feelings on porn

[lollypop77]

Just wanted other peoples opinions on if they are ok with there partners/husbands watching porn regular ..do you get worried or wonder why they have the need to ??

Fairnnuff
Re "Greek and Roman statues and destroying the carvings on ancient Hindu temples...Again, and like animation, not real people. Stone is not human flesh."

There is every evidence that the Vedic depictions of sex acts (depicted in the Karma Sutra etc) were taken from live models. Those carvings, illustrations also meet JohnFarleysRuskin of "porn" - i.e. "visual representation of sex created with the intention to arouse." I am pretty certain that if the producers of that material had access to HD cameras and video equipment would be opted for something other than stone.

As you *have no way of KNOWING that those models gave their consent" then (according to your logic), anyone looking at an ancient Hindu temple is (could be?) guilty of condoning the abuse and rape of women.

Again - Fairnuff, you seem to very vocal on a lot of topics but strangely quiet on the killer question..

What would be a satisfactory PROOF of consent to ensure that "any visual representation of sex created with the intention to arouse" was definitely NOT rape or abuse?

By the way, is watching one individual good looking guy doing things alone to camera also condoning the rape and abuse of women?

There's that relative privation fallacy again.

There is every evidence that the Vedic depictions of sex acts (depicted in the Karma Sutra etc) were taken from live models.

But presumably a lack of evidence of anal tears and drug addiction?

Thanks Vivacia.. Well they didn't have any hang ups about anal sex and use of certain mind-altering substances was also not uncommon. I guess this is diffult to carve into stone though.

But, thank you for re-engaging (and reminding us - once AGAIN of the extremes, there just hasn't been enough of that in this debate.

What would you propose as SATISFACTORY PROOF OF CONSENT to ensure that viewers were NOT looking at the possible abuse and rape of women?

Well they didn't have any hang ups about anal sex

No, don't misinterpret my words. I'm talking about physical injury to the woman that requires her to have stitches.

Ah fuck it, debating with you is like debating with an adolescent boy.

You seem to know a lot about logical reasoning Vivacio - even knowing the technical terms e.g. "relative privation fallacy". Yet when it comes to the crunch you resort to the MN favoured (winning ???)strategy of swearing and -"You must be a man or (worse?) a boy".

Classy.

Just answer the question.. What would be a satisfactory PROOF of consent to ensure that "any visual representation of sex created with the intention to arouse" was definitely NOT rape or abuse?

I don't get the whole- 'well you're never going to get rid if it/ stop it, so what can we do to make it better'.

Did anyone argue this before legislation to stop slavery was being passed?

Blacks need jobs and slavery will cause poverty?

Men will find ways of watching porn so why bother?

Children will have sex under 16 so you might as well let them have boyfriends under your roof, at least you know where they are?

It's very defeatist to me and screams apathy and a lazy CBA mentality.

I think ethical porn only works as a solution if you believe that the only problem with porn is the abuse of it's stars.

Disclaimer. I shop mostly in charity shops, I buy meat, veg/fruit and diary from local shops and I boycott anything when it comes to light that they have committed some atrocity. I'm far from perfect however and fall under the 'try my best' category of people.

Really though I think it's actually pretty silly to say you're condoning rape and abuse if you watch porn, as long as you've done what you can to be sure that it's been produced by two genuinely consenting adults and uploaded by permission.

People who surf the net and watch porn generally don't do that though do they. They don't care enough to do that, half the time they don't even think about the women. It wouldn't cross their mind to wonder if she's consented unless it's particularly violent maybe.

So your main proposal is abstinence for all on the grounds of "Do you, or do you not understand that when you watch porn you, personally, may be watching a woman who has not consented to sex and is therefore being raped, even when it looks like she has consented?"

No, that wasn't a proposal for abstinence, placid, that was a direct question to you and I wonder if you'll answer it?

To mitigate this risk, what would you propose as a legitimate expression of consent?

As I've said, it's very easy not to watch. There is no risk of watching a woman being raped, if you don't watch it. If you think that you might as well watch it because lots of other people do, then that is your personal choice and you should own it.

harmonic interesting book about that, called the vegetarian myth, that argues that the relentless agriculture on land has reduced animal numbers (eg Buffalo) and is ruining soil forever.

Veg myth

I haven't read it yet it's on my list!

Sorry just realised that my previous post should have said;

......ending slavery will cause poverty.

People who surf the net and watch porn generally don't do that though do they. They don't care enough to do that, half the time they don't even think about the women. It wouldn't cross their mind to wonder if she's consented unless it's particularly violent maybe.

they don't no. I am not sure how far it occured to my husband, but we've had a few discussions since this thread was started. I do know he looks at the milder stuff though and did have some awareness. That awareness has been raised now.

sassandfaff the problem with the slavery analogy is that if you see a slave, you can stop the slavery (although its still going on in the far east fishing boats and in the indian brick-factories etc). The problem with the internet is that something can be made in a backroom and uploaded and it's so incredibly difficult to stop it. I suppose you could make it illegal but frankly I think few countries would do that. Then there's the practical problem of enforcing that.

I don't see it as apathetic to see that and think we are better off trying to accept that it's there and to doing what we can to improve it. Which would be a multipronged approach, the most important of which would be to get people to see unethical porn as unacceptable. I suppose that leads to the wider question of trying to persuade everyone that treating women badly is unacceptable generally.

Having said that ... while Im absolutely all for the better treatment of women and treating each other nicely, male or female ... I'm not in a position to actually do anything about it atm except to try to make sure my husband accesses the hopefully-better stuff. ho hum. Guess I'll have to have an uncomfortable conversation with my boys when they grow old enough to be thinking of porn and let them know about the nature of hte industry.

But there's actually no justification for getting rid of porn altogether. There is nothing inherently wrong with watching other people having sex and getting turned on by doing so. Some people have no interest in it, and that's fair enough. They can just not watch it.
The problem with porn at present is the mistreatment of some performers and the unacceptable working conditions they experience. That's what needs addressing.

The constant banging on about how watching porn gives people a bad or inaccurate idea about sex and/or leads to mistreatment of sexual partners? Actually, there's not much of a case for that and it's usually a preferred scaremongering tactic among the sort of people in authority who don't actually care who watches what but are interested in justifying greater interference in people's private lives. The rape myths, the violent abuse of women in everyday life which is ignored or condoned, the pay gap, the restrictions on women's bodily autonomy, the ingrained culture of cruelty/sentimentality that makes it OK to put the mentally ill on prime time television and laugh at them... none of that has its roots in porn.

I've already talked to my son about it Meerka, iirc I think he was 13 when we had the first chat. It doesn't have to be uncomfortable because it's not actually about them, it's about other people and the way they are treated.

I explained to him that sex isn't like that. There is usually an emotional attachment, maybe dating, certainly kissing and being gentle with each other. Taking it at the right pace for both of you and respecting each other's privacy because you are allowing yourself to be vulnerable and need to be able to trust each other.

Then I explained that there are lots of reason why people choose to be in porn, really a series of choices and, sadly for some, lack of choice. I told him that I understand he is curious but it's best left alone until he is much older and able to understand more about human relationships and exploitation.

We talk about it now and again if it crops up. He knows I use mn and sometimes asks what I'm reading and I could say, "It's a debate about porn, so and so thinks this, what do you think" (he's 15 now). He definitely understands that some porn is abuse/rape.

With respect solid I would argue a lot of that has its roots in porn or is perpetuated by porn ( a chicken or an egg situation)

I can't see how feminists can argue pro porn. Not in this patriarchal society. All things being equal maybe........

SGB you say therés not much of a case for saying that porn gives people a bad or inaccurate idea about sex etc. At the moment there seems to be a lot of worry that teens are getting the idea that forceful sex, oral sex, anal is everyday stuff -right from the beginnings of sexual awakening- and that you have to plunge right in from the start with those things.

Are you saying that's incorrect?

Also, do you know any more ethical porn sites than the ones Harmonica mentioneds? (im being lazy, tbh trying to hunt down porn sites for my husband isn't really high on my list of things to do on a tired saturday night )

Fairnuff
I am happy to answer your question...
NO.. I would absolutely NOT wish to like at anything that appeared to be in any way abusive or coercive. My DH and I have only looked at porn together 2 or 3 times in the last few years. On each occasion it was to watch other people who appeared healthy and happy and who were enjoying their bodies. I do NOT believe this makes us supporters of rape and abuse. We DO both care that all participants appear to be happy, healthy, mature and acting with their own free will.

Before you restate your circular argument ("Ah but how do you KNOW?") and the other unfounded accusations ("You must be a man, thick, you don't care about women being raped, you condone abuse")... Please please share your thoughts on..

What would be SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE for you that all parties had given their consent before taking part in the visual depiction of sex for the purpose of arousal.

What would satisfy YOU that it definitely was NOT rape and abuse of women?

A standard of determining if the participants have truly consented is that you know them.

So - watching your own movies of you and/or a current or previous lover. That would work.

I am happy to answer your question...
NO.. I would absolutely NOT wish to like at anything that appeared to be in any way abusive or coercive

That doesn't answer my question

My question was this:

"Do you, or do you not understand that when you watch porn you, personally, may be watching a woman who has not consented to sex and is therefore being raped, even when it looks like she has consented?"

Okay that's one good suggestion. Other suggestions? I am particularly interested in hearing from Fairnuff.

And if Fairynuff's response is, "there is no acceptable proof of consent," what will your reply to that be?

Fairnuff
I do understand that it COULD be abuse/rape. But I DO care and would do all in my power to ensure that it was not.

My DH gets off on looking at ladies with long toes. There are tons of videos on YouTube and other sites of women catering to this particular fetish. Most of them are of women on camera ALONE and fully clothed (apart from their feet).

Are these women being RAPED?

I don't think so. Therefore I am OKAY with this. Not overjoyed

But Fairnuff
WHAT WOULD SATISFY YOU AS PROOF OF CONSENT IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE VISUAL DEPICTION OF SEXUAL ACTS CREATED FOR THE AROUSAL OF OTHERS?

I am genuinely interested in your answer because I believe this could break through the "Don't look at it because it might be rape" impasse

Didn't Linda Lovelace take a lie detector test to prove that she was forced by her boyfriend to film deep throat?

Wouldn't he have made her sign any sort of consent form too?

It might help to have kitemarks or legislation that actually follows through with consequences but it wouldn't fully get rid of explotation or abusive practices.

Admittedly that applies to all other business organisations.

But I think it's being touted to a certain extent that there is a solution that will make it OK, acceptable etc and fairenuff is being given extremely narrow perimeters of an argument in order to agree with porn if only there was a guarantee that everyone is OK with it.

I can't speak for fairenuff, but I wouldn't agree with that.

There are much more problems to porn than abuse of its stars.

Where can I watch 'hardcore documentary' ?? Above links don't work, and goggling hadn't helped. It appears this programme has vanished. Only a few clips on
You tube.
I'm keen to watch it and get my dh to watch it.

Sass
but that's exactly what we want to get to the heart of. I don't see anyone here suggesting prohibition because that would mean (given the silly example of my DH above a ban on sandal catalogues..

So if prohibition isn't workable, the only other solution seems to be abstinence (don't look at sandal catalogues) OR being 100% certain of CONSENT (You look at my toes you bloody weirdo)