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 ??

Ie, (grr this phone. Grr my brain)

I don't get all the references to latex gloves. But you seem to have a strong aversion to perfectly natural bodily fluids. None of us would be around without it!

In porn, latex gloves, condoms, goggles, etc. would be an attempt to stop the spread of disease transmitted by bodily fluids. The same as medical staff use, think of it as health and safety for the porn industry.

You might not have an aversion to perfectly natural bodily fluids placid but I assume you practice safe sex and used condoms with your one night stands? That - safe sex - is a luxury that many women in porn are denied. How many of them do you think consent to risking HIV, for example?

An out and out ban. Good luck to ya!

Telling people they condone rape will win you HUGE amounts of support

ABDC
Again, you mention "a quick orgasm" in an entirely negative light. Is it any wonder that this makes a lot of people think the real motivation behind so many of the anti porn lobby is driven more by their Personal attitudes to sex which they want to project on others. Not one of you is willing to provide any kind of concrete suggestion that could mitigate the risk of lack of consent. This provides you with the comfort of bandying about allegations of condoning rape.

But NOT telling people that they may be watching rape or sexual assault or a video uploaded without one or more of the parties involved agreeing would be pointless.

No, I don't. Reread my post.

I don't care what mental or written images you use to get you off. I do care if people were harmed in the process of you getting those images. I have stated that, apart from personally knowing the participants, no written or spoken guarantee is enough to reassure me of the non-harm to those involved.

You are obviously happy with some form of spoken guarantee on the video you watched; that's your decision. But continually attempting to brow beat me, Fair et al to accept your standard or define some other standard is fruitless.

Once you realise that the participants might have been coerced, you take an entirely different look at porn.

It stops being about you and your own sexual gratification and starts to be more open minded and aware.

It's hard to get a sexual thrill from watching something that you know full well might be abuse (unless that's your thing, of course, which only a professional would be able to help with).

Watch it if you want to, but do it with an open mind, knowing that the woman might not have consented and therefore you are watching rape/abuse and then make up your own mind as to how you feel about that. Disgusted? Shocked? Angry? Indifferent?

Good luck to ya!

That's what they said to slaves and to women who wanted the vote.

Minimise all you like. Common sense usually prevails.

'Not one of you is willing to provide any kind of concrete suggestion that could mitigate the risk of lack of consent.'

Because placido this is your solution to the problem.

I have explained in great detail that to me that is like arguing against banning slavery, because it is unachievable, so let's just think of solutions that make it slightly better for a slave.

Do you not get that? I'm unsure how I can make it any clearer.

You still want to orgasm over porn but make it conscience free. I get that.

Your reasoning placid seems to suggest that you intend to keep watching unless it can be proven that consent was not obtained.

Do you really think there will come a day when the woman announces at the beginning of the film 'I was coerced into making the following film'?

DD
what specifically would you ban?

Remembering that
...in olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking but now, heaven knows...

High Five... ? Anyone??

Whose with me?

Fairnuff do you look at people and think... Hmm unless they can actually prove to me that their mother consented (to a standard I refuse to specify), then it's possible their father was a RAPIST!!!

Fairnuff do you look at people and think... Hmm unless they can actually prove to me that their mother consented (to a standard I refuse to specify), then it's possible their father was a RAPIST!!!

placid you are starting to sound rather silly. What has that got to do with rape and abuse in the porn industry?

Oh dear, placid.

OK, so would banning 'porn' extend to banning films of a person (for instance) putting on and taking off a pair of shoes, repeatedly, with no involvement of other people (apart from the camera crew and maybe not even them: would it be more or less legal if the film was made with a camera on a tripod...). How about a collection of clips of someone sneezing (all filmed involving people who had cheerfully consented to be filmed sneezing)or smoking a cigar (all consenting to being filmed). All those examples describe things that a certain percentage of people would wank themselves cross-eyed over.
Sex is, as a lot of feminists have been rightly insisting for years, far more than PIV. The list of things that someone, somewhere, finds immensely arousing either to do or to watch is... basically infinite.

Another thing that is often forgotten in discussions of how Porn Ruined Everything and life was Better Before Porn is that porn and mass entertainment media really only started happening around the same time. Go back a few hundred years and not only was there no porn, but there was very little entertainment, either. I'm not saying people never had any fun, but the concept of watching other people do stuff was not a big deal. The daily business of life (getting food, preparing food, securing fuel to heat your home etc) took up a lot of time. There was little or no contact with anyone who lived more than a few miles away, as far as most people were concerned. Having an imagination, unless it could be channelled into boosting the existence of the officially sanctioned Imaginary Friends, was frowned on. And if there was a village play, or a village sporting event, or a village concert, most people would either be participating or assisting or watchinga family member do so.

I don't know SGB, I'll think. Of the top of my head, I feel that, if it's an act that has no possibility of being a crime in itself (sneezing!) then the risk to participants seems much lower.

Given what you know, what do you think is the approx proportion of the "sexual act" porn (PIV, oral, manual, anal) that's out there in which everyone happily takes part in and what proportion isn't?

SGB we can't base laws around a handful of fetishists.

Porn always existed, erotica of some form or another, it is the mass media that have turned something that was very definitely personal and private into something that boys and girls are being exposed to at a very young age. It is this that gives criminals justification that trafficking is acceptable and children are fair game.

Perhaps that is the starting point we need to base our laws from, that the public sphere, including the internet, should be made safe for children. It's not good enough to tell parents to adjust their privacy settings. The price we pay for this so called freedom is too high.

ABDC: In 'mainstream' porn (as opposed to the self-proclaimed ethical porn and the semi-underground stuff or random clips that appear online of unknown provenance) I would say most participants are consenting. I know there are arguments to the effect that someone participating because s/he needs the money desperately and/or is a drug user is not truly consenting, but that is problematic because it denies drug users agency and choice. I know there is a feminist argument to the effect that no woman can consent to sex with a man under the patriarchy, but I don't think that's a particularly useful one in this discussion.
I have been involved in porn production in the past, and one of my jobs was to book performers for shoots. Something the directors I worked with - and I - insisted on was that before the booking was confirmed the performer was told what sex acts would be involved so that everybody was clear about what would happen and no one got any unpleasant surprises. This was generally regarded as good practice because it does no one any good to book peformers and tell them they will just be stripping, or that it's just a handjob, or just one co-performer and then change everything on the day. If the performer doesn't want to do the stuff-that-wasn't-previously-agreed and walks out (as s/he has every right to do) then that's a day's shooting wasted and bad feeling all round.

DD I think the 'freedom' you are objecting to is the freedom to have, or like, sex that is not heteromonogamous. It's much more healthy for children to learn that sex can be fun, varied, strange, does not have to involve commitment etc and that it should be enjoyable for all participants than for them to be taught that it's nasty, dirty and dangerous and something men do to women in order to degrade them.
And criminals have always believed that children are fair game for trafficking and abuse, particularly the children of poor families.

No SGB thatvis not the Freedom I am objecting to.

Do what you want in your private life, just keep it private. Not hard, not complicated, and not possible to undermine and misinterpret to suit the needs of a multi-billion dollar 'industry'.

In 'mainstream' porn (as opposed to the self-proclaimed ethical porn and the semi-underground stuff or random clips that appear online of unknown provenance) I would say most participants are consenting.

It's the word 'most' here that is one of the problems with porn. You could just as easily say

'In 'mainstream' porn (as opposed to the self-proclaimed ethical porn and the semi-underground stuff or random clips that appear online of unknown provenance) I would say some participants are not consenting.'

We just don't know which ones, so those who watch it might be watching rape and wanking to it

SGB
Thank you. I have to be honest and say I was just not aware of of the radical feminist view that in a patriarchal society, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a woman to give consent. This explains A LOT. All our fathers could indeed have been rapists. Nice.

Fairnuff and others have repeatedly stated that no one should watch any porn unless they were absolutely 100% sure that the woman had consented. When asked (repeatedly) what proof of consent would satisfy, they have ridiculed the question (are you a teacher??? ) and ridiculed any suggestions (eg written consent documents legally witnessed, verbal assurances to camera etc) saying that basically the women couldn't possibly mean it when they said they were happy to do what they were going to do. Very supportive of the sisterhood, I'm sure. "We know better than you, love. If it's got a P then PIV, PIM, PIA, SOF means TBRY!!!"

It's been suggested before on this debate and I didn't quite believe it but I am now coming to the conclusion that the extreme and vocal "anti porn" movement does indeed have a psychological mindset which tends to presume the absolute worst about the act of sex (with attendant cries of "You get your jollies from watching RAPE!!!).

I thought there were also some very telling questions along the lines of "Aren't your toes adequate for your DH?". Again, I think this reveals a deeply rooted personal anxiety. If their partner watches porn then it means that they themselves must be inadequate in some way. "How awful. He should only have eyes for me, me, ME! Boo boo."

I absolutely admit my toes are not adequate for my DH. His cock isn't adequate for me!!! (And he knows it). That doesn't mean we should import the laws of sexual morality from the Middle Bloody East.

"The radical feminist view that in a patriarchal society, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a woman to give consent. "

This is not THE radical feminist view.

Your spoon is getting worn out, would you like another?