Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

online porn - extreme by default

11 replies

JoanneOfArk · 05/10/2010 14:02

www.alternet.org/media/148142/should_we_worry_whether_porn_has_hijacked_our_sexuality/?page=entire

"A new book by scholar Gail Dines asserts that society's overconsumption of pornography and the ridiculous extremes of today's mainstream pornography have greatly undermined our ability to have meaningful sexual partnerships. In Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked our Sexuality, Dines traces the history of the porn industry from Playboy and Penthouse, to today's brutal fare that resembles nothing less than the videotaped sexual assault of women.

As an example, Dines quotes from the introductory text on a typical porn Web site:

'Do you know what we say to things like romance and foreplay? We say fuck off! This is not another site with half-erect weenies trying to impress bold sluts. We take gorgeous young bitches and do what every man would REALLY like to do. We make them gag till their makeup starts running, and then they get all other holes sore -- vaginal, anal, double penetrations, anything brutal involving a cock and an orifice. And then we give them the sticky bath.'

This is not the extreme end of a complex porn continuum -- it is typical of today's mainstream porn freely available online, often to boys as young as 11. Not only does Dines go to great lengths to research the depth of porn's standard fare, but she also details how the porn industry is consumed with profits, and the effect this has on its male viewers. Says Dines, "The pornographers did a kind of stealth attack on our culture, hijacking our sexuality and then selling it back to us, often in forms that look very little like sex but a lot like cruelty.""

There is more at the link, and in the book.

The weird thing about it is that internet porn has basically raped our society. In the past there were books like Lady Chatterley's Lover, and subsequently pornographic magazines, but all of these things were easily regulated and subject to boundaries, society had the power to reject things it didn't like.

If you wanted hardcore porn, you'd need to go to a licensed sex shop - and most people wouldn't do that. And even there, the videos, while explicit, had boundaries and rules, because they were all rated and subject to censorship by the BBFC.

But suddenly in the last decade or so, we've got snuff movies, child pornography, bestiality, etc., just a few clicks away. By comparison the 'triple penetration' or whatever on the mainstream porn sites are perceived as unexceptional/unobjectionable. And as a result many of the previous restrictions on sex shop porn have been abandoned too. How did we end up with this?

There have been complaints about 'lads' mags' in newsagents, but they don't begin to compare with what's online - and accessed by most men:

"Researchers were conducting a study comparing the views of men in their 20s who had never been exposed to pornography with regular users.

But their project stumbled at the first hurdle when they failed to find a single man who had not been seen it. "

90% of children aged 8-16 have seen pornography on the internet. It's ubiquitous and almost unavoidable.

OP posts:
BadgersPaws · 05/10/2010 15:48

Person A says something controversial to get a headline.

Person A turns out to be selling a book.

Surprise, surprise.

And from her web site: "Gail Dines has been at the forefront of the anti-pornography movement for 2 decades"

And the surprises just keep on coming in that her study produced anti-porn results. Is there just the slightest chance that a campaigner of over 2 decades went into her study with her mind somewhat set on what she was going to find.

Nothing to see here, move along.

yesway · 06/10/2010 21:34

Where's that last 90% statistic from? I find that quite frightening (along with the rest).

sethstarkaddersmum · 06/10/2010 21:38

great book though - I'm reading it at the moment. link here.
very disturbing and thought-provoking.

sethstarkaddersmum · 06/10/2010 21:39

I don;t know if that 90% figure is US rather than UK - most of her research is.

JoanneOfArk · 07/10/2010 00:46

I think the 90% refers to just 'seeing it'. It doesn't necessarily mean they've sat down and watched, it but many internet searches are going to inadvertently result in porn.

OP posts:
BertieBotts · 07/10/2010 01:03

90% does sound high. I'm sure I've heard a UK one which is lower, can't remember what it was though.

The part about the comparison between sex shops selling BBFC rated films and now internet pornography which is subject to no controls is interesting. With no control you'd expect to find some objectionable material, of course, but you'd imagine would you not that the most popular material would be fairly tame or at least equivalent to the VHS tapes from sex shops?

Horrible as well the bit about "Well it's not child porn or bestiality, so it's not that bad" :(

I've seen threads on MN before about porn. I don't think that porn is objectively a bad thing but I do find it disturbing to hear the descriptions of the type of porn which is the most popular, most accessed/downloaded currently. I've never really watched any porn in much detail because it doesn't interest me, so it was quite eye opening to hear that.

orsinian · 07/10/2010 10:54

But suddenly in the last decade or so, we've got snuff movies, child pornography, bestiality, etc.

Sorry the 'snuff movie' was a complete and utter myth from the anti-pornography lobby of the 1980s.

A good starting place for this particular urban legend is www.csicop.org/si/show/snuff_film_the_making_of_an_urban_legend/

I'm surprising that it is mentioned, as it introduces doubt into what is a valid argument. The reference to child pornography is, bizarrely, accurate now. In the 1980s though a moral panic was launched, saying that child pornography in the US was a multi-million dollar concern. The snag was, no-one could ever find any of it, though a lot of quango-type operations benefited from the panic.

With the Internet, the moral panic became reality, though the pursuit of innocent people through Jim Gambles Operation Ore has confused that argument again.

But Gail Dines arguments are valid; human sexuality has been changed by the easy access to pornography through the web. It extends into a collective image of what human beings should physically look like (tall, a certain weight range, enhanced and exaggerated breasts in women, genitals in men, shaven). Sexual activities are determined by what is observed through media.

The impact of this on younger generations particularly is enormous and dramatic. With 30 years of gender propaganda to discourage family life and permanent relationships, the easy access to online extreme pornography has led to a toxic brew, and society is being changed by it. In creating a society without moral boundaries, we've effectively got the unanticipated gross consequences.

The unfortunate element though is that if Gail Dines insists on trying to recycle failed references to non-existent moral panics of the past, her entire argument will be compromised and ignored. Over-egging was performed in the 1980s, and references to 'snuff porn' failed then and will not easily work now.

StripeyMoon · 07/10/2010 16:14

orsinian, wasn't there someone in the news this past week who raped and killed his 12 yo neice after watching extreme porn and snuff movies?

orsinian · 07/10/2010 16:47

You can try, but you won't find a snuff movie. You'll find movies with the actress (if you can call them that) is 'killed'

But, try good 'ol Wikipedia.

It's a myth, an urban legend.

The problem always is; go to the effort of killing someone for a porn movie and it can never be financially successful, as you could never profit from it without being pursued for murder or a conspiracy to murder.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_film

Some murderers have filmed there killings, but not for financial gain - which I think must be part of a definition of a 'snuff' movie.

There's a vague reference to Russian child porn snuff movies investigated by Italian police in 2000, but no charges or convictions recorded (or victims reported).

Certainly children die in child sex abuse incidents - this was always an issue in some of the mishaps that went on with false allegations in the US in the 1990s, when courts were told by prosecutors that children could be raped with no physical injuries as a result. The same here with the scandal of the Shieldfield nursery.

But you can't purchase or download a genuine snuff movie where the actor/actress is killed; they don't exist. And you won't find anyone able to name one.

BertieBotts · 08/10/2010 23:30

Well the idea of snuff movies is ridiculous, clearly, but the other stuff isn't. Someone on here mistyped hotmail the other day and found a website with pictures of pre-teens on. You only have to browse a website with a slightly adult theme and you are inundated with banner ads for "barely legal sluts" and "teen girls on camera" etc. The market is there, clearly, and it's horrible. :(

Janos · 09/10/2010 20:12

There is some horrible stuff out there.

I found some once by accident. It was hideous stuff, hateful and really distressing. I didn't watch it, that was just from the titles - what little I saw was enough.

Previous to that I had thought (very naively) that porn was just about people having sex and filming it, that it was 'fun'. I even used to enjoy watching it myself.

I don't think that way now.

Just my opinion but I'm sure people who are blase about the whole thing would be horrified if they knew some of what was out there.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread