"So women decided that men who have a lot of sex are studs, and women who do are whores?"
Sounds reasonable to me. A man who has great success in having sex with many women is (obviously) popular with women but are generally despised by other men, who view them as competition. Similarly, a woman with similar success is competition to other women.
It can also be rooted in the typical sexual roles men and women are expected to take in modern society, where the men are expected to be active and the women passive and generally reistant to the man's advances. The stereotype is that a "stud" is particularly skilled at getting around a woman's guard while a "whore" is someone who simply doesn't say "no" as often as others.
In both instances, it seems women have the advantage ("I couldn't help myself, he was too much for me!" almost as if it bordered on rape) while men are chastised for either going after the "easy lay" or being the "pig" who successfully pursued so many women. The fault is always with the man.
Not that any of this means anything, since neither of us are historians/psycholoogists/anthropoligsts/whatever, but I don't see how you can dismiss the parent's assertion so easily.
But historians have pointed out that the general illegalization of prostitution and brothels in most states coincided (at least) with the advance of early feminism in the United States, culminating both with the Nineteenth and Eighteenth Amendments (prohibiting alcohol because drunk men were harmful to women).
"I'm sure that's also why women make less money doing the same job as men do, because they drive the ethics that dictate the wage scale."
"Ethics?" When has nepotism, advancing someone because they are "one of your own," ever been considered ethical? The poster only mentioned female domination of ethics, and it seems you're straining hard to attatch the label "ethics" to some straw men.
"You fail to recognise that almost all addiction springs from some sort of depression, self worth or external control issues."
But you're basing everything on the assumption that masturbation and/or viewing pornography is always rooted in addiction.
"To equate your lesbian stereotype with addiction filling a whole in ones life is ridiculous."
How? They both take the form of "Person X only wants Y because they lack Z." Seems like a valid analogy to me.
"The addiction comment wasn't directed at men, it was in reference to all people and is generaly considered a truism."
TFA is about men viewing pornography. I saw no instance in TFA about a relationship being ruined because the woman was "addicted" to pornography or of a man complaining about their female partner's undue attention to pictures of naked men. The only way that statement "wasn't directed at men" is if it is taken out of context.
"Your lesbian stereotype is a concept some men came up with to comfort themselves."
And the masturbation stereotype isn't something some women came up to comfort themselves?
"Your view on the matter leads me to believe you have some sexism issues to deal with."
"However, you clearly haven't seen any modern pornography. It's not just naked human beings. It's guys cumming on womens faces saying, "Take that bitch, want some more?""
You're implying that all modern pornography is like that. At the very least, I'm pretty sure there are still people out there writing trashy "romance novels" that don't feature scenes like that.
Heck, can you even make the case that what you're talking about is selling better than other types of porn, or being downloaded more frequently?
"I have heard of people who have ruined their marriage by becoming addicted to pr0n"
You're assuming that the outcome of one of the most complex interpersonal relationships known to humanity would be different if it were not for one and only one factor?
What of all the other divorces that didn't involve porn? Or of those divorces where one of the participants claim it was all porn but was using it as a scapegoat for some other issue?
"some have been fired for looking at pr0n while at work. "
Others have been fired for making personal phone calls at work. Should we now ban the telephone as degrading the moral fiber of society?
(Actually, I'd personally support a ban on the telephone...)
And then there's the woman who gets fired because she spendt all her time filing her nails...
Millions of people get fired from their jobs for a myriad of reasons that all boil down to "personal incompetence." Why single out this one?
"One definition of addiction states: "compulsion or overpowering urge to use a substance, regardless of potential or actual harm""
Are you sure you're not trying to equate "compulsion or overpowering urge" with "without thought or apathy towards potential negative consequences?" There may be people who got fired for looking at port at work because they couldn't make themselves stop, but I'd wager that a vaster majority of porn-related firings are because the person was simply bored, didn't think they'd get caught, and/or didn't care if they'd get caught because they hated their job anyway.
My question: how many were looking for it when they found it? How many of those 9 year-olds who had seen porn (assuming that any of those 9 year-olds fall into the 50% mentioned) were looking for stuff on Pokemon or Cardcaptors?
Then wouldn't your problem be with mass media in general instead of pornography in particular? Sex sells, even if its only innuendo, and what's portrayed on the radio, television and now the internet has always had very little to do with the real world and real interpersonal interactions.
Of course, if children weren't be raised by cathode ray tubes, this probably wouldn't even be an issue.
I've read most of TFA and some of the posts from "It really is an addiction!" folks, and one common theme I'm seeing is that they all classify pornography as pretty much all being the same, usually mentioning hardcore/BDSM/body modification stuff liberally throughout, possibly aiming for shock value. Aside from the classic question put before SCOTUS of "What is pornography, anyway?" why does it seem that most of the people complaining about porn's effect on people seem to be equating, say, Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction with goatse or tubgirl?
"but when I go into any GAME/Virgin/HMV etc the PSP UMD section outstrips the entire DS section."
"Sony is shelling out more money for more shelf space in stores (or using their clout from CD and DVD sales to wring it out) than Nintendo is" doesn't mean "Sony is outselling Nintendo." Most stores I've looked in, if you looked at shelf space alone, you'd never imagine the GBA was outselling the PS2.
"Microsoft has complained frequently in recent months that it has been denied the right to a fair defense in the continuing antitrust case with the European Commission."
We can't bribe the prosecution like we did back in the US!
See, that's why we need more federalism. Savant's IQ would "only" have to be divided up into her state, and there's still hope for states like Alaska and Wyoming.:P
We're talking about Alabama. Tell them that they're taking the same stance as Joe Lieberman and (gasp!) Hillary Clinton. Things will quiet down in no time.
"It will alert its autistic user if the person they are talking to starts showing signs of getting bored or annoyed."
I'm certainly not autistic, more "socially awkward" than "socially challeneged," but my personal experience is that I tend to get a lot of false positives in the "bored or annoyed" category.
Slashdot Mirror
Online or offline?
"Originality worked 10 years ago, and it should work just as well today."
Ten years ago I was playing Final Fantasy VI and Seiken Densetsu 2.
Twenty years ago I had Super Mario Bros, a Mario game that came out after Mario Bros, Donkey Kong Junior, Donkey Kong...
"So women decided that men who have a lot of sex are studs, and women who do are whores?"
, but I don't see how you can dismiss the parent's assertion so easily.
Sounds reasonable to me. A man who has great success in having sex with many women is (obviously) popular with women but are generally despised by other men, who view them as competition. Similarly, a woman with similar success is competition to other women.
It can also be rooted in the typical sexual roles men and women are expected to take in modern society, where the men are expected to be active and the women passive and generally reistant to the man's advances. The stereotype is that a "stud" is particularly skilled at getting around a woman's guard while a "whore" is someone who simply doesn't say "no" as often as others.
In both instances, it seems women have the advantage ("I couldn't help myself, he was too much for me!" almost as if it bordered on rape) while men are chastised for either going after the "easy lay" or being the "pig" who successfully pursued so many women. The fault is always with the man.
Not that any of this means anything, since neither of us are historians/psycholoogists/anthropoligsts/whatever
But historians have pointed out that the general illegalization of prostitution and brothels in most states coincided (at least) with the advance of early feminism in the United States, culminating both with the Nineteenth and Eighteenth Amendments (prohibiting alcohol because drunk men were harmful to women).
"I'm sure that's also why women make less money doing the same job as men do, because they drive the ethics that dictate the wage scale."
"Ethics?" When has nepotism, advancing someone because they are "one of your own," ever been considered ethical? The poster only mentioned female domination of ethics, and it seems you're straining hard to attatch the label "ethics" to some straw men.
"Wow! Women really are weird!"
:P
Of course! Why do you think nobody on Slashdot knows how to talk to one?
"You fail to recognise that almost all addiction springs from some sort of depression, self worth or external control issues."
But you're basing everything on the assumption that masturbation and/or viewing pornography is always rooted in addiction.
"To equate your lesbian stereotype with addiction filling a whole in ones life is ridiculous."
How? They both take the form of "Person X only wants Y because they lack Z." Seems like a valid analogy to me.
"The addiction comment wasn't directed at men, it was in reference to all people and is generaly considered a truism."
TFA is about men viewing pornography. I saw no instance in TFA about a relationship being ruined because the woman was "addicted" to pornography or of a man complaining about their female partner's undue attention to pictures of naked men. The only way that statement "wasn't directed at men" is if it is taken out of context.
"Your lesbian stereotype is a concept some men came up with to comfort themselves."
And the masturbation stereotype isn't something some women came up to comfort themselves?
"Your view on the matter leads me to believe you have some sexism issues to deal with."
Hypocrisy much?
"However, you clearly haven't seen any modern pornography. It's not just naked human beings. It's guys cumming on womens faces saying, "Take that bitch, want some more?""
You're implying that all modern pornography is like that. At the very least, I'm pretty sure there are still people out there writing trashy "romance novels" that don't feature scenes like that.
Heck, can you even make the case that what you're talking about is selling better than other types of porn, or being downloaded more frequently?
"I have heard of people who have ruined their marriage by becoming addicted to pr0n"
You're assuming that the outcome of one of the most complex interpersonal relationships known to humanity would be different if it were not for one and only one factor?
What of all the other divorces that didn't involve porn? Or of those divorces where one of the participants claim it was all porn but was using it as a scapegoat for some other issue?
"some have been fired for looking at pr0n while at work. "
Others have been fired for making personal phone calls at work. Should we now ban the telephone as degrading the moral fiber of society?
(Actually, I'd personally support a ban on the telephone...)
And then there's the woman who gets fired because she spendt all her time filing her nails...
Millions of people get fired from their jobs for a myriad of reasons that all boil down to "personal incompetence." Why single out this one?
"One definition of addiction states: "compulsion or overpowering urge to use a substance, regardless of potential or actual harm""
Are you sure you're not trying to equate "compulsion or overpowering urge" with "without thought or apathy towards potential negative consequences?" There may be people who got fired for looking at port at work because they couldn't make themselves stop, but I'd wager that a vaster majority of porn-related firings are because the person was simply bored, didn't think they'd get caught, and/or didn't care if they'd get caught because they hated their job anyway.
Yes, but there are no women on Slashdot! Everybody knows that! :P
My question: how many were looking for it when they found it? How many of those 9 year-olds who had seen porn (assuming that any of those 9 year-olds fall into the 50% mentioned) were looking for stuff on Pokemon or Cardcaptors?
Then wouldn't your problem be with mass media in general instead of pornography in particular? Sex sells, even if its only innuendo, and what's portrayed on the radio, television and now the internet has always had very little to do with the real world and real interpersonal interactions.
Of course, if children weren't be raised by cathode ray tubes, this probably wouldn't even be an issue.
"They didn't bribe the prosecution, there was just a regime change"
Campaign contributions don't count?
The more the word "porn" appears on Slashdot, the more popular it gets on Google. Do you really want to see Slashdot get Slashdotted?
I've read most of TFA and some of the posts from "It really is an addiction!" folks, and one common theme I'm seeing is that they all classify pornography as pretty much all being the same, usually mentioning hardcore/BDSM/body modification stuff liberally throughout, possibly aiming for shock value. Aside from the classic question put before SCOTUS of "What is pornography, anyway?" why does it seem that most of the people complaining about porn's effect on people seem to be equating, say, Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction with goatse or tubgirl?
"but when I go into any GAME/Virgin/HMV etc the PSP UMD section outstrips the entire DS section."
"Sony is shelling out more money for more shelf space in stores (or using their clout from CD and DVD sales to wring it out) than Nintendo is" doesn't mean "Sony is outselling Nintendo." Most stores I've looked in, if you looked at shelf space alone, you'd never imagine the GBA was outselling the PS2.
"Porn is an addition (...) I used to have a problem"
Anecdotal evidence does not a proper study make.
"Dont attempt to lock users into Apples music format and the iTunes store."
Because trying to lock users into Microsoft's or Sony's music format is so much better?
That was a judge. TFA is about Microsoft sucking up to the other two branches of the US government.
"Microsoft has complained frequently in recent months that it has been denied the right to a fair defense in the continuing antitrust case with the European Commission."
We can't bribe the prosecution like we did back in the US!
Mom, hang up the phone! I'm trying to play VGA Planets!
On the other hand, my local Wal-Mart still seems to be selling GBA Video carts.
Off-topic, I know, but...
:P
See, that's why we need more federalism. Savant's IQ would "only" have to be divided up into her state, and there's still hope for states like Alaska and Wyoming.
We're talking about Alabama. Tell them that they're taking the same stance as Joe Lieberman and (gasp!) Hillary Clinton. Things will quiet down in no time.
"seeing a movie in the theater is a 'fuller, more entertaining experience'"
My wallet certainly isn't left fuller, and that I don't find very entertaining.
"It will alert its autistic user if the person they are talking to starts showing signs of getting bored or annoyed."
I'm certainly not autistic, more "socially awkward" than "socially challeneged," but my personal experience is that I tend to get a lot of false positives in the "bored or annoyed" category.
"but one CNET columnist is 'threatening suicide' if Apple don't announce something for their 30th Anniversary this Saturday."
CNET? Heck, I'll chip in and buy the Kool-Aid!