you must receive -1? Newsflash: studies and metastudies aren't always going to validate myopia. Smoking causes cancer, but we still find the occasional 6 pack a day smoker who lives well into their 90s. Does this mean that anybody who publishes a study showing links between cancer and tobacco should be modded down? In your world, apparently.
The reviewer is not clucking his tongue at you, nor is the author wagging her finger at what you do in your own private room. It appears to be saying "there are negatives and not just 100% harmless fun as some people would claim". Nothing else.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
The type of porn in question is the hardcore demeananizing porn that the porn industry seems to have led to.
LOL. You know what, you're 100% right, the "porn industry" has desensitized us to "demeaning" sex acts but thankfully we have people like you, the author, and our conservative/family-first politicians to tell us that anything but missionary sex is bad.
As is described, online porn seems to lead from soft to hard core porn, and it is the rape and bukkake that damage relationships.
You are saying that people *can't* enjoy being doused with semen? How the fuck do you know? It's obvious you have never done it or had it done to you... How could you possibly say, without a doubt, that it would be damaging to your relationship with your SO? You cannot.
All you can do is inject your personal opinion about something you know nothing about except from what you heard from your limited research and "personal knowledgebase". Let's keep our discussions to stuff you really have a clue about.
Rape is an illegal act and is of no relevance to the discussion. Are you not talking about criminal rape and instead simulated rape/fantasy situations where someone *could* enjoy that situation and may even fantasize about it?
Yet another situation that you have no obvious knowledge of and cannot speak on.
This also brings up another side in the viewer, as I won't watch anal, nor anything worse than that, while others may enjoy the rape or bukkake that plagues the internet.
Thank you for proving my points above.
All this escalation talk reminds me of all the Marijuana leads to harder drugs talk in the mid 80's.
I'm still waiting to get a sudden urge to shoot some heroin into my eyeball.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
You should be thankful that the reviewer didn't start blathering on about "erototoxins".
While the anecdotes sound absolutely fascinating, the conclusions sound eerily similar to those of the Meese Commission. At first (1968 or thereabouts), there was a Presidential Commission put together under Nixon to research the effects of porn on people. In its final recommendation, the Presidential Commission called for (a) comprehensive sex education for everyone, (b) continued dialogue, (c) more research, and (d) citizen participation in all of the above. Hardly a stinging condemnation.
That Commission was ignored, its report buried, and upon the election of Reagan in 1980, a new Commission was founded which would give Congress the answers it expected, by simply making shit up. To quote from the article, which quotes from the Meese Report:
While admitting that establishment of a link between aggressive behavior and sexual violence "requires assumptions not found exclusively in the experimental evidence," the Commissioners go on to say , "We see no reason, however, not to make these assumptions...that are plainly justified by our own common sense"
It's the same tired shit that's been thrown against the wall since the Reagan Revolution, in the desparate hopes that it'll stick this time.
I wonder if I could write a similar book about people who overdose on Evangelical Christianity and require ever-stronger doses of legislative activism and repression of women to get their rocks off.
Congrats on your marriage, by the way.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
How many people a day view pornography online? thousands, millions? They get a double blind study of a couple of hundred, and that's supposed to tell us something?
I've worked on scientific studies, and I can say with certainty that they are highly dependent on the researchers who are doing them (and the groups that are funding them). I've worked on studies that didn't get published becuase they dind't have the results the funders wanted. I've also worked on studies where the results had to be skewed (ie, those samples are contaminated, remove them).
I'd be willing to bet that a anti porn book would sell more copies than a pro porn book.
Another issue is, how did they find the people that they interviewed? Most 'normal' viewers probaby wouldn't take the time out of their day to sit through a long interview. It's only the minority of people that feel some compelling reason to talk about it (ie, they feel it destroyed their lives), that would go to the trouble to get interviewed.
Since when did operating systems become a religion?
Ok. Turn off the computer and walk away from it! Now, please return to more important things, like your Honeymoon.....
Why is bukkake lumped in with rape porn in the original post, and why has no one challenged that? Sure, it's weird, but so are fursuiters or people who dress up like Batman. Just because it's weird doesn't mean it's morally equivalent to rape, faked or no. Sheesh. You know, some people enjoy a good bukkake.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I'm willing to "bet" that online gambling makes more hard cash every day than pr0n. However, I agree that profits for these 2 probably eclipses most other online business.
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.
pornography pervades the Internet and drives the adoption of new technologies
(I thought pc games did). Even so, it doesn't justify it's existance. Pornography is addictive, it distorts the viewers perception of reality, destroys families and eats away at the very core of our society because it dehumanizes people.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
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
Our generation views porn all the time, and this is detrimental to our mental health... but our fathers and grandfathers fought in wars where they may have blown people's brains out at close range, and witnessed a hell of a lot of death and destruction. If they managed to come back and live as good men, I fail to see how porn can destroy us. Not to mention that not every guy is into the kinky stuff.
Hmm. If boys get their ideas about sex from porn, and porn is awful... well, there are two options here; one, make it so boys don't get their ideas for porn, or make better porn. I suppose it'd be a little difficult to say "I want to make porn that won't give a fourteen year old unrealistic expectations of women!", though.
'Course, women get their strange, sick, twisted ideas---about men on brightly shining horses carrying them off to castles where they'll play dress-up and "... and they were one" every dang night---from romance novels and the like. Girls get some pretty funky ideas about sex and relationships too, y'know.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
First, I'd have to question whether or not this woman's conclusions are correct. If they are, I'd have to ask if it's just the porn, or the combination of the porn and our (the US) attitude about sex.
Did she interview anyone in more permissive areas, like, say, Europe?
Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
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.
Cohen collected a batch of free porn and used it to lure beta testers.
You might like how I found this.
There's a really neat website called "google.com". I just found out about it a few years ago.
You can type in queries like "bram porn bittorrent" and somehow you'll get a bunch of links to things related to what you've typed. It is really neat, and I recommend you try it out.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
What about literary [verbal] pornography largely consumed by women? Of course, I am speaking of the "Romance Novel" genre which sells surprisingly well (1/3rd? total books sales). What pernicious effects does it have on it's consumers: addictive behaviour, dehumanizing, altered expectations, ... ?
When I was moving into my first house, I went through some local dumpsters looking for the cardboard only type, I went behind some superstore and peeked over the edge of a dumpster and it was empty except for one box full of porno mags. Funny how I look in a dumpster and in the back of my mind I am expecting to find some porno mags. My curiousity got the best of my and I picked it up out of the dumpster. After looking through all the smutty mags I determined there was nothing I liked, all wierd fetish stuff like fat women. Underneath the porno mags was a bunch of mail, already opened, I looked through it and it was pretty much an entire persons life in a nutshell, forclosure notices, lawsuit notices, divorce proceedings, gigantic phone bill (900# calls) apparently billed to some company account. He probably got fired for it and ended up losing his house. It was as if I was reading this guys life story, and he came to the conclusion that he had to dump the porn and get his life on track. Maybe he was dumping all the shameful evidence before he killed himself, who knows. I decided right then and there that I would never seek out pornography again, and that was an awful, damned awful habit to kick, but now its a thing of the past, it exists in the same region as smoking, something in my brain that I find disgusting, the taste of cigarettes, the smell of a porno mag.
So if you honestly think there is nothing wrong with pornography, then just wait. Eventually it will become such a problem in society that you see ads on TV like you see anti-smoking ads. "Don't look at smut" says McGriff. So you call a society fucked up that tries its best to prevent kids from getting hooked on cigarettes. It's the same thing, in fact the sexual sensation deals with the same pathways in the brain. Kids will get hooked on pornography and that will be the end of them.
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
I'm not defending or damning her study, just wondering why you're so vehement.
Someone needs to be. Everyone else just either sighs and says "oh well, another political retard spreading his propaganda" or they jump up and down with excitement over "a return to 'true' American values."
Fuck all that. People need to sit down, open their fucking eyes, and stop being a bunch of cry-baby whiners that expect everything to be spoon fed to them from the "leaders" of our country.
It's morons like the author and the "reviewer" that continue to pander this nonsensical bullshit to the easily misled American public with cute propaganda messages and undertones of evildoer behavior.
(From The Economist print edition August 18th 2005)
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
You're seriously joking right? This "review" was a biased advertisement stroking the right-wing conservatives egos blahblahblah
So, if a study's conclusions speak against your beliefs or way of life, suddenly it's a biased advertisement stroking the right-wing-conservatives?
(ad-hominem, anyone?)
I mean, *WHAT IF* what the book says is true? Oh of course not, that would condemn us all netporn-addicted slashdotters, so it must NOT be true! In fact, it's heresy! Lets bring our torches and burn that book!
You know, I used to think books were judged by the veracity of the facts they presented, not by whether their words made some people feel (Heaven forbid! *gasp*) judged.
The problem with this argument is that it follows the racial-profiling logic. I have caught more poeple who look like x then x's are more likely. It is arguing from noisy evidence. As has been shown with suicide rates a rise in reporting or a change in who is making the arrests (the FBI versus local or state law enforcement) does not mean that crime itself has gone up. It could be the case that the FBI chose to ignore child porn issues before or that local law enforcement shifted from covering up cases or classifying them one way (child abduction) to another (child porn).
As the recent scandals in the Catholic Church demonstrated many cases of abuse have gone unreported or underreported for years not because they weren't happening but because those in power, or those victimized chose not to pursue them.
But the comparison of Custer's revenge to the "seamless infinity of smut..." is a fallacious example. Your very choice of these two to compare shows a bias. You have offered a not-so-bad concrete example and an abstract exaggeration. A better (less biased) comparison would be between a specific piece of pornography (say a Jenna Jameson Video), and the naked dancers of ancient rome, or the Harem of Solomon. If you prefer literary comparisons we could compare some online erotic stories to the Song of Solomon from the Bible ("My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels
were moved for him."). Comparisons of this time are useful and valid, comparisons of the type you presented are, by their nature, extreme and biased because of it.
Yes we do have limits where we bump up against the rights of others and, as Thomas Jefferson put it in his "Notes on the State of Virginia"
No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
the effects of not watching porn, or engaging in sexually stimulating activities regularly (masturbation or sex). From my personal experience, all those that suppressed their sexual desires in accordance with their religious beliefs were, to put it slightly, extremely hostile.
Ah, but you're left-wing ideals are perfectly ok? I guess some peoples opinions are ok and other's aren't?
Essentially yes.
We as a species have decided that some viewpoints are bad. This is not news.
This country's founding was the peak of the Liberal movement.
Leftish ideals (ideals, mind you) are for greater liberty for everybody. This is an American ideal
Rightish ideals are for less liberty for everybody except for the richest and most powerful. This ideal is purely anti-American.
There is nothing the least bit hypocritical about this. It is quite clear that one of these is a good ideal and the other is bad.
Just because you probably don't actually understand what the left and the right are does not mean that people who do understand them are bad for not being ignorant, much as your politicians and pundits try to make it seem so.
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?
Suppose you are a man in a relationship and you run across bukakke videos. Hey, you think, this looks like fun. You want to try it.
"No way" says your woman. "It's disgusting and unhygenic".
Well, now you've got a problem. Your woman obviously doesn't love you or she'd be happy to have you come on her face. And have all your friends come on her face. And she thinks you don't love her or you wouldn't want her to submit to this disgusting, dehumanizing act.
I don't see how any willing and non-harmfull act...
When it is willing for both parties, no problem.
insightfull ? I'll bite troll,
just 1 example please of these already imported traditions.
(While Europe might by more sexually liberated. Most countries are far less liberal towards this kind of hatespeak)
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.
Just, in general, the review smacks of assuming cause and effect. For example:
"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."
It seems the reviewer is assuming that greater access to child pornography has triggered a surge, but even he used the word "believed." Simply because prosecutors didn't find any evidence of child porn activity does't mean it didn't exist. All I see here is that easy access to Usenet made it easier to find evidence.
And in general the reviewer mentions certain anecdotes for their shock value while never making the case that easy access caused this behavior (if anything, I can see this behavior causing a desire to look at the porn in question, not the other way around). It seems it would be possible to find a verified normal, healthy person, throw porn at them and see if there's empirical evidence of a change in the person, but the only answer given is another anecdote that some schools think it would be "too dangerous," regardless of whether the porn in question is late-night Skinemax or Rape Fantasies, Inc. Is it more dangerous than, say, pharmecutical testing?
And even if it can be shown that porn, any porn, is psychologicall damaging, I still don't see anything suggesting that a normal, healthy person would actually seek out this damaging material on their own, or at least wouldn't have a natural aversion to it if unwittingly exposed to it.
So, if a study's conclusions speak against your beliefs or way of life, suddenly it's a biased advertisement stroking the right-wing-conservatives?
Well, you know, in the same way that most of the global warming studies are biased advertisements stroking the left-wing-liberals, and evolution is just a theory. In fairness, there are probably plenty of left-wing-liberal women on the "porn is evil" bandwagon.
I mean, *WHAT IF* what the book says is true? Oh of course not, that would condemn us all netporn-addicted slashdotters, so it must NOT be true! In fact, it's heresy! Lets bring our torches and burn that book!
I think the point is that the review is bad. I agree it was closer to an advertisement than a review. Calling it a review is like calling most U.S. news productions journalism.
Is the author specifically selecting studies which backup her position, or does a random sampling of studies lead to the same conclusions? This review simply recites the claims made by the book and agrees with them. Besides hinting at lots of data/studies, the review gives no specific references. The reviewer talks about the authors conclusions, but doesn't really spell out what those are, aside from the general tone of "oh my, the Internet has made porn so much worse!".
You know, I used to think books were judged by the veracity of the facts they presented, not by whether their words made some people feel (Heaven forbid! *gasp*) judged.
Then you should be agreeing that this "review" sucked. The author of the "review" agrees with the author of the book. The reviewer did nothing to check the veracity of the facts. Stern seems to take the facts as presented at face value without question. This is a good book because it makes him feel judged, "correct". I mean, how can the author "presents most of this neutrally", while showing "contempt for non-pornographic websites that link to porn sites". What does the author show for sites that actually have porn? The bias is clear; it just happens to agree with the reviewer's opinion. This book is not an objective study, and neither is the review.
The reviewer seems impressed by anecdotes, stories, and simple conclusions. For example, I doubt law enforcement ever thought that child porn had been wiped out. If it had been, wouldn't prosecutions have risen more dramatically? 23 times "wiped out" is not really threatening. Digital media and the Internet have dramatically increased the trade in all types of information. I find the fact it has increased the trade in child porn unremarkable. Digital media and the Internet also make this trade more open and easier to infiltrate. The reviewer and possibly the book fail to mention the ways the Internet enables law enforcement to locate and catch those involved in child porn, or how much that may contribute to the increase in prosecutions. And, I'm pretty sure there were Sunday school teachers eyeing their pupils long before the Internet.
I don't even think the reviewer supports his own conclusion. I don't see how showing how the Internet has made porn so much "worse" moves the debate from morality vs. free speech. At least by his review, it sounds like the book is simply attempting to strengthen the "morality" argument by making porn that much more threatening. The role of technology seems to be dealt with in a very superficial and one-sided way.
And I'll have to chime in that I *am* deviant, and I personally know and meet up with dozens of women who are like minded. Some of the tamer things that are partaken tend to be some of the most extreme things you would find in mainstream porn. Things like violence, pain, humiliation and degradation are being forced upon these women.
Are these women being victimized, emotionally and physically abused?
Fuck no. They engage in this kind of thing not only consensually, but gleefully.
Are these people psychologically damaged? Actually, they're easily the most stable and well-adjusted people I've ever met. "Normal" people are much more neurotic by and large.
Does this sort of sexual deviancy hurt intimate relationships? Sure. I hear of past marriages having been broken up by wild incompatibilities all the time. The story generally goes "Once I realized I was kinky, and that our sex life lacked passion because all I really wanted was to be beaten and sodomized, and he would have none of that, it kind of went downhill from there."
Sex is like food. For the Japanese, raw squid is a delicacy. For Americans, it's disgusting. For some people, including the author of this book, anal sex and bukakke are disgusting. For other people, it's the epitome of their sexuality. Basically, we can't all be the same. People should be free to find their own path so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert