Math Magazine and 'good' porn.

A man.

Actually I do object to being called a "prude" in this context, because in this context it becomes a political issue. The pro-porn apologists who call women "prudes" for objecting to porn are not doing so on the basis of our actual sex lives and attitudes, but because it is in their interests to conflate sexual enjoyment with porn use (and at the extreme end, sexual enjoyment with the use of violent, misogynistic porn). And I do not and will never accept that conflation of the two ideas, which is why I personally resist being called a prude.

(In fact my sex life has always been pretty vanilla - but that's not the point. I would still object whether I was a woman who had chosen never to have sex, or one who'd been monogamously married for 40 years, or one who'd had a jolly nice time with partners running into the dozens - the point is to resist this equation of "sexually open minded and open to sex being enjoyable" with "must therefore accept that porn is okay).

And for the record I don't mind being called a prude, but I am just being honest.

I find it beyond sad that porn has become so popular and I think it is actually a sign that as group the human race in the western world have a very deep seated dislike of ourselves. But that is just a theory I am working on. I think more 'primitive' societies may not have all the issues and problems we have, I am sure they like sex and I doubt they are prudes but I also doubt they are as keen on porn as the west is.

I said back on page 11 that I thought it was weird to enjoy watching porn. I said.. "I never want to get my rocks off by watching women having sex they do not want to have. (Or any kind of sex for that matter.) I find even the idea pornography weird. I mean I love crisps but I don't get anything out of watching anyone else eat crisps!"

Bitof re "If consent was given. I would not condemned it. You?" Yes I would. Of course. What is someone consented to be eaten. I think that has happened. I'd have to conclude they were mentally ill.

I think you have a real problem with 'judging' but if we were talking about cruelty to children I am sure you would judge away, I hope we all would. So what a bout a wife who says, "I let my husband beat me, I don't mind it's OK." Do we say "OK, love, carry on, you know what you want!" Or do we educate the nation, as we did with domestic violence, drink driving and other stuff that some things are not OK.

I think when women are in the equal position they deserve the idea that men want to watch them being abused and harmed will be considered a vile part of history.

whatnow are you a man or a woman, may I ask?

I've been reading this thread with interest. As someone who watches porn semi regularly I agree it's too easy to access.

I'm of a generation that porn was easily accessible from my mid teens and it's seen as a normal part of life, openly discussed and no shame attached to it.

I think piecemeal changes are best. The opt in system is a good start. Maybe then payment only. There is too much money, too few police, too big an internet and too little will to make any total ban work.

And frankly, when I look at it clearly, wanting to watch total strangers having sex is actually rather weird, consent aside

I'm glad someone has said that out loud. I've been thinking it for most of this thread.

Sex is all a bit odd really

No, not really.

SomeDyke "wanting to watch total strangers having sex is actually rather weird," well yes it is, but that's not the point. Sex is all a bit odd really.

I won't call you frigid if you don't call me weird. Although you may well have a point.

Disclaimer - I am calling no one frigid. It was an example. I don't think it and I don't believe it.

Perhaps because in the case I quote it was a penis being harmed?

As Buffy is pointing out wider societal norms influence legality and how it is applied.

That's interesting actually because sometimes injuries in alleged rapes are explained away as "likes rough sex" by the defence. If its impossible to consent to harm, how is that a possible defence?

Technically, a lot of BDSM practices may be illegal as under English law you can not consent to being harmed.

This is weird. If you cannot consent to being harmed, then surely, prosecuting rape should be a lot easier?

But I suppose judges' interpretation of what constitutes "harm" differ widely. Urinary tract infections or other side effects of piv, even severe injuries that could be assumed to be the result of "vigorous" piv are probably not counted. As long as it is a man harming a woman, I bet most judges turn a blind eye.

"I can't remember the details but there was a case some years ago where a man had consented to his penis being nailed to something (odd I can remember that). The man who did the nailing was prosecuted and found guilty despite the fact consent had been given."
Operation Spanner, a major case and campaign to clarify issues of consent as regards BDSM. MAJOR!

A bit of a red herring, I think, this kink/BDSM line. Except in those cases we are talking about consent as regards 2 (possibly more) people for specific acts at a specific time in private. Whereas porn, if we are talking about consent, involves a person supposedly/presumably giving consent for anyone and everyone who may chose to watch them for ever and ever amen. Rather different!

As regards Spanner, given there was consent, I don't think it should be illegal -- but I do bloody well disapprove! I don't think it is a healthy sexual practice.

And frankly, when I look at it clearly, wanting to watch total strangers having sex is actually rather weird, consent aside (and given the almost totally open-ended and limitless nature of the consent in the porn case). The consent cases above and the BDSM case are after all in the private realm, whereas porn is public, the ones supposedly consenting have no control whatsoever over who views them. They haven't just consented in private, they have totally renounced all control. It realy isn't analogous in any way that I can see. Hence red herring.

Pearl clutching sounds like some bizarre sexual practice.

Don't worry I'm not judging.

Technically, a lot of BDSM practices may be illegal as under English law you can not consent to being harmed.

I can't remember the details but there was a case some years ago where a man had consented to his penis being nailed to something (odd I can remember that). The man who did the nailing was prosecuted and found guilty despite the fact consent had been given.

Strange it was the 'penis' incident that was prosecuted.

If consent was given. I would not condemned it. You?

Elendon I have attempted to do that at some length previously. For the sake of everyone's sanity don't make me do it again.

"The riposte of prude and pearl clutching doesn't cut it any more"
That's right which is why no one has said it.

Well I might have personal preferences I could rank, but not here and now. We could save that for Christmas.

I hope no one thinks I am talking about 'the usual' illegal ones, peodephilia, animals etc. (bloody spell check won't work on those words)

Safe, sane and consensual. Your kink is not my kink or no kink at all. I'm not judging.

Can someone explain to me, perhaps Bit what Ethical Porn is?

Being liberal regarding porn use is a fudge. Being liberal regarding sex work, for those who access it, is also a fudge. The riposte of prude and pearl clutching doesn't cut it any more.

People who enjoy a healthy sex life do not need to use porn.

"The reason I mention being gay and BDSM is that have both (still are?) groups that have been condemned and told to ignore their sexual urges."

This is what I wrote. Exactly how is this confusing? They are groups that have been judged and it seems like the BDSM community is still being judged and that is OK apparently. The gay community has suffered greatly from the 'peodophile' argument. Best avoided.

Felsa "There is not a lot more to watching porn than watching porn" that's right and I think I have bored for Britain on this point!
I wasn't co opting agendas I was attempting to draw an analogy.

Grimbletart - I would not pressure to comment on anyone's sex life in relation to whose is better. It's not my business.

Buffy "But I think you're kidding yourself that what you're doing is in any way to the benefit of women, overall." Brilliant, yes, exactly. You have teased out the issue. It is not feminist porn but it may be ethical porn. As I said previously my back ground is political not sociological and so I conflate the issues. I can live with that compromise as long as I am doing other things to support feminism. I make no claims to moral perfection. Many thanks for your erudite contributions and for helping me reach a muddy compromise.

I don't think my compromise is the only realistic action. It is my realistic action. If we are all making small chinks in the wall it will crumble in the end.

"And if you don't like porn that doesn't make you frigid, miserable or morally superior."
This is what I said. I would never say any sexual proclivity is better or worse than another. I would never throw the 'frigid' argument at anyone, and I have not done that. It is sloppy and intellectually weak.

Stop right there! It was a sloppy message first thing in the morning. I had hoped having read my previous posts there may have been some level of inference by the reader.

I will clarify when I have had my tea.

I know being gay is not just a sex act but I do believe some members of the community indulge in them.

know lots of pro porn arguments focus on how dull, grey and joyless people who oppose porn are.

I think I would argue the opposite. People whose lives are happy, sexually fulfilled and joyful don't have the time, need or inclination to seek vicarious jollies from watching synthetic sex produced by, probably, bored actors simulating enjoyment and ecstasy to earn shedloads of cash (or their next crust).

t. We can say "Let's get rid of all of it" but that turns out to be involve vague definitions

Huh? How so? Getting rid of just some kinds of porn would involve vague definitions, but getting rid of all of it? That's pretty clear.
We don't have to tell people what they ought to want. Just what they ought to not do.

"Because being gay is not a "sexual urge" any more than being straight. There is a lot more to being gay than having gay sex."
Well, we've all seen the previous attempts to draw false analogies between trans folk and gay folk, but I can't recall seeing it used before to defend use of pornography............

I can perhaps understand though how historically this false analogy arose, given that before gay men could start worrying about pension rights and marriage, they first had to campaign to get male gay sex made legal in the first place.

And of course we have the latest example from the dear old CofE which weirdly enough seems to have not so many problems with the other aspects of being gay and coupled, but a hell of a lot of problems with the SEX bit, to the extent where a gay bishop has to publicaly state that he has agreed to be celibate. They can do everything else but not the jiggery-pokery................

Actually a recurring theme, the any and all (including the ones you have to go and look up in a BIG dictionary/internet and then wish you hadn't) sexual practices should not just be allowed, but never judged, because if you do, you hate gay people.

And still a bit of a red herring, because what someone does singly and privately to satisfy their sexual urges is rather different to pornography anyway.