How porn is wrecking relationships

[time]

How porn is wrecking relationships

The Sydney Morning Herald

I think it's worth looking past the sensationalism to contemplate the content. An article worth reading.

 

[ddrueding]

So let me get this straight...he is saying that men are watching porn and therefore becoming uninterested in their spouse? So is the opposite of this that women use sex toys and are uninterested in their spouse?

My first response would be that it's liberating people who are in unhappy relationships; considering that the alternative is to stay in a relationship where you are obviously not satisfied.

Also, it talks of obsession/addiction; some people are sick and need to be treated, but that is nothing new. Pyromaniacs were normal before the discovery of fire, and because it reveals their issues doesn't mean the rest of us have to do without.

 

[Howell]

Porn is not the root problem. Pervasive narcissism is.

 

[sechs]

Don't they understand that this is really a ploy to reduce population growth?

 

[time]

So let me get this straight...he is saying that men are watching porn and therefore becoming uninterested in their spouse?

Actually, he is a she, and that's only a teeny part of the article. I think you read what you wanted to read, if you see what I mean.

 

[Stereodude]

I think you read what you wanted to read, if you see what I mean.

You'll have to forgive him. He forgot to take off his porn colored glasses before reading the article.

 

[ddrueding]

Actually, he is a she, and that's only a teeny part of the article. I think you read what you wanted to read, if you see what I mean.

He being a she doesn't help her argument, and it wasn't a pleasant read in the first place, so I'll duck out of the thread now.

 

[Sol]

I didn't read all of the article but the phrase "Correlation is not causality." seems relevant.

I have no doubt that there is a correlation between guys looking at porn and the breakdown of relationships, that makes perfect sense to me. I just don't really see that there was any evidence that the porn is the root cause of the problem. I mean it could be, sometimes... But I doubt it is any significant proportion of the time.

But hey maybe the proof was in the bit I didn't bother reading...

 

[sechs]

I agree. There's nothing to show which way the direction of causality points. You could just as easily say that pornography causes rape.

 

[Stereodude]

I bet you two are just as skeptical about global warming being caused by humankind too right?

 

[ddrueding]

I bet you two are just as skeptical about global warming being caused by humankind too right?

???

I'm missing the correlation? One backed by tons of scientists and countless findings over many years, one backed by a journalist?

 

[udaman]

???

I'm missing the correlation? One backed by tons of scientists and countless findings over many years, one backed by a journalist?

Umm, well that's kind of an over simplification of the issues...which kind of how, most of these types of thread arguments end up...let's not go into the Iraq/WMD debate, please .

Almost no dispute about global warming by any scientifically sound authority. However, there still exists debate among the scientific community (sure, just like all other fields of professionals you're going to find some whack jobs at both extremes) as to what is the major cause of this current global warming---and if we manipulate the enviroment too much in one extreme, will a deadly ice age follow in a few centuries??? Who shall play the game of global eco-systems vodoo (could be argued that where doing that right now, Al Gore would ), and be responsible for death and destruction for generations to come? It maybe said that there is more CO2 or man-made pollutants in the atmosphere at any other time in history, but being that weather cannot be reliably predicted with absolute certainty over time- even with the best super computer simulations, the debate goes on as to how much, to what degree large or small, the effect of man-made changes to the environment, is changing the weather?

I think it's penny wise and pound foolish, given that human ingenuity is such that we can and could do all the things necessary to greatly reduce those man-made effects to near harmless minimums, that we do not have long-range plans in effect worldwide to do so now. Politicians are the ones who 'argue' that science, unfortunately (and most of those politicians are lawyers, with short-term special interests on their minds).

Basic problem or root cause is too many people having too many babies, plain and simple. How to change that is the hard part .

But that's drifting way OT from the OP, is it not?

Could also open up that can of beans about violent video games, or misogynistic rapper video's. Yeah slap that be-otch, Lil'Kim and her large plastic, ready to explode, breasts around some more, bend over and take it like a woman...woot!

http://www.answers.com/topic/burden-of-proof

"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, only that no reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence presented. This standard is distinguishable from the standard of proof applied in civil lawsuits: a preponderance of the evidence, which means that the evidence more likely than not establishes a particular point.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial."

Whether or not I believe in the preponderance of evidence on human made global warming is an irrelevent point, the world is a polluted sespool in most places, of one degree or another. We have far too great an energy & materials addiction for not renewable sources, conservation and newer technology solutions is in dire need, just to keep the environment & quality of life sustained at present levels, nevermind comparision to pristine quality mere centuries ago. And then maybe a nuclear war will break out and solve the population problems .


In actual trials you don't read about in the news, the standards much lower or dumb arse juries that are easily manipulated by the 'facts' (only those allowed into evidence or presented to a jury by the presiding judge) in their abbreviated form and designed by lawyers to best persuade their objectives; those standards are even lower. (Have I convinced you all ? )


Hey, lets ask "Q" from SR to join in the discussion about this argument below.... NoooooooooOh, please, for the love of G_d, have mercy on us all !
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery...&questionID=20070526135135AA1KTc7&startFrom=0

"I can prove that God exists and I can prove that FSM, Pink Unicorn, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, Horus, Santa, and Russell's Teapot don't exist. So please show me the evidence that proves that God doesn't exist. It is irrational to say that God doesn't exist without some proof of such a claim. I wonder which of you would be willing to sit accused of murder with no defense lawyer and just say "I didn't do it." Maybe you can try that with God.


Best Answer - Chosen By Voters

The reason the burden of proof is on the believer has to do with the rules of deductive logic, invented by the ancient Greeks, centuries before Christ. The type of question we are asking is called a dichotomy because only two possibilities exist. Either God exists, or God does not exist. It is not possible for both positions to be simultaneously correct or for both to be simultaneously false. If one position is true, the opposite position must be false. That's a dicotomy. It is always impossible to prove a negative assertion (God does not exist.) because it is impossible to test every circumstance where He might be found. No matter how many circumstances are tested and found empty, there is always at least one more circumstance where He might be hidden. Because the question is a dicotomy and because the negative assertion can never be proved, the only remaining way to settle the question is to decide whether the positive assertion (God exists.) is true. This places the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the believer who has made the unproved assertion that God actually exists. That every negative assertion can never be proved changes nothing. If the positive assertion can be proved true, then God must exist. If the positive assertion cannot be proved, the only remaining conclusion is that God does not actually exist. If you have a valid proof that God exists in objective reality please explain yourself. There are dozens of atheists here who have been waiting their whole lives for such enlightenment.
"

So where is Merc today, and what of our fellow Aussie Chew, who likes that pre-pubescent look as described in the article?

BTW Time, if you want someone to read the whole article, at least provide the all in “one page” formatted link, whenever available, like this:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolo...1179601669144.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap6


side point, ewww!, Chewy & RJ may like the jail-bait, pre-pubescent soft as a babies behind, Brazilian wax look; but I think it looks like they did chemotherapy or something, so 'artificial'. And 'backdoor Cheerleaders' topic in the article, didn't Merc just mention you wouldn't want to see that movie in Hi-Def? Uh, I'd rather not see it in any definition; doesn't nasty, smelly shit come out of that tight hole? Of course some deviants just like to lick/eat shit, lol. Hmm, reminds me of that famous Cheech & Chong skit, Chong: "hey, what's that?" Cheech: "uh, I dunno, looks like shit" (stoned Cheech says). Chong says "pick it up" Cheech: "huh, wtf???" Chong: "pick it up". Cheech "Ok... It looks like shit" Chong "Taste it". Cheech "Man...Wha...?" Chong persists: "taste it" Cheech: "wha...ok. ....tastes like shit!!!". Chong: "good thing we didn't step on it" .

"I told him, 'I'll give you whatever you want. What can I do to make it more like porn?"'

Ordinary women's desire or desperation to "make it more like porn" has helped fire the popularity of Brazilian waxes, according to Nancy Etcoff, a Harvard medical school psychologist and the author of Survival of the Prettiest: the Science of Beauty. Unlike the natural-looking porn stars of the 1970s such as Linda Lovelace of Deep Throat fame, the nymphs populating internet porn today have their pubic hairs ripped out after an application of hot wax. The desired look is "clean" and pre-pubescent. "Women today are emulating porn stars who have no pubic hair," says Etcoff, "and I think men like it."

Many women like the look, too, but a disgruntled sufferer of a Brazilian wax says on the Herald website: "Because girls are always so keen to be every man's fantasy, we did it, and now it is considered the norm to go through the extremely painful and costly experience of having all our pubic hairs ripped out every three weeks. My older sister never had to go through all of this."
Women are also under pressure to emulate the porn stars' apparent penchant for anal sex, according to four consecutive Swedish studies, the latest published in 2005 in the International Journal of STD and AIDS. Young men who are regular porn consumers are more likely to have had anal sex with a girl, and most of the men liked it. Most young women did not like anal sex,"

*note: uh, well Linda Lovelace may have been 'natural' in a Rosie O'Donnell kind of way, but there we're quite a few decent looking 'natural' pr0n's stars from way back, Lovelace was a dawwwg. Maybe those women should get revenge and torture their males by aversion therapy, make them watch endless hours of super low res/low quality Linda Lovelace vid's, hehe, would make all but the most compulsive addicts loath pr0n after thatwneddnce:.

 

[Mercutio]

Dude, lay off the meth when you're posting.
I managed to finish Finnegan's Wake but I have a really hard time following your posts, Uda.

I have not yet commented on this topic because I haven't read the article yet.

 

[sechs]

If someone could provide Cliff Notes for his posts, it'd help me immensely....

 

[timwhit]

I third this, I have tried to read his posts, but I cannot comprehend what he is talking about most of the time.

I have an idea, think about writing 1 to 2 sentence posts, then when you have mastered this, move on to longer more intricate posts.

 

[Mercutio]

OK. I read the article.

I have to say I don't buy into the author's conclusions, nor do I believe that she has any kind of sympathy at all for the men she's writing about. She certainly didn't make any attempt to give those guys who are viewing porn a voice in her piece.

 

[Mercutio]

... Chewy & RJ may like the jail-bait, pre-pubescent soft as a babies behind, Brazilian wax look; but I think it looks like they did chemotherapy or something, so 'artificial'.

It's a fashion choice that's actually become progressively more "extreme" since at least the middle 1970s. It is *not* a new development, and anyone with a stack of Playboys can see how it progressed.

FWIW, Ancient Egyptians plucked all their pubes out for hygienic reasons; the pendulum of fashion will eventually swing back as well (on the other extreme, google the word "merkin").

Also, a lot of guys are doing the same thing nowadays.

And 'backdoor Cheerleaders' topic in the article, didn't Merc just mention you wouldn't want to see that movie in Hi-Def?

It's not the "backdoor" part I'm objecting to.

A lot of porn is about something other than the things that make it enjoyable to me. Modern "hardcore" porn is increasingly about humiliating or brutalizing a woman and/or proving the virility of the male performer(s). I chose not to partake in those things and I am in fact very selective about the things I enjoy.

There are porn studios and product lines which take things to extremes. I am aware of those things but I do not chose to view them. Even the people who make porn are pretty aware of how disturbing some of the things they are filming really are... but the "extreme" stuff is the stuff that sells the best to people who actually buy porn. No one else gets a vote, so as much as some folks would like porn to be other than what it is, it's not going to matter until they are voting with their dollars.

*note: uh, well Linda Lovelace may have been 'natural' in a Rosie O'Donnell kind of way

Linda Lovelace was almost certainly a victim of abuse prior to and during the filming of the few movies she participated in. She honestly did not want to be there. On top of that, I've gotta say that until you've had video of yourself having sex released to the general public, you can lay off any comments about appearance or behavior.

Most adult movies at that time were made illegally (in absence of permits and in light of the then-constitutional obscenity laws) in New York City or in Florida, using whomever they could find to film them. Producers couldn't exactly recruit openly, as they can today. According to porn lore, Linda Lovelace really was enormously skilled at the act with which her name became associated. She was, according to the men who worked with her, very very good at what she did, which would've made filming less stressful for the guys involved.

In the days after "Debbie does Dallas", porn had a brief flirtation with mainstream acceptance, but the general public for the most part did not have easy access to movies or printed materials, so at that time it was largely a media-created fad.

Nowadays, anyone who wants to can see porn. It's practically a joke. Guys aren't supposed to admit that they enjoy looking at naked women? Are we supposed to be ashamed of that? In my opinion, the whole issue of sexually explicit materials needs to be dealt with in a much more healthy manner than it is.

 

[Chewy509]

So where is Merc today, and what of our fellow Aussie Chew, who likes that pre-pubescent look as described in the article?

I'm still here? When did I ever mention that I like that look? :scratch:

Even though my current partner (who is the same age as myself), grooms herself in a similar manner (no wax, just razor) it was entirely her choice and she had been doing so for many years before we meet... In fact she prefers that look.

Anyway, there is nothing worse than getting hair between your teeth... (that's my take).

But, now back OT.

Is 'adult erotica' wreaking relationships? Doubtful, IMO, unless it's an uncontrolled addiction for one of the party. But any uncontrolled addiction will cause any relationship to fail?

Some couples enjoy watching pr0n together as a way to add ideas to their love making and break up what for some people becomes a chore or unchanging boring event.

Some guys don't like watching porn and some girls love watching it. Personally, while admittedly I have a decent collection, I rarely watch it. Why? I don't find it that interesting. (The collection is mainly from leeching at LANs).

Whilst serving with the Army, my room-mate had a collection of she-male porn that would put most video stores to shame... did I watch it, definitely not. I don't find that interesting. But I'm not going to advocate a ban of such material.

Nowadays, anyone who wants to can see porn. It's practically a joke. Guys aren't supposed to admit that they enjoy looking at naked women? Are we supposed to be ashamed of that?

Absolutely not...

 

[Howell]

Feminist Simone de Beauvoir, warned in her book, The Second Sex, that if society trivializes modesty, violence against women would result.

 

[ddrueding]

Women asked to be treated as equals. Be careful what you wish for...


*I've never been violent towards a woman, nor would I condone such action. My point is that it is more than just modesty that helped discourage violence against women, but the entire concept of a separate social class.

 

[Howell]

Women asked to be treated as equals. Be careful what you wish for...


*I've never been violent towards a woman, nor would I condone such action. My point is that it is more than just modesty that helped discourage violence against women, but the entire concept of a separate social class.

Please elaborate what you mean.

 

[ddrueding]

Before women's rights, before women were talked to and thought of as equals, there was a mystique about them; a sense that they were separated from the dog-eat-dog world that men lived in. Men have always gotten into fights, wars, crime, etc; as well as being involved in business and sports. As women have fought over the years to become considered equal in these last two, all the rest have been dragged into the mix as well.

 

[sechs]

Someone must have slept through world history....

 

[Howell]

Before women's rights, before women were talked to and thought of as equals, there was a mystique about them; a sense that they were separated from the dog-eat-dog world that men lived in. Men have always gotten into fights, wars, crime, etc; as well as being involved in business and sports. As women have fought over the years to become considered equal in these last two, all the rest have been dragged into the mix as well.

You must be joking.

 

[LOST6200]

Daveds not old onough to know the world history, even the 60s.