to be upset about OH looking at porn??

[flamingoagogo]

Caught him out the other night, its not the first time either. Have been v.pissed off each time & always results in a row, but just so happens i am PG atm so feels worse. I hate the thought of it, like he's cheating (i know its not as bad as that but he is kind of 'being intimate' with another woman, even if shes not really real). Makes me feel inadequate etc etc. AIBU to feel so hurt?

'Indeed, in 13 pages of posts there's only been one post that contained a proper referenced article which shows how poor the standard of debate is.'

wtf? this is Mumsnet, not a seminar. And those of us arguing against porn have pointed people to sources of referenced research several times in any case.

what in particular do you think is likely to be atypical about Felicity then LooktoWindward?
the other woman in the doc didn't seem to be having a great time either.

The only reference here worth a damn is the one by beachcomber on page 12. Everything else is "suspect" to say the least. Bit like posting a "reference" to an article on evolutionary biology from Answers In Genesis or using a book by David Irvine to support an argument around the holocaust.

And I have no idea (nor a great interest it must be said) what a typical pornstar is like, however I don't consider those saying that one example (i.e. Jenna Jameson or Felicity) shouldn't be taken as an example and then in the next breath using an equally anecdotal example of someone who allegedly "is" typical as convincing.

I haven't really made up my mind about this but no one is putting forward a decent argument one way or another.

that's bollocks LTW. Gail Dines is a respected academic. David Irving is a Holocaust denier who does not, I believe, hold an academic position.

after that post I no longer believe your claims of impartiality here.

Pornography and Violence: A New Look at Research
Mary Anne Layden, PhD
Director of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program
Center for Cognitive Therapy
Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania

I put this forward if you follow the links lookToTheWindward, all of her work is researched and shows all sources.

I have to say that when i did my degree i was constantly pulled up on referencing! so so sorry, I must try harder.

There is plenty of research going on into the social effects of porn because the internet has meant that many more people have access to it. The effects of clever marketing and the fact that children and young adults are increasingly viewing porn should be of huge concern to parents and researchers alike.

A recent craze amongst teenage school kids is getting young girls to pose and send pictures over their phones to their boyfriends. These pictures are being sent to others and ending up on the web.

Why are young people behaving like this? is it because they are bored or because they are having their sexual identity shaped by the pervasive pornification of our culture and early exposure to pornagraphic material.

Believe what you wish.

The point is that a book isn't a particularly good reference for an argument. For example, the wikipedia page for Gail Dines quotes

"Dines's argument rests on a compelling, close reading of the imagery and narrative content of magazines, videos, and marketing materials; what is missing, however, is a similarly compelling body of research on how these images are used by viewers, aside from Dines's own anecdotal evidence."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Dines#Reception

Now this isn't particularly relevant but simply shows that a simple book isn't necessarily a good starting point for research in to a subject - especially when that subject is somewhat contentious. The only worthy material is peer reviewed and even then it takes a lot of that to achieve a convincing argument. The only example of this I've seen in this thread was from Beachcomber (and it was page 13, not 12 - apologies) and even then it seems more tangential than directly related to the discussion at hand.

Which is not to say that such evidence exists but it certainly hasn't been put forward on this thread.

Now as it happens I don't have a moral objection to porn per se, however I have difficulty in separating the production of porn from the criminal aspect of the sex industry.

I don't necessarily expect to see a referenced thesis but I want to see a bit more intellectual rigour than simply shouting someone down.

oh right, you want to see intellectual rigour about why it's wrong to call women cumsluts and boast that women being "barely legal" is a bit dodgy?

You know, you can be so fucking intellectual that your brains descend to your arse. Anyone who doubts that mainstream internet porn (which is the fastest growing sector) is really hostile to one half of humanity, just needs to google "porn" and see wht comes up. Then come back here and ask us to do peer reviewed research to see why that might be Not Quite Right.

Here's a thought. Does anyone have an accepted definition of porn? In relation to the argument?

Say we have the Littlewoods catalogue underwear section at one side and snuff at the other. Where does "porn" start?

Where do the objections start? Page 3? "Lads mags"? top shelf magazines? internet porn?

Is a man masturbating using page 3 different to a man masturbating with more hardcore porn?

Lots of questions but not many answers.

I take your point LTW: I am an academic and care about evidence. But how you can claim to care about this while giving a reference to wikipedia is a bit beyond me
Also, why are the anti-feminists being acused of shouting down their opponents and not referencing while the pro-porn people who have offered NO references whatsoever have not been criticised?

Research into the harm of pornography is fairly new and recent mainly because of the internet.

Irving is a holocuast denier and is not credible because of the huge amount of research into the proven "facts" of the holocaust. I am reading Hitlers Willing Executioners by Goldhagen and it mentions the fact that through exposure to propoganda ordinary German people became killers and willing participants in this genocide. This happened because the jews were incrementally de-humanised until they no longer resembled social beings. It seems that a parallel can be drawn here between the power of propoganda and the well documented effects of desensitisation that occurs when people watch excessive amounts of pornography.

It is easy to see why men begin to view women as less human and start to objectify them. Women are reffered to as "cum buckets, Fuck holes, whores" etc so that this further removes their humanity.

Men who were exposed to increasingly violent and hardcore pornography over a relatively short period of three weeks were reported to believe rape myths. They were reported to show no arasual signs to moderate images.

The industry is very clever at both luring men in who become hooked (it alters their brain physiology) and women who think they will maintain their boundaries and sense of self.

LTW, I posted on this thread because someone said that porn was harmless.
Your questions are mostly irrelevant. If the OP's dp had been masturbating to the Littlewoods catalogue, she would have said so, she wouldn't have said porn.
You either being deeply disingenuous here or are not seeing the wood for the trees.

(oh and thank you for the lecture on referencing, I have a PhD from a reputable institution, I know all about peer reviewed evidence, of which you will find plenty in the Gail Dines book if you are genuinely interested in finding out about this, but given that your offensive comparisons of her to Irving I think it is highly unlikely that you are.)

cheekyVINOtime -yawn at that argument

some men do not look at porn

some men do not w(*&

Yes comparing Gail Dines to a celebrated holocaust-denier does rather show where you're coming from.

and lots of women do look at porn and get aroused by it

and enjoy it

No one is denying that pornographic images can also be arousing to women. Although so many people have come on this thread and stated that men are

different, helpless pressure cookers with no control valves, men will be men, men are visual creatures, men like sex with no emotional input etc,

Men are not really so different are they? if we accept that some women like porn surely we can accept that not all men use porn.

Is there any way of using ethical porn? What about the much hyped Ana Span stuff?

To answer the question as to why Felicity isn't the face of the porn industry I'd be inclined to say that she's not as pretty and has a fairly average body. She's not going to grab any headlines, in an industry as shallow as the porn industry she doesn't stand out.