Thoughts on pornography...?

Coming from my past exeriences I hate the porn industry. As a child I was in what I can only describe as an amateur child porn ring. It was small town, and privately shot videos shared among "friends", but I still don't know where any of those videos or pictures are. They could be plastered all over the internet for all I know.

Because of my past I have a hatred for the entire porn industry. Do I think everyone who watches porn is bad? No. But I don't like it, and would never want to watch it or be around someone who is watching it.

I don't however have problems with tasteful nudity or sexual inuendo in movies, tv, etc. I think the country I live in has made the human body out to be something that is bad and wrong, and I don't think that is right. I think that making sex and nudity out to be something that is bad kind of helps the porn industry in a way. It is bad so it is exciting for people to watch.

This is a really hard subject for me to enter, but I kind of wanted to chime in.

I also read recently that Australia is considering banning porn and alcohol from the Aborigine communities. I haven't really researched this topic at all yet, but apparently they think that banning porn and alcohol will help stop the rampant child sexual abuse that is present.

Heres an article that talks about.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc....ap/index.html

touching post, Gemstone. could put a different tone to the discussion. love, pat

I don't particularly like it, usually actually find it kinda silly. I have no problem about other people, even my bf, watching it, but if I have kids, I wouldn't let it come into the house...

I don't think a tv show or a game can ever make anyone do bad stuff to people by itself, however it can certainly suggest ideas and expand tendencies existing in the people....

And there's no doubt people are exploited making it..... I think that's why, on the very rare occaisons my bf gets it, he gets the "big name" movies where the actors (supposedly at least) choose who thet work with and what they do...

> I also read recently that Australia is considering banning porn and alcohol from the Aborigine communities. I haven't really researched this topic at all yet, but apparently they think that banning porn and alcohol will help stop the rampant child sexual abuse that is present.

yeah...

don't get me wrong, i do have a problem with pornography and alchohol abuse and also with sexual abuse but...

i don't agree with their being different (more restrictive) laws in aboriginal communities than in the rest of australia.

in particular... if those people were given comperable quality of education, employment opportunities, and the right to report crimes and have the police follow up on the reports and actually take action to convict people for offenses i think that would be more likely to turn things around.

at present the educational system for them sucks.
the job prospects for them in their community sucks.
the police presence sucks. crimes often go unreported because the police don't convict offenders. instead... people take things into their own hands (tit for tat, basically).
the aborigine people have suffered many years of racism and hostility.
their suffering has been ignored.
the harms that have been done to them by settlers (both intentional harm and unintentional harm) has been ignored.

the government offers them stuff with strings attached (we will give you xxx amount of dollars in exchange for you signing your land over to us etc etc) and when they reject the governments claim people say things like 'they don't want our handouts' and 'we tried to help them but they wouldn't accept it' to excuse themselves from responsibility.

the aborigine people have very little rights in australia (some communities have more restrictive laws than the rest of australia). the aboriginie people have little imput from the government with respect to health, education, welfare, employment opportunities. the government leaves them to fend for themselves then all of a sudden gets indignant at what they are up to and threatens to take things away from them that are considered human rights in other states (e.g., the right to welfare and the right to watch pornography).

but then i'm a kiwi...

we have the treaty of waitangi (treaty between european settlers and the maori indigenous people) as our founding document. we are considered the world leaders in indigenous relations. i don't mean to gloat with that... one looks at the situation in new zealand... all the problems that we are having with indigenous relations and one thinks 'holy hell we are supposed to be the best in the world with this? look at all the problems that we are having!' but i guess the point is... the treaty of waitangi means that we have a legally binding obligation to try and put things right. we have a legally binding obligation to try. the aborigine... their suffering is ignored for the most part and the attempts to try and put things right... come with strings which would be considered human rights violations / unfair bargains except for the fact that... they are offered to the aborigine...

sigh.

I think I agree with you alex. It seems racist to ban it for the aborigines only. It seems if there was a ban it should really apply to everyone, and I don't think that is feasible.

I really know very little about the aborigine culture. I have only read a few things about it, and they were mostly relating to the child abuse problem.

It seems there would be other ways to solve the issues they have.

I do admit I don't like the idea of welfare money being used for alcohol and porn (in Austrailia or any other country), but I don't really know how you could get around people using the money for those things. I think it is a good idea to tie welfare payments to children's school attendance. It seems like education could help at least the future generations.

Thanks Pat.

I guess everyone would have a different perspective on this issue based on past experiences. I guess my perspective would be a lot different than most.

i sure had a "start" when i read about Australia..........just the aborigines? i guess the others don't need any help...

education, healthcare, etc. would go a long way towards improving the lot of the aborigines........

> Australia has one of the most inclusive and affordable health systems in the world. However, the health status of and access to primary health care services by Australia's Indigenous people remains worse than any other sector of Australian society.

So it isn't about singling them out for 'special favours' its about providing them access to services that the rest of Australians have access to.

> For example, in 2001 93 per cent of discrete Indigenous communities had access to electricity compared to 89 per cent of those communities in 1999. In addition, there was a decrease in overflows or leakages from sewerage systems between 1999 (59% of communities with a population of 50 or more) and 2001 (48%). In 2001, 5% of the usual population of discrete Indigenous communities were living in temporary dwellings. This is a decrease from 7% in 1999.

> Nevertheless, the Australian Government acknowledges that there is still much to be done. In many remote and rural indigenous communities housing and related infrastructure are grossly inadequate.

They certainly aren't conditions that non-indigenous people live in in Australia. Not singling them out for special treatment, once more, just trying to advocate that they get their basic needs met similarly to how other Australians are getting their basic needs met.

(reference
http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/indg_education.html

> Also, leaders of the Mutitjulu community in central Australia say there is no need for military occupation. In a statement, the community says the Howard Government declared an emergency at the local health clinic more than two years ago. It says since then, Mutitjulu has been without a doctor, has had health and youth programs cut and the council has been sacked.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...25/1961522.htm

And so they talk of sending in the military and police to deal with sexual abuse in a place where there is no doctor and where there have been cut-backs to health and youth programs. Banning alchohol and pornography has got to cost the Howard government less than providing doctors etc to be sure...

> The Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre's legal advisor, Michael Mansell, wants the Prime Minister to re-think his response to problems in the Northern Territory. He says by calling in additional police and military personnel John Howard has portrayed Aboriginal people in the Territory as evil. Mr Mansell says the decision is likely to do more harm than good.

> "I can see the old stolen generations behaviour all over again, where Aboriginal people are going to run into the bush with their children to hide them away from these authorities coming in in Landrovers and a whole stream of cars," Mr Mansell said.

[Has anybody seen the movie "rabbit proof fence"? It is a very realistic portrayal of the above situation where children who they thought could pass as 'white' were taken from their parents and placed in orphanages because it was thought they would be better off being raised as unwanted white citizens than with their families. This situation HAS NOT BEEN FORGOTTEN by people who stay well away from the life of the cities]

> "People are just going to be in fear of the very people John Howard's sending in to save them." Meanwhile, Tasmania's Community Development Minister Michelle O'Byrne says there has not been any discussion with states about the plan and she is not convinced it will address health and education concerns.

> But Liberal Senator Richard Colbeck says the Commonwealth has acted swiftly and taken the lead on the issue and the states should be offering help with resources and not bickering about the level of consultation. "My concern would be that the whole thing would have been watered down," Senator Colebeck said. "We would have spent weeks or months talking about what should be happening and it's not just about law and order," he said.

> "It's about attendance at school, it's about health checks for children, it's about removal of pornography from those communities, it's about dealing with the alcohol problems.''

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...25/1961108.htm

> The Australian General Practice Network (AGPN) says the Government has to be careful it does not create another Stolen Generation as a controversial crackdown on Aboriginal child abuse gets underway in the Northern Territory.

> Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough is meeting senior government bureaucrats in Sydney today to discuss how to implement the Government's reforms, which include compulsory health checks for all Aboriginal children.

> AGPN spokesman Tony Hobbs says the Commonwealth faces a challenge trying to get health professionals for its plan and will need to deploy doctors with an understanding of Indigenous culture.

> Dr Hobbs says the Government must avoid creating another Stolen Generation, and warns that preventing abuse involves a broad range of factors. "There are very broad socio-economic factors at work here," he said.

> "Certainly housing, access to fresh water, access to a variety of fresh foodstuffs, employment - all those [are] really important things which are important in determining social and health outcomes."

> Prime Minister John Howard's reforms also include the banning of pornography, conditional welfare payments, a ban on alcohol and the end of the permit system for entry into local communities.

BTW there is an election coming up. sceptics would say that this is a tactic to win Howard votes...

And... (In order to make the link between this and the topic of the thread explicit)...

What I'm considering here is that instead of the relationship between pornography and sexual abuse being one of relatively straightforward causation (in aboriginal populations at any rate) it might be more that factors like poverty, lack of health care, lack of education, living in places with sewerage run-off and possibly no electricity, not having police in the area to report crimes to, not having employment prospects etc etc etc... all jointly contribute towards social ills like sexual abuse AND viewing pornography AND alchoholism etc etc etc.

(though i guess i'm begging the question with respect to whether porn is indicative of a sickness at the social level)

i didn't mean they were receiving special favors. i was being sarcastic about them not receiving the help they obviously need. xoxo

i compare their dilemna to the plight of the Native American tribes. the poorer ones don't have phones, water or electricity yet. i have many friends that i cannot phone. diabetes, HIV, abuse of children and women.....it's all here.

Wow! Quite the thread! I didn't read all of it, but I think I remember the original question....

So what do I think about porn? I have to say: I'm not particularly offended by it. I would agree that a lot of it is degrading to the participants, but I also think some or them are choosing to participate in it because they view bodies and sexuality differently than I do. And some of them no doubt got that from abusive pasts. Others may have chosen that route for money or because they might consider it easier/faster than going to school for years and years to build a career -- I don't respect those kinds of choices, but I suppose it's their right.

I don't watch porn myself, but one of my ex-boyfriends really liked it. It never bothered me that he watched pornography. I would have been bothered if I thought the participants were unwilling, but they were just typical porn stars (not sure what led them to choose that lifestyle, but they had chosen it). I would certainly have kept it away from children if there had been any children present.

And now that I've said that I don't like to watch porn, I should mention that I do like to read pornographic stories sometimes. Curious how people view those who write porn stories?

But on the subject of viewing: I have sometimes enjoyed being photographed during sex or foreplay and have liked looking at those pictures afterward. And, although I've never shared any of them with anyone other than my lover at the time, I have occasionally thought about posting one of them on the Web on a site that would want them. They aren't particularly graphic (probably more erotic than pornographic but sometimes a bit of nudity), but some part of me enjoys the thought of an unknown person out there looking at me solely as an object and becoming aroused. I guess occasionally I like being seen as a sexual object. Not all the time of course, but sometimes it feels good to be seen as an object of desire. Other times I want to be seen as a person and not an object. Maybe I have a little bit of exhibitionist tendencies, I don't know. But the fact that I sometimes think I want to do something like that (posting on the Web) leads me to think that some people in the porn industry might like what they're doing (it's not an impossible stretch for me).

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Hope not to offend...
Sidony

I didn't read the whole thread either, but I caught a couple of posts, and I just want to say a few things before adding my own opinions:

The actual definition of pornography is offensive sexually explicit and obscene material. Obviously, everyone has a different opinion of what constitutes obscene. We often use "porn" to define almost all sexually explicit material, but that's not its actual definition, unless all sexually explicit material offends you.

Someone said men in porn couldn't possibly have penises as big as they appear, but they do. One source says the largest penis was 13.5 inches long and 6.25 inches around (documented in the early 1900's by Dr. Robert L. Dickinson). There are some very large men out there, but obviously, they aren't the norm!

"Soft core" porn is simply porn that is less graphic. It doesn't mean it has romance or love in it, although it may. You generally don't see a woman's vulva in detail (except for the triangle) or the man's penis. Additionally, the actors are generally faking the sex, just like in mainstream Hollywood movies. Mind you, I'm not saying that's always the case. You do not see semen when the man comes. In "hard core" porn, you see everything! The penis going in and out whatever it's going in and out of, the whole vulva, vagina, clitoral area, etc. You do see semen when the man comes.

I don't think there's anything wrong with enjoying sexually explicit material, and while some people cite studies that show it to to cause rape and sexual crimes, other studies show just the opposite.

This doesn't mean I think all sexual material is equal. I've seen women (and men) doing vile things in porn. Many do it for the money. Sadly (in terms of careers, if you will), female porn stars have about two years of "stardom," whereas men have many more years.

Many men and boys don't understand that many women are doing this for money and to please men. I've heard teenage boys on talk shows speak about girls who do those "rainbow parties" and "chicken parties" as if the girls are freely choosing to do them without low self-esteem. The boys say the girls want to do it, but I've heard many girls admit they do it to keep a guy or to get one's attention. The same is true of porn...many men think women in the industry enjoy sex in however they portray it. Most women fake it.

I worked in the sex industry for a brief time, as a peep show girl. I had some very nice guys come to my booth, but there were also sleazeballs. I remember one guy who came to my door, which had a window, and stuck his tongue out in a sleazy manner, as if that would turn me on. Please! But guys like that think you're all about skipping foreplay, jumping into bed and you're "ready for action" all the time.

Many people don't know it, but a lot of "big business" companies that put out products and services having nothing to do with porn, actually own other companies that put out porn.

Some relationships come apart because of porn, some find more intimacy. A lot has to do with partners' attitudes and respect of the other. If a man spends all his time with porn and never gives his wife attention, or expects her to do things the porn actress probably isn't even into in her "real" life, that will harm the relationship. But if a couple watch together and mutually agree to explore and also agree not to go farther than the other wants, it can be very helpful.

I am obviously against child porn, but also bestiality, because, like children, animals can't consent, and I consider it abusive.

There are women for whom working in the sex industry is a positive thing, but from what I've seen, far more find it a negative thing. Still, I believe, in a country of freedom, we have to be free to make choices, even if they are wrong for us and stem from a bad past.

heyjoe, I'm glad you spoke up. I saw the ladies on The View yesterday talking about cheating, and except for Elisabeth (who it amazes me that I agree with her often), they felt the woman is more culpable than the man...yet in watching State of Mind, one character said the man is more culpable. It really pisses me off, because, I don't care if the female was very young and naive, and the man is letting his "little head" make decisions for him, I believe both are equally responsible. Joy Behar said men "are idiots" and thinks they should be let off responsibility for cheating (or have less) because of that. First, men are not idiots (any more than women), and they are just as culpable as women when they cheat. I'm not man-bashing, but saying men and women are equal. Not all men treat women like crap, not all men view porn (and not all who do are bad), and it's sad that so many women have such a negative view of men (and vice versa, for that matter).

One person's experience is not another's.

I also agree with Jeremiah, that porn doesn't make someone do something. People are responsible for their own actions. There are people that have done heinous things because of The Bible. Anything can be an influence, for better or for worse.

I believe that much of the varying kinks and oddities in porn are caused by sexual repression and oppression, much of that caused by religion.

heyjoe mentioned how some parents let their young daughters dress. I agree, it's crazy. I mean, little girls want to buy these really tiny skirts and flimsy tops, and some parents will go ahead and buy them! In some cases, it's not the parents...I've heard of girls getting clothes from friends as well. Some girls even have their own money and buy them. If it were me, once I found out my kid was wearing such clothes, I'd be examining her room and keeping an eye on her friends as much as possible, and if I found those clothes in her possession, I'd take them, shred them and toss them out. If she wants to buy those clothes and lose all that money, fine!

On a side note...I have a problem with terms like "slutty," because men don't get those terms thrown at them, or if they do, they wear them proudly, and aren't treated the way girls are with that label. I don't think there's anything wrong with enjoying sex, but if you're going to call a girl slutty, there should be an equally insulting term for men who do it, and they should be treated just as badly. Promiscuous women are shunned, but promiscuous men, even if criticized, are still welcome to hang out with friends.

A note on tattoos, since it's been mentioned...tattooing has been done for millenia. Men and women. I forget the name of it, but there's a culture where women have their entire face tattooed in a very painful manner, and this is considered quite beautiful.

I've seen many different kinds of porn, and I'm quite informed on the adult industry. I've never raped or committed a sexual or other assault. I've never even been in a physical fight. There is no reason I shouldn't be able to continue enjoying adult content.

As for, what if the woman I may be viewing has been a victim of sexual abuse or is doing it to raise money to care for her child, it's not my place to research every actor in a film to see if they're doing it for an "acceptable" reason or not. If they're doing it to care for their child, then my buying it gives them the money they made the film or whatever for. What if a person is doing dangerous stunt work to make money to care for a sick relative, but doesn't really want to do it? Should I not go see a Hollywood movie that involves stunts? What if someone's got a crappy job they hate to pay their college tuition? Should I not use their services or buy their products?

I don't actually watch porn much at all...I prefer erotic romances and such. I also like looking at hot, sexy, nude men (a la Playgirl and Suite Magazines), sexy men jerking off, and having sex with women (some would consider that porn, but I'm differentiating from what you see geared for men). But I believe people have a right to read and view what they want, as long as everyone involved (including the actors) are consenting adults.

Banning porn will not stop it, so that's a useless tactic, anyway.

you don't know that the actors are consenting adults.
but...
best not think about it.
it might spoil the fun.

fact is that the majority of people who act in porn have been sexually abused.

and when the majority of themes in porn involve s&m themes and older guys with (what could very well be but if we don't think about it it won't spoil our fun) underage girls or people abusing their positions of authority i don't expect it does a great deal with respect to preventing future generations of people who have mental pictures and perhaps even desires urges and actions that are consistent with material they have trained their bodies to erotically respond to.

doc john has a funny view of sexual desires where having thoughts is about as condemnable as actually performing the act.

i don't agree with that. but i do think that it is time that people take some social responsibility.

back to whether one would be happy about ones mother / daughter / wife posing in porn, i guess.

the standard def. of porn is material that is produced (made) and / or consumed for the purposes of masterbation or other kinds of erotic arousal.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
doc john has a funny view of sexual desires where having thoughts is about as condemnable as actually performing the act.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Huh? Where did he post that? Sounds more like Jimmy Carter.

em

if you have thoughts of having sex with minors then you are a pedophile apparently. doesn't matter that you may never have acted on your desires, doesn't matter that you hate yourself for having those desires, doesn't matter that you wish you didn't have those desires. Doesn't matter that pedophilia is a DSM mental disorder... people suffering from pedophilia (at the level of DESIRE and not action) simply aren't allowed to post to this site.

Check your pm's. Thanks. em

You can't always be sure people are consenting adults in any movie. Underground porn is more likely to have non-consenting parties than the big name porn.

There's nothing wrong with material solely meant for masturbation and sexual pleasure, IMO.

I'm not arguing that most women (not sure about men) in the adult industry seem to have been abused when they were younger. I don't know that (it's most) for a fact, but I've seen a lot who said they were. Again, my point is, in the USA, we still have to give people freedom, even if their decisions are detrimental to themselves. It would be too easy for people in power to determine that anyone weird, strange or unusual has a mental problem and needs to be controlled if we don't give individuals their freedom. As long as you're not hurting others or infringing on their rights, you should be free to do as you wish, IMO. But your body is yours, to do with as you please.

I wouldn't be offended or upset if my sister was in porn by her own choice. My mom's highly unlikely to be in porn because of her age, besides not wanting to be (and my sister doesn't want to be, either).

People have been sexually abused who are in mainstream movies, sometimes violent ones. Should we avoid those? To say we should determine who's been abused and who hasn't, and to avoid their movies, makes no sense to me.

I don't think that there is anything intrinsically wrong about material solely meant for masterbation and sexual pleasure either, but I do think that there is something wrong with exploitation. I am concerned about the number of people who are led into the porn industry in virtue of their having been exploited already (surveys reveal that the majority of women involved in porn were sexually exploited prior to their being involved in porn). It isn't uncommon for people to boycott products on the basis that people have been exploited in the production of the product (coffee, clothing sewn by children etc) and I think a similar thing could be going on here for people who have an aversion to porn.

Peoples bodies are indeed theirs to do with as they please - unless the activities that they wish to partake in harm others. The USA (in particular) seems to have a very limited conception of refraining from harming others. There seem to be a fair few cases where potential harm to others is fairly much completely disregarded in comparison with the rights of individuals to do as they please (thinking of the gun laws, for example). Pornography might be a similar case here.

I wonder how many women go into porn who haven't been exploited either sexually or physically or emotionally or all three. It is a fairly common phenomena for females raised in violent and abusive households to come to view violence as something that is acceptable and expectable. They often go on to become involved in relationships where their partner treats them violently and abusively. The phenomenon is called repetition compulsion. I would say that a case could be made that people who are acting on the basis of repetition compulsion aren't acting freely. Their freedom has been limited because their options have been limited. They go around repeating the trauma (or something approximating it). With the appearance of choice (I could always leave because I am an adult this time or I could always stop because I am an adult this time and I'm also being paid).

I worry about the harms of pornography on the viewer, too. Like I said, the majority of pornography involves themes like policemen and firemen and teachers and step-fathers having sex (often brutal or with themes of domination) with the people who are entrusted into their care. It might be the case that people who have fantasies about that kind of thing already (which surely is a kind of pathology) are the people who are the biggest consumers and producers of porn (that would surely account for the prevalence of the themes).

My concern is also with the viewers, however. Step-fathers (for example) who have never contemplated having sex with their step-daughters. But viewing porn with these themes does of course affect one... Get one thinking... Get one contemplating... And even more disturbingly (to my mind) train ones body to respond sexually to such situations.

I'm concerned about the effects that pornography has on young men who have pornography as a 'role model' of something to aspire to and / or mimic in their sexual encounters. I'm concerned about training men to have sexual responses to women when women are viewed as objects to dominate. I'm concerned with the conception that these men have of what women enjoy / like / desire. The majority of porn is distinctively masculine oriented and often positions are adopted for the camera rather than the pleasure of one or more of the participants. I'm concerned about the effects that pornography has on young women when they encounter such men. I'm concerned that women might come to think that there is something wrong with them because their bodies don't respond like the actors in front of the camera. I'm concerned about the social effects of pornography.

I'm concerned about the number of men who don't agree with the following:

'If a woman says 'no' at any time then one should stop'

I'm concerned about the number of men who do agree with the following:

'Once my body gets turned on to a certain point I absolutely have to ejaculate in / on the person I'm with'

I'm concerned about the number of women who answer comperably to men.

I don't have a problem with couples taping themselves or photographing themselves or whatever. I don't have a problem with couples sharing material with other couples. I do have a problem with the industry, however. I don't think that pornography is intrinsically bad in the sense that ALL of it is harmful but I do think that as a matter of empirical fact the porn industry is harmful. Not just to the people involved but to the viewers as well.

The difference between products where children, animals and poor people have been exploited and porn is that the children and animals have no say, and the poor people are forced by need. People who go into porn, unless forced--and if we can find out who is forced, we should do something about it--choose to do so, even if it's because of things that happened in their past.

I don't agree with all gun laws, but "potential harm" has to be balanced. There are some things in which you take or allow risk; other things you do not. You can't prevent all harm from happening.

You're not understanding what I mean by "choice." I have already pointed out, many of us had traumatic things happen to us that affect our choices today. In the US, we have freedom, and that's our right. Even if things that happened in our past cause us to make poor choices today, it's got to be our choice, and not someone else's. It would be far too easy for someone to deem us incapable of making a good choice because we did something they disapproved of. For instance, say I was molested, and when I grow up, I become a Goth. There are some who would say my abuse led me to becoming a Goth, and that someone should step in and prevent me from practicing that behavior. But, whether it's a good choice for me or not, I say, I have the right to decide for myself.

I have known a lot of people who view porn, who don't rape women or children. And yes, before you argue--as far as we know. But you can't prosecute someone without evidence, and to assume porn causes problems for which you have no proof, doesn't mean it does. There are studies that show both sides, and no one can say what truly is. We can only say what we believe, based on our experiences. I think, if porn affects some people negatively, they had something going on to begin with. As I said, there are a lot of people who use The Bible to justify evil acts. Should we get rid of The Bible, too?

I think sexual education is important for people to learn how their bodies are supposed to respond and how to respect each other sexually.

I'm concerned about men who won't stop if a woman says no, but I don't think it's the vast majority of men in the United States. The same goes for your concern about men who think once they're horny enough, they are entitled to sex. We need to educate people about their rights and what's normal and what isn't. But again, I think the vast majority of men in the US aren't rapists, and the vast majority of women don't agree with men being entitled to sex.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Maven said:
Even if things that happened in our past cause us to make poor choices today, it's got to be our choice, and not someone else's. It would be far too easy for someone to deem us incapable of making a good choice because we did something they disapproved of. For instance, say I was molested, and when I grow up, I become a Goth. There are some who would say my abuse led me to becoming a Goth, and that someone should step in and prevent me from practicing that behavior. But, whether it's a good choice for me or not, I say, I have the right to decide for myself.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I strongly agree!!! Though I've been trying to stay out of the debate...

Sidony

> People who go into porn, unless forced--and if we can find out who is forced, we should do something about it--choose to do so, even if it's because of things that happened in their past.

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that traumatic experiences can limit ones ability to make a choice that is free or rational or in ones best interests. That is part of what is so very tragic about people having abusive traumatic experiences.

> There are some things in which you take or allow risk; other things you do not. You can't prevent all harm from happening.

Yes, we can't prevent all harm from happening. But we can try to weigh some of the benefits and some of the harms and do what we can to minimise harms.

I know there are some people in the United States who think that minimising harm is something that they simply need not be concerned about because their focus is solely on their individual rights. I'm kind of thinking of a bumper sticker that I've seen about how the only way you can take my gun is to pry it from my cold dead hands... Never mind how many people are injured or killed as a result of 'accidents' resulting from lawfully owned firearms some people think that the harms are completely irrelevant when compared with their individual rights. Such an attitude is (I really think this is fair to say) a distinctively American phenomenon that is limited to certain people in the United States. I appreciate that not everyone embraces it and I appreciate that some people have it in some other parts of the world too but it doesn't seem to get as much air time as it does in the United States of America. If you are of that opinion in general then my thoughts here probably won't affect you greatly. For those who think that it IS important to limit peoples rights when exercising certain rights results in harms to others (where harm to others might be viewed as an infringement of others rights even) might feel a bit more sympathetic. E.g., If you have a right to carry a firearm and I have a right to not be shot then if a significant number of people are shot due to firearms that are lawfully carried then when do you start to say that peoples right to not be shot takes priority such that peoples right to carry a firearm needs to be limited???? The debate is typically not couched in those terms... But people have a right (over-ridable to be sure) not to be harmed. And people have a right (over-ridable to be sure) to do what they choose. But sometimes peoples ability to choose is limited. And sometimes the consequences of their choice (when their choice harms themself or someone else) gives society grounds to over-ride their choice.

> In the US, we have freedom, and that's our right.

But it isn't unlimited. You don't have the freedom to yell 'bomb' on the plane or 'fire' in the movie theatre. You don't have the freedom to have sexual relations with minors. Why not? Because it harms them? Every single one? The majority?

> Even if things that happened in our past cause us to make poor choices today, it's got to be our choice, and not someone else's.

That depends on whether your choice harms others.

I don't see how being a Goth harms others.

> I have known a lot of people who view porn, who don't rape women or children.

Rape is one kind of harm. There are other kinds of harm too, however. Back to training ones body to respond sexually to themes of domination and submission... To respond sexually to treating a woman as a blow up doll who you can arrange the limbs and position of and do as you please...

> I think sexual education is important for people to learn how their bodies are supposed to respond and how to respect each other sexually.

I agree. But current sexual education programs consist in promoting abstenence and saying that condoms are porous. Porn kind of picks up where the public education programs leave off...

> I'm concerned about men who won't stop if a woman says no, but I don't think it's the vast majority of men in the United States.

The majority of men who were surveyed stated that they didn't believe that they should have to stop if a woman says no. The surveys have been conducted in the United States of America and also in Australia. When I was living in New Zealand we had poster advertising in pubs and around campus directly attempting to counter those prevalent belifs.

How much does porn model safe sex? I've never seen a condom being used in pornography... How many women say 'no no no no no no yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees' acting in front of the camera in pornography? how many (actors) enact enjoyment of rape?????

IMHO even if people freely choose to manufacture such material the existence of it harms individuals who consume it (leaving aside the harm of people involved in manufacture). Every single individual who consumes it? No, not every single one. One needs to weigh the costs and benefits... But personally... I find it hard to see how getting ones rocks off compares with the social attitudes that the material condones.

(interesting discussion btw)

:-)