[tehFrance]

In all honesty I don't care about porn however this garbage about it making women objects is utter tripe, I didn't need porn to teach me that.

[RightSaidJames]

(Original post by internetguru)
If you have seen Requiem for a Dream you will know you can get addicted to anything. Why does it matter what the sex in porn is like anyway almost all amateur sex tapes don't portray real life scenarios.

Yes, because films and other works of fiction are clearly where we should be looking for moral guidance. Also, what's your point? Just because people can become addicted to anything doesn't mean that addiction isn't a bad thing. Whether it's drugs or alcohol, porn or gambling, chocolate or caffeine, addiction can destroy lives and is a significant factor in crime, violence and suicide.

It's a fair point that amateur porn isn't necessarily realistic (and nothing in the definition of amateur would imply that it is), but I would argue that the fact that it is made by people who are non-professionals and not seeking profit means that it is far less likely to depict abuse, sexism, or adults as children.

[internetguru]

(Original post by RightSaidJames)
Yes, because films and other works of fiction are clearly where we should be looking for moral guidance. Also, what's your point? Just because people can become addicted to anything doesn't mean that addiction isn't a bad thing. Whether it's drugs or alcohol, porn or gambling, chocolate or caffeine, addiction can destroy lives and is a significant factor in crime, violence and suicide.

It's a fair point that amateur porn isn't necessarily realistic (and nothing in the definition of amateur would imply that it is), but I would argue that the fact that it is made by people who are non-professionals and not seeking profit means that it is far less likely to depict abuse, sexism, or adults as children.

Better to base my argument on fiction than to base on absolutely nothing like this is. Porn is at the bottom of a long list of more destructive addictive things which are much easier to ban yet you started with this why?

How do you propose we prevent people viewing foreign porn? In all my years I have never seen any British pornography and any with any British people in were made in the US.

[chrisawhitmore]

No.

I usually don't approve of refusal of a bill without explanation, but honestly, I think being a Libertarian member is enough explanation on this one.

[Ocassus]

Wait, so what about male/gay pornography? Your notes seems to lack any explanation for that.

[RightSaidJames]

(Original post by internetguru)
Better to base my argument on fiction than to base on absolutely nothing like this is. Porn is at the bottom of a long list of more destructive addictive things which are much easier to ban yet you started with this why?

I have already provided two sources for you to consider, but here's some more stats:

• There are 116,000 searches for 'child pornography' every day.
• The average age that a child first sees porn is 11.
• 20% of men and 13% of women admit to watching porn at work.

All taken from here.

Here's some more:

• There are approx 100,000 website that offer child pornography.
• 10% of adults admit to porn addiction of some sort.
• 17% of women are said to be struggling with porn addiction.

Source.

How do you propose we prevent people viewing foreign porn? In all my years I have never seen any British pornography and any with any British people in were made in the US.

This would admittedly be nearly impossible to enforce without mass-blocking websites (which I don't agree with), but Britain would nonetheless be setting an example which other nations could follow. Furthermore, prohibiting the sale of porn would also impact upon hotels, television companies, sex shops and any UK-based company that resells porn created by others, so it wouldn't be completely pointless.

[Bulbasaur]

Hey, I like the Manics. Leave them out of this.

[chiggy321]

I fear the general standard of pornography would be tragically reduced with the provisions of this Bill...

On a slightly more serious note women do not need to take part in pornography, it's a choice. which is why most don't. I also don't feel that it's very empowering to remove their right to make it commercially anyway - unless a stronger case can be made to convince me that pornography truly is anti-feminist then I won't be supporting this.

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by RightSaidJames)
I have already provided two sources for you to consider, but here's some more stats:

• There are 116,000 searches for 'child pornography' every day.
• The average age that a child first sees porn is 11.
• 20% of men and 13% of women admit to watching porn at work.

All taken from here.

Here's some more:

• There are approx 100,000 website that offer child pornography.
• 10% of adults admit to porn addiction of some sort.
• 17% of women are said to be struggling with porn addiction.

Source.



This would admittedly be nearly impossible to enforce without mass-blocking websites (which I don't agree with), but Britain would nonetheless be setting an example which other nations could follow. Furthermore, prohibiting the sale of porn would also impact upon hotels, television companies, sex shops and any UK-based company that resells porn created by others, so it wouldn't be completely pointless.

Child pornography is already illegal, restricting legal porn would do little to reduce the number of people trying to obtain child pornography.
Children watching porn is a problem however could be better enforced if parents understood how to implement child locks on their computers rather than expecting the government to ban porn altogether.
Porn addiction may exist, but so does alcohol and nicotine addiction, but the government has yet to ban them, despite them being far more dangerous.

[JPKC]

(Original post by paddy__power)
I assume you are going to provide rigorous evidence for (almost) all of the above claims?

That would be a first in the MHoC. I can't. Not because there isn't evidence, but rather because the evidence isn't readily available on the web. What I can do is reference various studies; the one that I personally have encountered was conducted and produced by Mimi Silbert. Feminist theorists provide the non-empirical backing for anti-pornography views and I think the arguments they present often forego the need for extensive sociological research, in the same way that economic theories can be accepted/dismissed without empirical backing.

I get the impression that you and many purportedly feminist male proponents of commercial ponography defend it out of a belief that if you've used it, it can't be anti-women, because, well, why would a feminist do something that indirectly hurts women?

Professional pornography harms the women involved in producing it, there is a lot of testimony from former members of the industry telling of how its practices often involve brutalising women, and subjecting them to emotional torment. This is especially the case in developing countries (where a growing portion of the industry is based).

Then there's the problem produced by the consumption of pornography. It reduces women to sex objects. Please now exit TSR, open Google, type in "porn", click on the first result, then watch the first video you see. I got "Too_Big_For_My_Butt_vol2". A quick skim of the video sees that it includes one women getting penetrated by several men, only ending when each of the men have ejaculated onto the woman's face. It does not include the female reaching orgasm, its single focus is on the men fulfilling their urge. If you believe that this type of thing casts women in a positive light then, well, I don't honestly know how you could argue that point. It is base and humiliating, and that video was not particularly "ambitious" by industry standards.

Commercial porn eroticises the domination of women, the subservience of the female body, to male lust. It reinforces attitudes that indeed are often the root of disparaging views towards women, and also complicit in making normal-looking women hate their bodies for not being fetishised pornographic ideals. How do you explain the widespread depression, the eating disorders, the insecurity?

[JPKC]

(Original post by Bulbasaur)
Hey, I like the Manics. Leave them out of this.

You obviously don't get their music.

[JPKC]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Wait, so what about male/gay pornography? Your notes seems to lack any explanation for that.

That could probably be made legal, though it would be odd for have an industry that only catered for homosexuals. And the same problems with commercial porn would still apply, they would just not be in the context of gender.

[Smack]

What the ****ing ****? No way.

[Bulbasaur]

(Original post by JPKC)
You obviously don't get their music.

I do actually, thank you very much. I don't necessarily have to agree with every message they put forward to like them.

[RightSaidJames]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
Child pornography is already illegal, restricting legal porn would do little to reduce the number of people trying to obtain child pornography.
Children watching porn is a problem however could be better enforced if parents understood how to implement child locks on their computers rather than expecting the government to ban porn altogether.
Porn addiction may exist, but so does alcohol and nicotine addiction, but the government has yet to ban them, despite them being far more dangerous.

I agree that this legislation wouldn't do all that much to curb child porn, but I'm sure it would help a little.

The tobacco and alcohol industry are regulated and heavily taxed though, with a network of support groups and advice for people who suffer from those addictions. The same cannot be said for pornography. Perhaps a more viable approach than passing this law would be for the government (the actual government) to devote significant resources to educating people (adults and children) about the dangers of porn addiction.

[JPKC]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
The idea that porn only is male orientated is absurd and wrong. And the idea that it only serves men is absurd. The idea that it doesn't serve women at all is absurd. I wonder, just how much porn have the Socialists actually watched before?

If we all watched excessive amounts of porn while knowing it was wrong then that would just confirm to us how little influence our rational faculties have over our sexual actions. And I'm not sure I know exactly what you're getting at, but if I'm correct you're saying that women also watching porn means that porn is pro-women? If that is the case then I'll just repeat what I've said before: no-one takes into account the subconscious effects porn when choosing to watch pornography. This is for two reasons: 1. most people don't know that porn affects their subconscious at all (this is true of playing violent video games and lots of other experiences), 2. even if they were aware, the part of the brain that takes into account rational considerations is not the part that decides whether you watch porn or not.

It's hard to provide examples without getting banned but there are plenty of porn video's that are either amateur and therefore neutral in pleasure or are professional but serve the women just as much.

There are some niche porn makers that do cater for women, and indeed most amateur porn is neutral in pleasure - which is why this bill explicitly encourages amateur pornography in section 3.

Reading the rest of your comment, I don't see anything I can answer to. Okay, you think this is absurd (you repeat that like 5 times, btw). What parts are absurd? You've already said that you don't believe porn is sexist (see my response to Paddy). Do you also believe that watching porn has absolutely no effect on how the consumers view sex?

[JPKC]

(Original post by Bulbasaur)
I do actually, thank you very much. I don't necessarily have to agree with every message they put forward to like them.

Oh that's fine. Plenty of their fans like the music because of the tunes without actually caring about the politics behind the lyrics. No problem. Just don't complain when their music is used to support the political beliefs that it directly endorses.

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by JPKC)
That would be a first in the MHoC. I can't. Not because there isn't evidence, but rather because the evidence isn't readily available on the web. What I can do is reference various studies; the one that I personally have encountered was conducted and produced by Mimi Silbert. Feminist theorists provide the non-empirical backing for anti-pornography views and I think the arguments they present often forego the need for extensive sociological research, in the same way that economic theories can be accepted/dismissed without empirical backing.

I get the impression that you and many purportedly feminist male proponents of commercial ponography defend it out of a belief that if you've used it, it can't be anti-women, because, well, why would a feminist do something that indirectly hurts women?

Professional pornography harms the women involved in producing it, there is a lot of testimony from former members of the industry telling of how its practices often involve brutalising women, and subjecting them to emotional torment. This is especially the case in developing countries (where a growing portion of the industry is based).

Then there's the problem produced by the consumption of pornography. It reduces women to sex objects. Please now exit TSR, open Google, type in "porn", click on the first result, then watch the first video you see. I got "Too_Big_For_My_Butt_vol2". A quick skim of the video sees that it includes one women getting penetrated by several men, only ending when each of the men have ejaculated onto the woman's face. It does not include the female reaching orgasm, its single focus is on the men fulfilling their urge. If you believe that this type of thing casts women in a positive light then, well, I don't honestly know how you could argue that point. It is base and humiliating, and that video was not particularly "ambitious" by industry standards.

Commercial porn eroticises the domination of women, the subservience of the female body, to male lust. It reinforces attitudes that indeed are often the root of disparaging views towards women, and also complicit in making normal-looking women hate their bodies for not being fetishised pornographic ideals. How do you explain the widespread depression, the eating disorders, the insecurity?

In the same way that if I watch a film or play a game that involves a protagonist murdering someone I know not to replicate this is real life, if I watch porn I know that this isn't how the world works or should work in real life. The only reason this would influence you negatively is if you had grown up on it, which is why parents need to moderate their child's Internet usage so that they can't access porn at 11. And I thought numerous studies suggested eating disorders and the like we're down to girl's role models? I'm sure only a very small minority of girls view pornstars as role models, they are far more likely to be influenced by stick figure celebrities who give people the impression that to be attractive you must starve yourself until you are size zero.
As for the claims of brutality towards the girls in the industry, I'm sure there may be some truth in that. However if building sites weren't safe we wouldn't suddenly ban building sites, the government would impose regulations to ensure safety was increased in the work place.

[JPKC]

(Original post by Smack)
What the ****ing ****? No way.

Okay. That's a common response in this thread so far.

Does viewing porn have any effect on how the person watching thinks of sex?

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by RightSaidJames)
I agree that this legislation wouldn't do all that much to curb child porn, but I'm sure it would help a little.

The tobacco and alcohol industry are regulated and heavily taxed though, with a network of support groups and advice for people who suffer from those addictions. The same cannot be said for pornography. Perhaps a more viable approach than passing this law would be for the government (the actual government) to devote significant resources to educating people (adults and children) about the dangers of porn addiction.

That sounds like a better solution, much like when the US tried to ban alcohol I think that banning porn wouldn't stop people watching it, especially the addicts that it most affects, trying to help people get over addiction would likely be more effective.