Should authors avoid writing about a subject because a minority might emulate it?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Amateur porn eats shit. It's like kareoki? singing YOU LIGHT UP MY LIFE AN GIMME HOPE TO CARRRRRRRY ON! AND FILL MY NITES WID LUVVVVVVVV.

A big fat ass hanging out of boy-shorts is no Erection Set, I mean Erector Set.

 

[Epmd607]

...

But to come full circle, if you watch two amateurs whose expectations have been shaped by porn, you might as well be watching pros, at least the lighting and angles are better.

I think it's more like, if you watch two amateurs whose expectations for sex on camera has been shaped by porn, you'll get something that looks like porn, but it doesn't reveal their expectations for what sex itself should be. I don't think porn shapes peoples expectations for sex, but for simulated sex. Those amateurs wouldn't be having real sex, but simulated sex for the camera based on their assumptions of what sex on camera should look like. I think if you watch a bunch of porn you can see where the actors are presenting a sex act and also places where they're actually involved/enjoying a sex act. I think that's based on a reading of pleasure, the viewer should be able to tell signs of pleasure if they've been with a woman as opposed to signs of discomfort and acting.

 

[xssve]

Well, sorry, but unless you are filming unawares, you're always going to run up against the uncertainty principle of porn.

At best, you might get a Cinéma vérité thing going on, which is the angle I would take personally.

 

[xssve]

I think the phenomena itself is fertile grounds for a Cinéma vérité approach: am I man dreaming I'm a porn star, or a porn star dreaming I'm a man?

 

[xssve]

It generates a large distinction between visual and prose porn - in prose, the camera is irrelevant: either the entire thing is made up, or if it's a true story, it's already happened; either way, the presence of the camera - the minds eye, in this instance - is not going to affect the outcome, although perceptual interpolation remains in full effect.

There is no actor in literature for the medium itself to influence, it's a complete abstraction.

 

[Epmd607]

I think the phenomena itself is fertile grounds for a Cinéma vérité approach: am I man dreaming I'm a porn star, or a porn star dreaming I'm a man?

Yes, when you're filming yourself having sex you're going to operate differently. But there's still the difference between 'we're filming us having sex' and 'we're going to put on a sex show' with full on blast to the breasts or face to conclude the program.

Some people do think of themselves as performers when they're having sex. I once dated a chick who in all aspects of her life presented herself as a performer, which unfortunately included sex. It came down to me saying, "I want to have sex with you like normal people." Which was my inability to communicate, "I want to sleep with whoever you are, I don't think you're being honest about it." Which is still on me and not her, maybe she just liked the performance of sex better than actual intimate connection.

 

[Verdad]

I don't know anything about he/she, accept that they think they know all about me and my character. I get irritated when people appear and start arguing without having read any of the argument. Especially when it seems they don't write stories, come to the 'Author's Hangout' just to argue like this is discussion circle for philosophy undergrads.

Your irritation will surely cause me many a sleepless night. In the meantime, don't give up on the good work in patently silly character smears. Someone might yet be impressed.

I don't think I've ever denied there is an influence, but the argument against more often takes the form of cause and effect - my argument is that porn is not really the prime mover here, but it can and does contribute in shaping and influencing the outcome, possibly even in some statistical discernible fashion - like any other cultural experience, i.e., watching Fox possibly influencing the way you vote.

Do conservatives vote republican because of Fox network, or do they watch Fox because they're conservative?

It's a little of both, I'm sure - I don't think you can reasonably construct a valid binary mytheme here.

Anything that offers that sort of complication is automatically subject to crude categorization, ergo, the binary mythme of porn as agent of either depravity or liberation - since in order to make informed value judgments, you have to know something about it, and understand both arguments.

Shit I've spent years trying to get a handle on it, and I'm still not always sure.

Oh, I know you didn't say that. What you write here, and also what Doc writes, is pretty much the way I think.

I suggested we do this the other way round because whenever it's stated porn has any influence on anything, there's a whole chorus of "no it hasn't, none whatsoever!"

So I thought to start with that statement: "Porn has no influence whatsoever." If the complainers find it true, cool, we're done. I'm talked out on it anyhow. If it doesn't sound quite right, though, let them describe in which way it's meaningful to talk of influence, instead of shutting down whatever's offered.

 

[xssve]

Thats the nature of the binary mytheme: it's categorical by nature.

There is no middle ground - porn is either responsible for the dehumanization of women or a tool of the patriarchy, or it represents liberation from patriarchal reproductive restrictions on female sexuality - it's gotta be one or the other, it can't be both.

If even one example of porn degrades women, it all does, if one example liberates them, it all does, it's a categorical defensive response to a categorical attack - there is no room for subtle distinctions.

You might as well say "sports degrades women and undermines traditional values", or art in general.

As some wag noted, "down with categorical imperatives"!

There is some recognition that art can be divided into the subversive and that which upholds the official narrative, whereas porn is typically characterized as irredeemably subversive in the official narrative, possibly because there are so many different reasons one might object to it, that it simply adds up to one big negative.

You are coming form a place where it's typically defended, but historically, it's the target of considerable persecution and suppression - almost all the studies the OP linked to were conducted or commissioned by people who had drawn their conclusions in advance - that, most likely, has some influence on the forms it has taken over the centuries.

i.e., porn itself is influenced by the culture from which it emerges, every bit as much as it influences that culture, which has been my argument since the beginning - it invariably ends up a Chicken or the Egg question.

Which brings me around to India again - if you read the rape link, you'd have noted that true to form, most of the rapes are committed by close friends or relatives - anecdotally, a lot of the Indian porn I've read on this site is incest based - now in my mind, this is probably something particular to Indian culture, they don't all read literotica, most of them don't even have computers - what they do have is a caste system and and a lot of Byzantine reproductive taboos that make casual dating difficult, if not impossible, combined with, apparently, a legal system that doesn't take women very seriously if they do happen to report it.

In some sense, incest as fantasy, as well as rape in reality becomes an outlet for urges that might be more healthily expressed if all the restrictions were somehow, magically removed.

And not to pick on the Indians, incest is a popular category in here - what I don't know, is whether it's a very large demographic, or just a smaller and very active one.

 

[Pure]

note to xs and doc

I don't think I've ever denied there is an influence, but the argument against more often takes the form of cause and effect - my argument is that porn is not really the prime mover here, but it can and does contribute in shaping and influencing the outcome, possibly even in some statistical discernible fashion - like any other cultural experience, i.e., watching Fox possibly influencing the way you vote.

Do conservatives vote republican because of Fox network, or do they watch Fox because they're conservative?

It's a little of both, I'm sure - I don't think you can reasonably construct a valid binary mytheme here.

i think that's an excellent analogy. i think one can say more than 'a little of both,' for there is a clear element of incitement [Fox to viewer]. admittedly the fellow watching is a republican, but he's not steamed up today, till he's heard of Obama's latest marxist effort to move "in God we trust" to the edge of our coins. Fox ensures a steady diet.

i notice you chose an overt act, a vote, as manifestation: what's also relevant are attitudinal and affective shaping, as in my example above.

==
doc's posts have mentioned plausible or possible influences by way of acts such as anal intercourse and bdsm. again, what's interesting is that he mentions certain acts (restraint) as occurring before extensive porn exposure. the same may well apply to anal intercourse, which surely pre-existed. it formerly however had a grabbag label, along with other acts: 'crime against nature.'

"influence" is not quite the exact word, here, but users of mainstream porn and people in general, through spinoffs, are presented with a catalog: hundreds of items and their labels (depictions of any given item being available at a click). it's a kind of grand menu which shapes personal menus, and the manner in which their items are chosen.

it's a bit like psychology in its mass form generating "low self esteem" or "major depression." some feelings were there, but now they're labeled (and interventions to 'help' become possible).

"i'm into anal sex [or SM, etc.]" is a similar kind of artifact. "i'm bi", heard among teens is another example. in a related thread on 'labiaplasty', i posted a dr's offer, on her website, to deal with "hyperpigmentation of the edges of the inner labia."
it can hardly be a new phenomenon, but now it's an item on a menu, a 'condition' when is amenable to 'correction' if desired.

 

[xssve]

Well actually, it's a very bad analogy Pure, more like an example - you pretty much have to be a conservative to watch Fox news, at least with a straight face - you don't have to be a pervert or a misogynist to enjoy porn.

I like the menu analogy however - in some sense, it levels the associative baggage, so you can choose among a given array of sexual behaviors based on whether they actually interest you or not rather than on a pre-formatted hierarchy of value assignments based on largely unrelated socio-political externalities

Which is how it should be, IMO.

 

[xssve]

The argument against porn is typically, that it undermines "traditional values" - but this not the same thing as defending those traditional values in the positive sense.

The natural control here is Islam, where any and all depictions of the human form, clothed or otherwise is strictly forbidden by Sharia - and it would be difficult to find a culture where women are more repressed and people in general have fewer choices.

The argument is, that once these people get a glimpse of the broader menu, they cease to accept their lot and begin agitating for change, and thus, the agitation is the direct result of the subversive media.

The fact that people are so fucking bored and depressed with the "traditional values" that they're willing to risk their lives to change them never appears to be a factor in this argument, only the fact that this agitation is inconvenient for the status quo defending the restrictions of the traditional morality is ever of any importance.

The status quo is always presented as an unqualified good, that which opposes it, an unqualified evil.

 

[Epmd607]

Well actually, it's a very bad analogy Pure, more like an example - you pretty much have to be a conservative to watch Fox news, at least with a straight face - you don't have to be a pervert or a misogynist to enjoy porn.

...

I thought we talked about this on one of the last pages. Fox News reveals the same information you can get anywhere else, they just like to play more games with it, enframing the details that suit Fox News the business over Fox News the purveyor of newsworthy information.

We can get into binaries with porn vs. art and art vs. art and porn vs. porn, it'll just take longer. Porn resembles art always without ever becoming art. I'm sure that most porn is dehumanizing for the performer, art is differentiated from porn by the fact that it reveals human value. But I don't know how to describe the consumer of art or the consumer of porn.

 

[Epmd607]

...

The fact that people are so fucking bored and depressed with the "traditional values" that they're willing to risk their lives to change them never appears to be a factor in this argument, only the fact that this agitation is inconvenient for the status quo defending the restrictions of the traditional morality is ever of any importance.

The status quo is always presented as an unqualified good, that which opposes it, an unqualified evil.

The status quo is only what keeps a society together and functioning in that moment, so it is an unqualified good to those who value the continued existence of such a society past tomorrow. That which opposes a society as a whole is something other than a Muslim dissident who values democracy, free speeh, art, literature. In a society such as Iran you can't destroy the so called 'bad stuff' without destroying the things we value as an outsider. The Muslim dissident who values the same things we value can't be picked apart from Iran and placed back in Iran -- as an outsider there is only Iranian society.

 

[xssve]

well, as you say, we can discuss the abstractions all day long - to return to the concerns of the OP, I think it difficult to argue that anybody under the age of say Sixteen, probably ought not be exposed to most porn, particularly the more... athletic varieties.

The frontal lobes do not fully develop until the early Twenties, and the livelihood of children acting out on these things with more defenseless friends and members of the family is probably greater than the likelihood of adults doing it as a statistical thing.

Thing is, they will probably get it from somewhere, eventually - "The Talk" is going to get way more complicated I imagine.

So, I'm not advocating porn on the Disney channel, although there is a level of sexuality that is probably healthy for all ages - Bill Cosby was good at alluding to intimacy without it being either warped or unnaturally inhibited.

There may even be forms of erotica that might establish a more normative and neutral example of human sexuality that could help contextualize the more gonzo stuff for what it is.

 

[xssve]

Speaking of warped - the very first sexually explicit movie I ever saw, about 12 maybe, happened to be Going Places on HBO.

 

[Epmd607]

Speaking of warped - the very first sexually explicit movie I ever saw, about 12 maybe, happened to be Going Places on HBO.

I saw that movie with Alec Baldwin and his then wife, Kim Basinger, where he's sucking on her nice boober. I was pretty young, it may have been my first fantasy world sighting of one of those things.
....
"There may even be forms of erotica that might establish a more normative and neutral example of human sexuality that could help contextualize the more gonzo stuff for what it is."

I swear the Unitarian Universalists show their 13-15 year old kids softcore porn as to aid them in discovering their sexuality. Gay, straight, lez, the harmless stuff.

the Getaway? Maybe that's the name of that movie. I stayed up way past my bedtime because my buddy told me about it. Yeah, I don't think it's a good idea that anyone under 18 is watching hardcore porn, and I think it's good that there are such stringent laws for grown men who want to diddle 15 year old girls. The kids who get in trouble for showing pictures of themselves to their friends and the age related sex stuff bothers me that they're penalized so harshly though.

 

[xssve]

Makes sense to me, I can't imagine what would have happened if the first thing I saw had been Max Hardcore Does Prague, or Nobody Says No to Rocco Siffredi.

I'd probably be in jail right now.

 

[Epmd607]

Makes sense to me, I can't imagine what would have happened if the first thing I saw had been Max Hardcore Does Prague, or Nobody Says No to Rocco Siffredi.

I'd probably be in jail right now.

Max had to go to jail. That guy sucks and pretty much defines dehumanizing pornography. The girls he gets have no idea what's going on until it's already in motion and they've signed a contract and been promised all this money. fuck that guy, he's probably getting fucked right now by some gnarly prison dude.

 

[xssve]

I don't think he's that bad, not really a fan, but I don't think any of the actresses have actually complained - half of them are prostitutes anyway and probably been through worse.

 

[Epmd607]

I don't think he's that bad, not really a fan, but I don't think any of the actresses have actually complained - half of them are prostitutes anyway and probably been through worse.

Well yeah, if you've viewed a lot of hardcore pornography it's just another show with some pee thrown in. But the court case was pretty interesting, one of the major points was a girl tried to stop the scene mid-fuck and he just basically kept going, which equals stat rape. But that was only one of the details. Still, saying they're prostitutes doesn't make it any less dehumanizing. Rocco uses super professionals on par with his aggression in most of his movies. Porn is degrading for all those involved, rich men and female legends, not just the girls getting peed on. I'm just trying to figure out the role of the consumer, me.

 

[xssve]

I take that back, there is one named Neesa who apparently has it in for him in a big way.

 

[xssve]

Well, he's not what you might call a class act, that's for sure, but I don't think bad taste is a crime.

 

[Epmd607]

Well, he's not what you might call a class act, that's for sure, but I don't think bad taste is a crime.

No, but statutory rape is. They got him on more than that, some real good stuff.

 

[xssve]

I don't believe so, he was convicted on general obscenity charges, I'll have to find the records

 

[Epmd607]

I don't believe so, he was convicted on general obscenity charges, I'll have to find the records

Yeah, I just read the indictment, it's like 10 counts of using the US postal service to transport obscene materials. I've read in other places about stat rape, maybe they'll get him on that when he gets out of prison, which he might already be out.

I'm not sure how free speech ever came to protect visual art or pornography. I'm not really on the bandwagon of freedom of speech, because I think it has come to mean nothing really. The only cases seem to be in schools and pornography. Usually they don't make sense as how they can come to mean freedom of expression.

"(AP) The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Tuesday in a case that is shaping up as a major fight over free speech rights and shines a spotlight on discomfiting videos depicting pit bull fights and other acts of animal cruelty." How does this argument work? It's the same as distributing pornography showing cruel and unusual acts. Has nothing to do with free speech. Yes, I get that two consenting adults is different than two pitbulls, but neither has anything to do with freedom of expression.