[faeluna]

You seem to mainly just shout this over and over as a personal conviction. That's fine, but Stephanie's said that she doesn't feel objectified, and you don't acknowledge that. If you somehow think you're more intelligent, clued in, or in a better place to judge than someone's who's actually worn the shoes, you need to show how and why that is. Just stating the basics of a position over and over really does nothing to convince anyone.

Mice also don't know they're living in cages and being fed poison that will eventually kill them. That doesn't mean I need to jump in the cage and eat the same cheese to have a valid position and collection of observations. Has anyone NOT noticed the things I pointed out? Is there a different way to see it? Why are women shown in this light over and over again, and some people just aren't bothered by it? MAYBE some people are desensitized because they watch porn and see this stuff EVERYWHERE. That doesn't mean it's right or should be normal.

[DreamP346]

Mice also don't know they're living in cages and being fed poison that will eventually kill them. That doesn't mean I need to jump in the cage and eat the same cheese to have a valid position and collection of observations. Has anyone NOT noticed the things I pointed out? Is there a different way to see it? Why are women shown in this light over and over again, and some people just aren't bothered by it? MAYBE some people are desensitized because they watch porn and see this stuff EVERYWHERE. That doesn't mean it's right or should be normal.

As cory pointed out, objectification in itself is not bad. We all have been objectified at some point in our lives and we objectify others. It's only when we cannot see the person beyond an object that is a problem. That is the viewers fault and maybe we can blame society for cultivating those perspectives. But you cannot blame those who get objectified for other people's attitudes. There was a time in my life when I was often reduced to nothing more than a baby incubator and then a milk machine. You wouldn't blame me for people thinking that making children reduced women to nothing more than baby making machines, as some narrow minded people would see. Similarly, why blame those who perform in porn for the misguided, narrow-minded and sexists view others have. It's like schools who ban girls from wearing leggings because they will distract the young boys.

It is true that there is a lot of mysogony in our society, but we cannot blame those who perform in porn for that. We live in a society with unhealthy attitudes towards body image and a Euroentric ideal of beauty. Based on your premise, we would blame every woman who goes on a diet for perpetuating the unrealistic obsessions with thinness. We would have to blame every woman who puts on makeup for perpetuating objectification of women. We would have to blame every woman who is naturally super thin for promoting eating disorders. We would have to blame every model, even the ones who pose for artistic purposes, for letting women be objectified. We would have to blame actresses for taking on those smaller side roles in movies instead of having leading roles as the star.

[effy2014]

Mice also don't know they're living in cages and being fed poison that will eventually kill them. That doesn't mean I need to jump in the cage and eat the same cheese to have a valid position and collection of observations. Has anyone NOT noticed the things I pointed out? Is there a different way to see it? Why are women shown in this light over and over again, and some people just aren't bothered by it? MAYBE some people are desensitized because they watch porn and see this stuff EVERYWHERE. That doesn't mean it's right or should be normal.

Before I respond, I need to understand the definition and which women are being objectified. I will use this definition: "The objectification of women involves the act of disregarding the personal and intellectual abilities and capabilities of a female; and reducing a woman's worth or role in society to that of an instrument for the sexual pleasure that she can produce in the mind of another."

If you are saying that the naked woman being portrayed by the porn star is being objectified, I think that the answer is a resounding yes. In the movies you are describing, the naked woman is being portrayed as sexually servicing the multitude of male dominators.

The next level of "objectification" is more tenuous. Is the porn star being objectified? Stephanie doesn't think so. She states that she is well treated, well paid and acts in porn because she enjoys the sex. As Jen wrote, if you have never walked in her shoes, how can you say that others treat her only as a sex object in her every day life.

I think its the third level of which you complain. Are all women in society more prone to be treated as sex objects because of porn or the treatment of women on TV. Stated another way, are men so stupid that we cannot distinguish between a movie, a car advertisement or a TV show and the women in our lives. IMHO that is nonsense. Does your boyfriend treat you like an unfeeling, unintelligent sex object? Does he treat women he meets that way? I am sure that the answer is no for most men. I believe that even us dumb guys can distinguish between fantasy and reality.

There are plenty of TV shows and movies that portray very strong women. For example, on most crime shows, there is a very strong woman who is usually uber bright and very strong. A lot of the TV shows I see have women in charge of companies and agencies of the government. There are lots of comedies where its the men who are portrayed as stupid. In all, I think the portrayal of women on TV has improved dramatically.

[faeluna]

"As cory pointed out, objectification in itself is not bad. We all have been objectified at some point in our lives and we objectify others. It's only when we cannot see the person beyond an object that is a problem. That is the viewers fault and maybe we can blame society for cultivating those perspectives. But you cannot blame those who get objectified for other people's attitudes."
If you willingly participate in an activity with the sole purpose of objectification (as in porn), what other conclusion is there? No one is making them do it; they choose to be seen that way - as sex objects so some rando can get off. I don't see how they're not to blame for these views continuing.

"There was a time in my life when I was often reduced to nothing more than a baby incubator and then a milk machine. You wouldn't blame me for people thinking that making children reduced women to nothing more than baby making machines, as some narrow minded people would see. Similarly, why blame those who perform in porn for the misguided, narrow-minded and sexists view others have."
I don't see the connection between these two things at all. Being a mother has nothing to do with negative views of women as sex objects. Reproducing has nothing to do with being used.

"It's like schools who ban girls from wearing leggings because they will distract the young boys."
I personally think leggings are inappropriate for young girls, same for mini skirts, high heels, etc. Dressing in a sexually-charged way can be distracting to anyone. Certainly not appropriate in schools.

"It is true that there is a lot of mysogony in our society, but we cannot blame those who perform in porn for that."
They certainly contribute.

"We live in a society with unhealthy attitudes towards body image and a Euroentric ideal of beauty. Based on your premise, we would blame every woman who goes on a diet for perpetuating the unrealistic obsessions with thinness."
And the women who diet for health reasons because they're obese and at risk for heart disease? This is not a comparable scenario. What is, is only showing toothpick-models in clothing ads and such.

"We would have to blame every woman who puts on makeup for perpetuating objectification of women."
For what reason, exactly? This isn't comparable either.

"We would have to blame every woman who is naturally super thin for promoting eating disorders."
Again, no. Naturally having a thin figure is not comparable to actively participating in an objectified sex video. At all.

"We would have to blame every model, even the ones who pose for artistic purposes, for letting women be objectified. We would have to blame actresses for taking on those smaller side roles in movies instead of having leading roles as the star."
This doesn't make sense to me either. I don't find these arguments valid or comparable in the least. None of these scenarios deal with women as sex objects.

[rcoreyus]

I would separate porn and other media for this discussion. To me the point of porn is objectification - of men and women. Porn exists to show men and women having various forms of sex in various combinations. Typically the men are always erect, the women always ready - and everyone appears to orgasm at exactly the required point in the script. I think its almost like ballet which is all about human form and motion - also completely objectifying because that is the art form.

[Baboy]

faeluna,

You started this thread setting out your position that you despise porn. Fine, you are entitled to hold that view.

Then you asked about how others feel about it. You have received a host of responses. Not too many views congruent with your own unvarnished hatred of porn. You commented to the respondent here best qualified to speak to the topic, remonstrating:

I don't know how you can live with yourself. I won't say anything else to avoid being mean.

I thought the meanness shone through quite nicely.

It remains unclear why you came along asking for views and you then seem somewhat perturbed when they do not accord with your own. On another thread, about women's safety, someone brought up the idea of carrying guns. Jen commented, sensibly in my view, that there are certain discussions that never end well. Others agreed. Here, Jen has pointed out that you have stated and re-stated your position. This discussion won't end well unless you give a little more credit to the views being expressed in response to you solicitation of same.

It seems rather unlikely that you will succeed here in persuading anyone to your way of seeing things, or vice versa. No one's opinion here is more valuable than another, at least in the sense of being right or wrong. Some are better reasoned than others, but we can be sure this thread won't end with any unanimous view, no matter how well-reasoned, cogent and compelling, and impassioned a plea might be presented in support of any position.

In the microcosm of this thread, you might seem outgunned. Of some 63,000 WH members, a very small sampling has participated. We do not know what the other 62,900-and-something might be thinking, never mind the rest of the world's adult population. In another forum, your view might receive much acclaim. You have set out thoughtfully, and with conviction, why porn is never okay. No one here has attacked you for holding that view and doubtless it is shared by many. Just not by many responding here. For my own part, I thank you for expressing yourself as you have, since it provides a foundation for reasoned debate.

As for whether porn objectifies women and harbors the seeds of destruction of society, or any such evil, I have no particular thoughts of my own. I'll leave the debate to others more learned in anthropology and other relevant social sciences.

In your initial post, you asked: "And for the men on here: Do you watch it? Even in a relationship/marriage? WHY?" The upper case letters in the ultimate interrogative come across as a might challenging. The use of that form suggests there remains an unspoken "PLEASE EXPLAIN YOURSELF, YOU WORM."

Well, all right. I'll bite. Yes, I am a sinner. I watch porn. And, to add to the ignominy of that revolting revelation, I am married. And, let me add, happily. But perhaps I am just porn-happy and delusional and my porn-besotted brain is too enfeebled to perceive that my marriage is a sham, a fraud and a derelict in a sea of failed relationships.

So, time to backpedal a bit. I swear that I do not watch to excess (however that vague term might be defined). My relationship with porn bears some semblance to me relationship with WH. I get involved from time to time, then go for long periods of inactivity. I'll not admit that those periods can be explained by the fact that I am confined to a psychiatric facility, undergoing porn addiction aversion therapy, and have no computer privileges during those times.

Like others, I like to watch the home-made type of porn that seems to portray some sensitivity and real lovemaking. With all due respect to our one porn professional poster here, I really don't know why anyone would pay to watch porn, when so much is out there on the web for free. There seems to be no shortage of porn sites that urge one to sign up for a "VIP" or some such membership for the low low price of $24.95 per month, billed discreetly as "building supplies", or whatever, to one's credit card. Anyone here care to admit to that one? If so, if you are paying for porn, WHY???

My wife also watches porn. In fact, to my surprise, SHE signed us up to a TV channel of 24-hour porn. We canceled in no time. Worse than the free stuff on the web. Super boring, formulaic, repetitive, with no redeeming features. Not worth the 20 bucks a month or whatever it was.

My wife is Asian and, when I watch porn, I try to find porn where the women look like her. I am happy to report that I simply never look at women who look nothing like her and fantasize about them. The more they look like her, the more sexy I find it. Yes, some of it turns me on and it makes me horny for her. I never masturbate to porn. The real thing with my real wife is so far superior that masturbating would hold no pleasure at all. We both like frequent sex, so I have no worries about porn making me horny and then having no outlet apart from masturbation. Porn or no porn, in more than 10 years of marriage I can fairly say that I have not masturbated more than once a year. I want her, only her, not some porn star or my hand.

So far I guess I have dodged the why do I watch question. Would you accept "Because I can" for an answer? It does not really yield to ready explanation. Sitting here at my keyboard, putting the question to myself, takes me back to my childhood when I would do something childish and my mother would stand over me and demand to know: "Why on earth would you do that?" I am not much better equipped to answer this one now than I was back then. Some of it is sexy. It's entertaining. It's novel. It's nice to see people you consider attractive making love. It can be sexually stimulating. There's perhaps an element of the forbidden fruit. There's the wonder about just who would really put themselves out there like that. In that regard, some of the amateurs takes measures to obscure faces, which seems sensible.

To me, I find only the fairly short clips entertaining. Sex videos that run for an hour - even half an hour - really bore me. I can tolerate only so much footage of a penis moving in and out of a vagina. I'd much rather put in the time with my penis in my wife's vagina than me sitting there like an imbecile watching some other folks doing it. So, overall, my attention span for it is quite limited. If in one day I watch a total of 30 minutes, I am done. I might do that for a few days in a row and not look at any again for a month.

Also, I tend to do it as a distraction. I work online. I spent years working in an office, wearing "office attire" or more formal garb for certain aspects of my work. No more. Now my office is at home. As I am doing now, I am taking a break from work, as a diversion. This time, it's on WH. Tomorrow I might take a break and watch porn for 10 minutes. I am sitting here at the computer anyway. I am never engaged in doing something away from my desk and computer when the thought comes over me "Gee, I feel like watching some porn", prompting me to go to my desk and watch. That just does not happen. As I say, it's a break form working and, if I give it much thought, it's probably going to occur when I am at some difficult point in my work and I am avoiding pressing on with a difficult task. It's like not wanting to deal with that "alligator file" sitting over there on the credenza. Easier to click on porn for a few minutes. But I take such breaks every day. They do not all involve watching porn. They might be just surfing the net in general. Researching a tool I want to buy. Attending to some online banking. Checking out how much my 401K is getting hammered, etc. The web offers lots of competition for porn as a way of wasting time. That's why I really cannot imagine paying to watch. If I am going to pay, I had better be prepared to watch all day, to feel I am getting my money's worth.

OK, time to sign off WH and go watch some porn.

[rcoreyus]

I don't want to attack all of faluna's points. She does have a very valid point that appearance of women in porn may reinforce a variety of negative stereotypes. An sexually experienced, and generally knowledgeable person watching porn will recognize that much of it is pure fantasy, and that it doesn't represent most people's sexuality (though anyone who does enjoy porn-style sex with their partner is certainly welcome to do so). Someone with less experience and knowledge may use porn as an example to try to pressure their partner into doing things they really don't want.

Its also possible that the image of women as pure sex-objects in porn will influence people into believing that this is true for real life as well. This is the fault of the VIEWER, not really the fault of the porn, but it may be a real effect. Of course similar arguments can be made for movies that show violence or otherwise give unrealistic portrayals of life. (I'm tempted to ban all movies of scientists since they almost always give a completely unrealistic image of what doing science is like and that can cause students to make the unfortunate career choice of becoming scientists).

If we start banning all entertainment that may badly influence people, I think we lose a lot of things that many people do enjoy. I don't want entertainment to sink to the lowest common denominator that will not offend or misguide anyone.

[effy2014]

I don't want to attack all of faluna's points. She does have a very valid point that appearance of women in porn may reinforce a variety of negative stereotypes. An sexually experienced, and generally knowledgeable person watching porn will recognize that much of it is pure fantasy, and that it doesn't represent most people's sexuality (though anyone who does enjoy porn-style sex with their partner is certainly welcome to do so). Someone with less experience and knowledge may use porn as an example to try to pressure their partner into doing things they really don't want.

Its also possible that the image of women as pure sex-objects in porn will influence people into believing that this is true for real life as well. This is the fault of the VIEWER, not really the fault of the porn, but it may be a real effect. Of course similar arguments can be made for movies that show violence or otherwise give unrealistic portrayals of life. (I'm tempted to ban all movies of scientists since they almost always give a completely unrealistic image of what doing science is like and that can cause students to make the unfortunate career choice of becoming scientists).

If we start banning all entertainment that may badly influence people, I think we lose a lot of things that many people do enjoy. I don't want entertainment to sink to the lowest common denominator that will not offend or misguide anyone.

Great points Corey. I dislike video games like Grand Theft Auto way more than porn. But it's really up to the gamer or viewer to keep things in perspective. My issue with faeluna is more that she cannot conceive of an opposite viewpoint (reminds me of Vizzini in my favorite movie, Princess Bride ... he continually uses inconceivable to describe things that have already occurred to which he cohort finally says "I do not think that word means what you think it does ....").

As for your "disdain" of scientists, my son wants to be a particle physicist. Should I be concerned?

[rcoreyus]

(way way way off topic for a moment) Effy, Dang. Sometimes I hate anonymity because I'd like to communicate with your son, but can't. I think experimental particle physics is a dying field - the accelerators are just too expensive. LHC hasn't seen supersymmetry so the motivation to spend >$10B on a new machine is limited. Without experimental data, the particle theorists are largely running around in circles. There is always a chance of a resurgence but its a bit of a long shot.

Astrophysics is doing very well right now, but that might level off as well.

You can PM me for more discussion if you want.

[effy2014]

(way way way off topic for a moment) Effy, Dang. Sometimes I hate anonymity because I'd like to communicate with your son, but can't. I think experimental particle physics is a dying field - the accelerators are just too expensive. LHC hasn't seen supersymmetry so the motivation to spend >$10B on a new machine is limited. Without experimental data, the particle theorists are largely running around in circles. There is always a chance of a resurgence but its a bit of a long shot.

Astrophysics is doing very well right now, but that might level off as well.

You can PM me for more discussion if you want.

Thanks. All advice is welcome. I will.