# People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.



## BrockLanders

*People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Porn is not used, it's watched. Stop using verbs that don't portray the way it is. It's disingenuous, seriously.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## aribabe

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Porn is most certainly used.
What is the purpose of watching it if you're not going to use it?

Do you just turn some porn on and grab a tub of popcorn so you can watch it?
Or do you grab some lube and "use it" to help you get off?

I'm not even against porn, and I use it myself.

But the claim that millions of men are merely watching porn, and not using it, is silly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Brock...women are NEVER going to be 'okay' with something that they think threatens their sexual monopoly or relationship. (Granted, some of them do a very good job of threatening their relationship themselves...)

So they will use whatever verbs they want. Personally, I think porn is much more dangerous than the average man portrays it...but less than the average female portrays it.

Granted, when they think it's the emotional equivalent of cancer, it's not hard to be less dangerous...


----------



## AnnieAsh

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

It is a masturbation aid. Aids are used. Therefore porn is used.


----------



## EleGirl

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



aribabe said:


> Porn is most certainly used.
> What is the purpose of watching it if you're not going to use it?
> 
> Do you just turn some porn on and grab a tub of popcorn so you can watch it?
> Or do you grab some lube and "use it" to help you get off?
> 
> I'm not even against porn, and I use it myself.
> 
> But the claim that millions of men are merely watching porn, and not using it, is silly.


:iagree:


----------



## EleGirl

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



AnnieAsh said:


> It is a masturbation aid. Aids are used. Therefore porn is used.


:iagree:


----------



## Wiserforit

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

The term "use" is a pejorative that alcohol and cigarette hypocrites like to hurl at other recreational drug advocates.

Alcohol and cigarettes are legal so people "use" illegal drugs but they only "drink" alcohol or "smoke" cigarettes. 

It is a simple affair for people who want to be disengenuos about porn to adopt the whole "drug use" terminology and framing. 

Once someone adopts this kind of manipulative framing then just forget about having honest discourse with them. If they can't even acknowledge something this obvious then forget about it.


----------



## AnnieAsh

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

*blink blink* 

I didn't realize people gave that much thought to using/watching/utilizing porn. Sheesh.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

There are two things about this.

First, the men are defensive. Porn feels good. They realize it, like cigarettes, probably isn't that great for them, but they honestly don't want to put it down. It is also personal. 


BUT SECOND...women really do characterize any man who sees a nipple as the equivalent of a pedophile, pervert, sleaze monkey in a way to try to shame them out of it. This is blatantly unfair and overreaching, i.e. the men have REASON to be defensive.


----------



## Wiserforit

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



AnnieAsh said:


> *blink blink*
> 
> I didn't realize people gave that much thought to using/watching/utilizing porn. Sheesh.


None are so hypocritical as those who take the time to post in a thread, expressing contempt for those posting in the thread.


----------



## Holland

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> There are two things about this.
> 
> First, the men are defensive. Porn feels good. They realize it, like cigarettes, probably isn't that great for them, but they honestly don't want to put it down. It is also personal.
> 
> 
> *BUT SECOND...women really do characterize any man who sees a nipple as the equivalent of a pedophile, pervert, sleaze monkey in a way to try to shame them out of it. This is blatantly unfair and overreaching, i.e. the men have REASON to be defensive.*


Bull****. Maybe in your world though which is sad for you.


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Well, then no one watches action or drama films, or reads any books... They are an aid to ponder a theme via aesthetic communication through the design of moving pictures or text that capture the development of conflict by way of plot and the exposition of environment by way of character and setting amid other devices... Pondering themes and motifs assists the viewer or reader in escaping from their own life momentarily and in returning with a fresher understanding of some important question or mystery. Since aids are used, all fictional books and movies are used.

Hammers and nails are used too.

It seems that all great tools are used.

Brb, going to use some porn, and I just used my phone to type all this.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Double post


----------



## Starstarfish

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

_Watch (verb): to look at or observe closely or attentively 
_
_Use (verb): to employ for some purpose; put into service; make use of_

I mean - porn generally is utilized for a purpose beyond pure observation, and thus it is "employed for a purpose" AKA used. The verb "use" doesn't in and of itself have this kind of deep, accusatory meaning that's being gleaned from it.


----------



## RandomDude

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

?
:scratchhead:

I watch porn, I use porn, I utilise porn
I do all these things, and I do so shamelessly

I don't understand this thread


----------



## AnnieAsh

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Wiserforit said:


> None are so hypocritical as those who take the time to post in a thread, expressing contempt for those posting in the thread.


You made me giggle! Thanks!


----------



## FormerSelf

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I suppose porn whether being described as used or watched depends on the context. "Using" denotes dependence, a coping mechanism...typically resultant of a triggering stressor or association...where the consumption of porn has a sedative effect to help ease pain. Porn dependence usually is symptomatic of increase in use over time as well as ramping up the intensity of dosage, re-prioritization of life and responsibilities, risky behavior that would negatively effect marital trust or job security. Also sexual media hits the centers of the brain with a euphoric potency...that if one was susceptible to addiction...it is very hard to kick.
It seems the OP is particularly addressing possible moralizing or judgment against utilizing porn...and it is his right to do so. But people can and often do become dependent on porn...using it as an addict with drugs, or booze, or food, or spending, or stealing...whatever addictive trait triggers the euphoria that sends them to want to repeat said behavior to receive more of the said euphoric reward.
I'd rather hear people say, "I want my porn, so don't ask me to give it up.'


----------



## FormerSelf

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Daggon double-post!!


----------



## Lon

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

It is possible to watch porn without using it as a masturbation aid. I have done that somewhat often in fact. The mainstream stuff I find boring but a few seconds of it usually can do the trick if I have a personal goal in mind and want to get there fast... when I find the more "erotica" type stuff or stuff I get more aesthetic enjoyment of I will just watch.


----------



## BrockLanders

RandomDude said:


> ?
> :scratchhead:
> 
> I watch porn, I use porn, I utilise porn
> I do all these things, and I do so shamelessly
> 
> I don't understand this thread


Don't be intellectually dishonest, you know what I mean. Until recently no one would speak of "using" porn. One would say he watched porn. Recently there's been a trend to say one uses porn, seemingly to apply a stigma to it. Does anyone here use television or the I I terbet?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## mablenc

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

You are using it if you do anthing other than watching. It satisfies a sexual need, meaning you use it to get a sexual release. I don't get why you feel that the word using is used to shame a man or anyone. I also think the word use is proper because if you can get an addiction, you would have to use something not just watch it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



aribabe said:


> Porn is most certainly used.
> What is the purpose of watching it if you're not going to use it?
> 
> Do you just turn some porn on and grab a tub of popcorn so you can watch it?
> Or do you grab some lube and "use it" to help you get off?
> 
> I'm not even against porn, and I use it myself.
> 
> But the claim that millions of men are merely watching porn, and not using it, is silly.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That would be like claiming a vibrator is just a muscle massaging machine. LOL I couldn't resist. I remember them being advertised as something like that at one time.


----------



## Starstarfish

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Sometimes they still are ... "personal massager."


----------



## 2ntnuf

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Starstarfish said:


> Sometimes they still are ... "personal massager."


:lol: Sure they are. :rofl:


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



BrockLanders said:


> Don't be intellectually dishonest, you know what I mean. Until recently no one would speak of "using" porn. One would say he watched porn. Recently there's been a trend to say one uses porn, seemingly to apply a stigma to it. Does anyone here use television or the Internet?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



SO why do you have this stigma about your porn use? You brought it up ...

Don't tell me you don't "use" porn. No one else is trying to shame you, you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself.

To come hear and try to advance the notion that you are not USING porn is pretty weak, don't you think?

If you look at porn for any of these reasons you are USING porn.

1) I'm bored.
2) I want to see something arousing.
3) I'm horny.
4) I'm procrastinating.
5) I had a fight with the wife.
6) I'm lonely.
7) I don't feel well.
8) My balls ache.
9) I __________Fill in the blank


Start being honest with yourself. No one "watches" porn for the entertainment value. I certainly don't think of porn and wonder about the plot lines, the suspense, and the ending. In fact I know the ending even before I start using it.


----------



## BrockLanders

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> SO why do you have this stigma about your porn use? You brought it up ...
> 
> Don't tell me you don't "use" porn. No one else is trying to shame you, you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself.
> 
> To come hear and try to advance the notion that you are not USING porn is pretty weak, don't you think?
> 
> If you look at porn for any of these reasons you are USING porn.
> 
> 1) I'm bored.
> 2) I want to see something arousing.
> 3) I'm horny.
> 4) I'm procrastinating.
> 5) I had a fight with the wife.
> 6) I'm lonely.
> 7) I don't feel well.
> 8) My balls ache.
> 9) I __________Fill in the blank
> 
> 
> Start being honest with yourself. No one "watches" porn for the entertainment value. I certainly don't think of porn and wonder about the plot lines, the suspense, and the ending. In fact I know the ending even before I start using it.


Do you "use" food?


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I don't use food food, but some people do.

C'mon, food is a necessity.

Would you die if you didn't "watch" porn?

I think you are the one who is being intellectually dishonest.

You want me to make it alright for you to "use" porn, but I am not going to. To try to advance the idea that you are only "watching" it is a huge illusion with mirrors... I'm not buying it.


----------



## Starstarfish

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Food has its own verb - eat. But even still you can substitute that with others - consume, devour, gobble, masticate, ruminate, munch, chew, chomp. Obviously some have slightly different connotations than others. 

If you'd like to be "pro-porn" and promote a different verb, why not use...hmm "enjoy." "I'm going to enjoy some porn."

But - "watch" isn't the most accurate choice, as many people here have pointed out. Watch has its own implications as there's no interaction with the viewed material. Which - perhaps if you are one of the rare people who simply sit and watch porn, OP - perhaps that's the appropriate word choice for you, but for most it isn't going to be. 

If you want to try and end porn shaming, focusing on the verb people use to describe the utilization of porn is the wrong way to go about it, and in that sense, I'm serious doubting if this thread is for real.


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I use a work out dvd to work out, I use porn to get off.


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



BrockLanders said:


> Do you "use" food?


No I eat it, I don't eat porn though


----------



## BrockLanders

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Starstarfish said:


> Food has its own verb - eat. But even still you can substitute that with others - consume, devour, gobble, masticate, ruminate, munch, chew, chomp. Obviously some have slightly different connotations than others.
> 
> If you'd like to be "pro-porn" and promote a different verb, why not use...hmm "enjoy." "I'm going to enjoy some porn."
> 
> But - "watch" isn't the most accurate choice, as many people here have pointed out. Watch has its own implications as there's no interaction with the viewed material. Which - perhaps if you are one of the rare people who simply sit and watch porn, OP - perhaps that's the appropriate word choice for you, but for most it isn't going to be.
> 
> If you want to try and end porn shaming, focusing on the verb people use to describe the utilization of porn is the wrong way to go about it, and in that sense, I'm serious doubting if this thread is for real.


My point is that this action is disingenuous in that it alters common parlance for no reason other than to portray porn negatively. I've never once heard someone in real life speak of using porn. I can understand criticism to porn in general, there are plenty of points one can make in favor of that view without resorting to inventing language that just poisons the well in the argument.


----------



## Starstarfish

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

There would be one way of hiding it, edible porn. Hmm, I see a market for this.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I think the whole point of this thread is wrong. 

I don't think that those who employ the verb "to use" porn are trying to shame anyone. I think they are just being honest about the porn.

I laugh at the idea that anyone "watches" porn. When I read the newspaper and I see the advertisements for all the food at the grocery market I know I am still going to be hungry, and my stomach is still going to hurt after I put the paper down. I've never tried actually eating the paper. I don't think it would taste good. Nor have I ever preferred reading the paper over having an actual meal.

Just be honest if you are going to post here. You are using porn. I think that saying "I use porn" is at least honest.


----------



## BrockLanders

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I think the whole point of this thread is wrong.
> 
> I don't think that those who employ the verb "to use" porn are trying to shame anyone. I think they are just being honest about the porn.
> 
> I laugh at the idea that anyone "watches" porn. When I read the newspaper and I see the advertisements for all the food at the grocery market I know I am still going to be hungry, and my stomach is still going to hurt after I put the paper down. I've never tried actually eating the paper. I don't think it would taste good. Nor have I ever preferred reading the paper over having an actual meal.
> 
> Just be honest if you are going to post here. You are using porn. I think that saying "I use porn" is at least honest.


Were you using that newspaper? It was a medium from which you consumed the information contained in it. See what I did there?


----------



## 2ntnuf

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

To take that example even further, when men and women are having sex, what are they trying to achieve? What are they getting out of it? Are they using their actions to orgasm? Can we then conclude that we are using each other to achieve something? We eat to survive. We read to learn or for enjoyment. Yes we enjoy doing these things with the right partner or foods or our favorite author. Are we using them to achieve an orgasm, nourishment, education or pleasure?

I think we are. If we can find a person who is wealthy, powerful, sexy, satisfying and comforting, we marry them. Aren't we using them to get what we need? I think we use things and people all the time. When we do not feel like we are using or being used is when we are enjoying ourselves or achieving our goals. When the two people in a relationship are happy, "using" doesn't enter their minds. That doesn't mean it isn't happening. I think it's "point of view" or "perception".


----------



## unbelievable

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

So, if one expects to receive some benefit or reward from an action, they are "using" it. That must mean wives use their husbands because essentially all wives expect and the overwhelming majority receive some form of tangible benefit from being married. Though few could deny the logic, most would object to the term.


----------



## 2ntnuf

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I think it goes both ways, unbelievable. We use our language, actions and the objects to fulfill some need.

Edit: I replaced my original word "achieve" with "fulfill".


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



unbelievable said:


> So, if one expects to receive some benefit or reward from an action, they are "using" it. That must mean wives use their husbands because essentially all wives expect and the overwhelming majority receive some form of tangible benefit from being married. Though few could deny the logic, most would object to the term.


I guess that's pretty true husbands and wives wives use each other for tangible benifits.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Holland said:


> Bull****. Maybe in your world though which is sad for you.


I have seen many women who characterize men I knew, GOOD men, who used ANY porn as 'addicts'.

Addicts...huh. Annie's hubby is an addict. A man whose porn consumption is > 0 is not an addict.

Your experience may vary though one would think that you might actually have this little thing called manners when you respond.

I have read several of the posts of women TAM members re porn use (and I don't quibble about the verb) and while circumspect in their language, their disgust and indignation shines through. And they have had sharp words for the users though they use more 'sorrow than anger' terminology.

I don't blame them since it is in their interest to inhibit such practices, but let's call a spade a spade. They don't like it and are happy to condemn it...and use whatever current fashion whether religion, feminism, or basic human rights to do so.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I would like to point out that this recurring conversation on TAM continues to be woefully outdated.

Women, especially in the United States, likewise consume porn (written and visual) at a voracious rate.

If you want to draw a line in the sand between the sexes, if you feel you truly must, the question then needs to be "why are so many women accusing men of "using" porn while not acknowledging that they, or many of the women they know, are doing the same thing". 

Perhaps the penchant for women to wag their fingers at men for "use" would diminish more if women collectively were encouraged to be honest about their own substantial "use"?


----------



## BrockLanders

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> I would like to point out that this recurring conversation on TAM continues to be woefully outdated.
> 
> Women, especially in the United States, likewise consume porn (written and visual) at a voracious rate.
> 
> If you want to draw a line in the sand between the sexes, if you feel you truly must, the question then needs to be "why are so many women accusing men of "using" porn while not acknowledging that they, or many of the women they know, are doing the same thing".
> 
> Perhaps the penchant for women to wag their fingers at men for "use" would diminish more if women collectively were encouraged to be honest about their own substantial "use"?


Interesting thoughts. Are trashy romance novels read or used?


----------



## unbelievable

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

A wife is authorized to not like some things her husband does and a husband is authorized to not approve of everything his wife does. Nobody is laying awake at night worrying about what I like or don't like. Porn isn't my thing but if I wanted to "use" it, I would. If someone was planning on me going through great contortions to please them, they're about 30 years too late.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Well yes most people do, by its very nature, "use" porn. 

But he has a point. Does anyone in real life ever refer to porn in this manner? I know I don't. If I talk about porn in real life I'll say I "watched some porn", or I'm "going to watch some porn".

I personally have no negative connotations whatsoever with the word "use", but I do see where it can be perceived as language of shame.

It's true you do not often here someone state that they "use" liquor. But we do classify those who partake in illegal drugs as "users".

Some indeed do say visual porn is "used", but written erotical is "read".


----------



## BrockLanders

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



unbelievable said:


> A wife is authorized to not like some things her husband does and a husband is authorized to not approve of everything his wife does. Nobody is laying awake at night worrying about what I like or don't like. Porn isn't my thing but if I wanted to "use" it, I would. If someone was planning on me going through great contortions to please them, they're about 30 years too late.


I get this. That said I wouldn't get married to someone who had a problem with porn. Not that it's so important to watch porn, but because I think it's silly to think that watching over the top, scripted sex acts is a big deal.

My problem is with calling the consumption of porn "use". It is clearly an attempt to put it in the same category of say alcohol. You wouldn't say someone was using beer but you might say an alcoholic is "using" alcohol. It's an attempt at equivocating casual viewing of porn with being a chronically masturbating consumer of porn.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



BrockLanders said:


> casual viewing of porn ...


 right....

 You make me laugh...


----------



## unbelievable

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I think getting married to someone who feels it's their role in life to modify or dictate your life is just bad practice, anyway. I suspect that many of those women who have a problem with their man "using" porn would have a problem with most other diversions he might choose. They'd be griping about his motorcycle, his golf, his sports, or anything else that may put a temporary grin on his face that didn't involve the wife. Sometimes I believe my wife has nightmares in which I appear relaxed, well-fed, well-sexed, and content.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> Well yes most people do, by its very nature, "use" porn.
> 
> But he has a point. Does anyone in real life ever refer to porn in this manner? I know I don't. If I talk about porn in real life I'll say I "watched some porn", or I'm "going to watch some porn".
> 
> I personally have no negative connotations whatsoever with the word "use", but I do see where it can be perceived as language of shame.
> 
> It's true you do not often here someone state that they "use" liquor. But we do classify those who partake in illegal drugs as "users".
> 
> Some indeed do say visual porn is "used", but written erotical is "read".


Yes, as I'm thinking about this more, I do believe there is a built-in negative connotation about the word use. Perhaps it's not a negative word for some people, or in a specific connotation (when talking about implements or tools for instance), but in any situation where people are the subject it seems to carry the negative. If you use a drug it implies an illegal narcotic, if you take a drug it implies a prescription. If you say use alcohol the implication is an alcoholic, if you say have an alcoholic drink it doesn't imply alcoholism. If you say you use someone it implies taking advantage of them, if you say you are pleased by them it implies fondness.

When people do things that are widely acceptable they rarely use the verb use if there are more specific verbs available to them. You eat food, you read a book, you breathe air, you drink water. Things that have value and significance to us get their own verbs, while objects of low worth or easily replaceable don't: you use a hammer, you use a toilet.

Other than the subject matter, porn is no different than tv or movies, and those you'd never say use to, the proper verb is watch. The proper verb for porn is also watch, but the insinuation is that it is not for entertainment but merely as a masturbation aid. The reason the word use is applied is because porn and masturbation by men are viewed negatively by society.

I don't know why that is built in to our society, if it is a result of religious oppression, or feminism, or simply a matter of humanity's guiding ethics, but after some thought about this thread, I think that is the reason we say "use porn".


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Ok,
Here's another look at it.

Do women " use " sex toys as a masturbatory aid?
Yes.
Do men use porn as a masturbatory aid?
Yes.
Is it acceptable for women to use toys in their solo sessions to achieve their goals?
Perfectly.
Is it acceptable of men to use porn in their solo sessions to achieve their goals?

You be the judge.


----------



## walkingwounded

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

To me, if you say "watching" porn, that conveys you are going to just/only watch it.

To "use" it conveys you are utilizing porn for a secondary purpose, ie to get off.

Verbs are contextual so will contain different meanings when applied to different situations.

Plus the intended meaning and the meaning perceived will differ depending on who SAID "use" and who is READING/hearing "use" in the context of porn.

To me, it is a simple differentiation between whether someone is watching it to get off or not.

And I am a woman who watches porn and whose H watches porn.

See what I mean?


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



unbelievable said:


> Sometimes I believe my wife has nightmares in which I appear relaxed, well-fed, well-sexed, and content.


----------



## Holland

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> I have seen many women who characterize men I knew, GOOD men, who used ANY porn as 'addicts'.
> 
> Addicts...huh. Annie's hubby is an addict. A man whose porn consumption is > 0 is not an addict.
> 
> *Your experience may vary though one would think that you might actually have this little thing called manners when you respond.
> *
> .......


Manners, oh please. You make an outlandish generalisation about women and then tell me to use manners when responding on a forum. haha sorry but that is absurd.

And the word bull**** was mild compared to what I was thinking about your post.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


> Ok,
> Here's another look at it.
> 
> Do women " use " sex toys as a masturbatory aid?
> Yes.
> Do men use porn as a masturbatory aid?
> Yes.
> Is it acceptable for women to use toys in their solo sessions to achieve their goals?
> Perfectly.
> Is it acceptable of men to use porn in their solo sessions to achieve their goals?
> 
> You be the judge.


Excuse me. I don't commonly call people on such shinnanigans...okay...yeah, I do all the time, but that is incredibly disingenuous of you to say that.

On the one hand, you are perfectly 'brave' enough to say that a woman using a dildo is 'perfectly' okay (you like the idea of a woman using a dildo)

BUT...having established this principle of a feminine 'right' to personal solo mastabatory practice...you decline to extend the same right to men (IIRC, you don't like porn) and take a cowardly way out.

Does the principle go both ways or not, regardless of your personal preferences?

The only caveat I can see is one of visuals. A MAN can be accused of pseudo adultery as Jenni Juggs is clearly NOT the wife...but a woman with a dildo can be thinking of ANYONE and no one is the wiser...so she gets a pass because unlike visual porn, the mind is private so any so called pseudo adultery is not obvious.

(Deviating thread slightly)

So...let me ask the men and women. The women are threatened, offended or disgusted with porn because they are not the person arousing their husband; it is someone else.

Does that mean if a woman fantasizes about another man, she is engaging in the same level of threatening, offensive and disgusting behavior?

I can't see the difference except the male medium allows much freer finger wagging.

***

Honestly, I am just arguing principles because I dont' give a flying fig who approves or doesn't approve of my porn consuption..whatever level that might be. So the OP's sensitivity on this issue seems a trifle weak to me. People have been shaming people from time immemorial. I'd just as soon people lay off of my incandescent light bulb use before they stop messing with my porn.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



unbelievable said:


> I think getting married to someone who feels it's their role in life to modify or dictate your life is just bad practice, anyway. I suspect that many of those women who have a problem with their man "using" porn would have a problem with most other diversions he might choose. They'd be griping about his motorcycle, his golf, his sports, or anything else that may put a temporary grin on his face that didn't involve the wife. *Sometimes I believe my wife has nightmares in which I appear relaxed, well-fed, well-sexed, and content.*


I believe that wins the internet for today.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Holland said:


> Manners, oh please. You make an outlandish generalisation about women and then tell me to use manners when responding on a forum. haha sorry but that is absurd.
> 
> And the word bull**** was mild compared to what I was thinking about your post.


I"m sorry you lead such a sheltered life that you haven't met any women like that.

And I know you were flitering your response. I could tell.

But let me fix my post for you

BUT SECOND...there seems a pretty broad consense on TAM and MANY other forms of female media that porn use is a very bad and destructive thing and a non insignificant number of women, perhaps a majority, are intent on shaming men out of this behavior for their own purposes.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



unbelievable said:


> I think getting married to someone who feels it's their role in life to modify or dictate your life is just bad practice, anyway. I suspect that many of those women who have a problem with their man "using" porn would have a problem with most other diversions he might choose. They'd be griping about his motorcycle, his golf, his sports, or anything else that may put a temporary grin on his face that didn't involve the wife. Sometimes I believe my wife has nightmares in which I appear relaxed, well-fed, well-sexed, and content.


Absolutely incorrect. But you just keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel good.

It's not about dictating anything, it's about caring about your partner and what hurts them. 
I could say, sometimes I think that men in this modern day think that they own women and have a right to as many women as possible , and they would only be happy if they were able to do whatever suited them, with no regard to their wives at all. In fact I think men lie in bed at night having nightmares that they will only ever be with one woman ever again, and that she will be happy and full filled and he is committed to her and he actually has to consider her feeling and put their relationship first. 

I have a boundary that I don't want porn in my relationship. He knew this. Wasn't the least bit worried about it. 

He also is a photographer , and I fully encourage him to persue his photography.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> I"m sorry you lead such a sheltered life that you haven't met any women like that.
> 
> And I know you were flitering your response. I could tell.
> 
> But let me fix my post for you
> 
> BUT SECOND...there seems a pretty broad consense on TAM and MANY other forms of female media that porn use is a very bad and destructive thing and a non insignificant number of women, perhaps a majority, are intent on shaming men out of this behavior for their own purposes.


How is it shaming men? I find that laughable. So unless we only talk about porn as if it's a shining light, we are shaming men.

If men feel shamed, that's on them, and maybe there is a reason.

I don't think men should be shamed for their sexuality, and sex, masturbation etc are all normal and natural. 

But porn is not normal and natural, and to pretend it is is an outright lie.


----------



## Holland

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> I"m sorry you lead such a sheltered life that you haven't met any women like that.
> 
> And I know you were flitering your response. I could tell.
> 
> But let me fix my post for you
> 
> BUT SECOND...there seems a pretty broad consense on TAM and MANY other forms of female media that porn use is a very bad and destructive thing and a non insignificant number of women, perhaps a majority, are intent on shaming men out of this behavior for their own purposes.


Seems you are the one leading a sheltered life. If this is your experience of the world and women then get out more man. Your thinking is so old fashioned it is laughable.


----------



## BjornFree

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> Start being honest with yourself. No one "watches" porn for the entertainment value.


You obviously haven't seen Buttman and Throbbin'.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



*LittleDeer* said:


> How is it shaming men? I find that laughable. So unless we only talk about porn as if it's a shining light, we are shaming men.
> 
> If men feel shamed, that's on them, and maybe there is a reason.
> 
> I don't think men should be shamed for their sexuality, and sex, masturbation etc are all normal and natural.
> 
> But porn is not normal and natural, and to pretend it is is an outright lie.


Please excuse me, but I addressed a question to the men and women of TAM and since you are a strong advocate AGAINST porn (and I fully respect your position), what is the offensive part of it to you? What is the dangerous aspect? I don't want to hear avoidance words of 'it's just my choice'. You make that choice for a reason.

Additionally, if you KNEW, not suspected, but KNEW that your husband was ALWAYS masturbating thinking about someone else, would that be the equivilant to you of 'porn use'?


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> BUT SECOND...there seems a pretty broad consense on TAM and MANY other forms of female media that porn use is a very bad and destructive thing and a non insignificant number of women, perhaps a majority, are intent on shaming men out of this behavior for their own purposes.



Funny, I post on quite a couple of MEN'S sites and the general consensus is that porn is a very bad and destructive thing. And neither one of those sites is particularly focused on porn addiction.


----------



## BjornFree

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> Funny, I post on quite a couple of MEN'S sites and the general consensus is that porn is a very bad and destructive thing. And neither one of those sites is particularly focused on porn addiction.


Please elaborate the reasons as to why its considered destructive and a very bad thing if those reasons don't focus on addiction.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



BjornFree said:


> You obviously haven't seen Buttman and Throbbin'.




I'm sure that it has as good of a plot as the old TV series. I can see it now in the climatic scene - 

BIG capital letters....

*WANK ! SPLOOGE !*


----------



## johnnycomelately

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



*LittleDeer* said:


> But porn is not normal and natural, and to pretend it is is an outright lie.


It is normal and natural and humans have done it for as long as we have been able to make depictions of other humans.

To say that an activity practised by the vast majority of men and a significant minority of women is 'not normal' is hideously prejudiced.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



BjornFree said:


> Please elaborate the reasons as to why its considered destructive and a very bad thing if those reasons don't focus on addiction.


I will, later, when I have more time.

In the meantime why don't you tell me why it is good...?


----------



## BjornFree

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I will, later, when I have more time.
> 
> In the meantime why don't you tell me why it is good...?


An evasion tactic that simply won't work.

You were the one that made the point. I'd like to see you substantiate your position so that I may offer a rebuttal. You can take as long as you like.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



BjornFree said:


> An evasion tactic that simply won't work.
> 
> You were the one that made the point. I'd like to see you substantiate your position so that I may offer a rebuttal. You can take as long as you like.


Actually I was just about to apologize for being condescending.

I will get back to you. I never evade...


----------



## BjornFree

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> Actually I was just about to apologize for being condescending.
> 
> I will get back to you. I never evade...


No offense taken, no apology necessary.


----------



## SomedayDig

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

If you utilize porn, alcohol, tobacco and your spouse if perfectly okay with it: ZERO problem.

If you utilize porn, alcohol, tobacco and you hide it from your spouse because of disapproval: BIG problem.

In my opinion it's really that simple.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> Funny, I post on quite a couple of MEN'S sites and the general consensus is that porn is a very bad and destructive thing. And neither one of those sites is particularly focused on porn addiction.


Really? So...if I see one film a month, am I on the road to Perdition? Two?

When is it 'addictive'?

The fact YOU belive it is a bad thing, or can find a few forums which feel this way is not indicitive of anything. I can point you to several forums which are quite sure that Roswell was a coverup of a UFO crash, that there were multiple shooters at JFK, and that Elvis is alive...though pretty old.

That being said, I agree it CAN be destructive and very bad for you...particularly if not used in moderation.

You know...like sugar, caffeine....FOOD


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

The effects of a drug can be traced by blood tests etc.

If I just watched some porn with my wife or by myself, is there any test that can yield data that indicates physical or emotional harm to myself?

What makes some women so angry about it, that some men become addicted to it like some men become addicted to gambling or gaming? Then the problem is not porn but instead the men they picked since many men gamble, game, and watch porn without addiction, and when a choice in others becomes the problem, that reflects a problem in the one that makes the choice.

If a woman prefers to orgasm with a vibrator, are vibrators now evil and addicting? 

Imagine if a husband shared he preferred to orgasm with some porn while with his wife as his way of climaxing... The kind words that would come his way...

Meanwhile the handful of women who only climax with their husbands when there is a toy involved or only feel aroused when their noses are locked into books narrating fictional sex have fun and aren't really criticized and told they are "destroying their marriage." Are they addicted or not? If they are, are the books or toys destructive?

Continue...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I have no idea what we'd be considered...as neither one of us USE porn to "get off" - no masterbation aids for us....no desire to go it alone....

If anything....it's to give a little spicy variety....it's arousing, I love Romantic porn -he likes solo women....as we're both very visual....we enjoy it...no sense in lying about it.....
then...and always -- we USE each other for the fireworks ...no better highlight of the day. Works for me....

If he used it over me and I was wanting it, I'd be pi$$ed off & he'd hear about it....and he'd feel the same.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



SimplyAmorous said:


> If he used it over me and I was wanting it, I'd be pi$$ed off & he'd hear about it....and he'd feel the same.



Exactly... and that is where it starts and that is where it grows.

The women who are posting and who are upset about their SO's use of porn are in this boat. They feel something, they notice something, they are pi$$ed.

Why is this such a hard concept to see? I can't be the only one.

More than once I have heard a guy say that he used porn because...

1) He didn't want to bother his wife.
2) She was asleep.
3) She wasn't there at the moment.
4) Fill in the blank.


None of these reasons is good, and everyone of them could be seen as some kind of avoidance.

1) Really? A man's desire for his wife is a bother?
2) Some of the best sex I ever had was when I woke up my SO for sex. And what's wrong with snuggling and waiting for the morning?

3) This is a reason? Wait til she gets there. Maybe she would like a good shag with a randy man. It's worth waiting for.

4) Fill in the blank. I used to think that there was never anything wrong with porn. Now I find that I am a happier and more fulfilled person if I save all of my sexual energy for my SO. I know that she prefers this too.


Whatever. I'm growing bored with the amount of bad reasons for porn that are put forward here. I'm telling the men and the women that they would all be happier and more satisfied if they didn't use porn. I'm saying that porn has an insidious side which is not "just entertainment."

But mostly I am putting forth the idea that women do notice when their men have depleted their energy by using porn. It's my opinion that men do not notice how they are different, but I think they are, and I have heard women say that they do notice. So when she does get pi$$ed at you she has a good reason.


----------



## BjornFree

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

sparkyjim those reasons you mentioned are still not good enough to stop using porn unless the only reason you don't use porn is because you're scared that it'll piss your wife off.

You forgot to add the other reason.

5. Not tonight dear.

Now what should the poor bloke do? My advice, scratch that itch. Its perfectly fine to feast your eyes on a silicone boobed Jenny Juggs or anyone else while you're at it.

PS: I'm pretty sure the next set of female responses will be "But I've never done that!!!." 

Ladies, you forget that not every woman is a superwoman like you.


----------



## unbelievable

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

If you have a spouse who can't accept you as you are, you have a problem. We all have the right to leave. We all have the right to voice our displeasure. We don't have the right to demand or expect that others change to meet our lofty expectations. If porn is your deal-breaker, leave, don't hang around making unpleasant faces and sounds.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



BjornFree said:


> 5. Not tonight dear.


That could go in the fill in the blank. And I still hold to the notion that porn is not the healthiest way to scratch that itch.

I haven't even started composing a reply to you about what I think the dangers of porn are. It would be a book, because I have been compiling reasons and evidence for close to two years now.

But to put it in it's most simple terms - a man should give all of his sexual energy to his wife, and she should give all of hers to him. I honestly believe that is the way to the most satisfying sexual fulfillment you could have.

For me porn is a distraction from that. Maybe that is where I lose everyone. Maybe no one else is distracted. 




BjornFree said:


> PS: I'm pretty sure the next set of female responses will be "But I've never done that!!!."
> 
> Ladies, you forget that not every woman is a superwoman like you.



There was a thread here where some of the HD women were exchanging resources for porn so that they could get off when hubby wasn't available. 

Yeah it made me laugh. I've never been with a woman like that. Not sure if I would know what to think.

Ultimately I think maybe we should all have HD or LD tattooed on our foreheads so that we could mix it up with the ones who we could have a compatible relationship. I think that is the biggest issue that I see here. Even bigger than the porn issue.


----------



## Interlocutor

sparkyjim said:


> Exactly... and that is where it starts and that is where it grows.
> 
> The women who are posting and who are upset about their SO's use of porn are in this boat. They feel something, they notice something, they are pi$$ed.
> 
> Why is this such a hard concept to see? I can't be the only one.
> 
> More than once I have heard a guy say that he used porn because...
> 
> 1) He didn't want to bother his wife.
> 2) She was asleep.
> 3) She wasn't there at the moment.
> 4) Fill in the blank.
> 
> 
> None of these reasons is good, and everyone of them could be seen as some kind of avoidance.
> 
> 1) Really? A man's desire for his wife is a bother?
> 2) Some of the best sex I ever had was when I woke up my SO for sex. And what's wrong with snuggling and waiting for the morning?
> 
> 3) This is a reason? Wait til she gets there. Maybe she would like a good shag with a randy man. It's worth waiting for.
> 
> 4) Fill in the blank. I used to think that there was never anything wrong with porn. Now I find that I am a happier and more fulfilled person if I save all of my sexual energy for my SO. I know that she prefers this too.
> 
> 
> Whatever. I'm growing bored with the amount of bad reasons for porn that are put forward here. I'm telling the men and the women that they would all be happier and more satisfied if they didn't use porn. I'm saying that porn has an insidious side which is not "just entertainment."
> 
> But mostly I am putting forth the idea that women do notice when their men have depleted their energy by using porn. It's my opinion that men do not notice how they are different, but I think they are, and I have heard women say that they do notice. So when she does get pi$$ed at you she has a good reason.


Nothing you posted discredits porn to me at all... 

Recall the character Friar Lawrence's line on herbs from Romeo and Juliet, specifically how they are not good or bad. An herb that might be used to make a cure might also be used to make a poison. Nature it can be argued is not healing or destructive. What men do with it is. Many men and women use it to spice up their marriage just fine and it doesn't destroy anything.

Now if a man uses porn to substitute his wife, it seems we have a destructive man, not destructive art/media.

If I became addicted to staring at the Mona Lisa all day and didn't work or pay attention to my wife, is that painting destructive?

If some dude plays FPS's all day long, is Xbox to blame...

People can be destructive, using the same things that in the hands of others are used for different things wouldn't you believe it...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Interlocutor

unbelievable said:


> If you have a spouse who can't accept you as you are, you have a problem. We all have the right to leave. We all have the right to voice our displeasure. We don't have the right to demand or expect that others change to meet our lofty expectations. If porn is your deal-breaker, leave, don't hang around making unpleasant faces and sounds.


Of course, but many men LIVE for those unpleasant faces from a low self-esteem or whatnot. Those unpleasant faces drive all of their decisions, like a diabolical conscience they are terrified of but forever seek to please fruitlessly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## johnnycomelately

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> But to put it in it's most simple terms - a man should give all of his sexual energy to his wife, and she should give all of hers to him. I honestly believe that is the way to the most satisfying sexual fulfillment you could have.


You seem to see 'sexual energy' as some sort of finite resource that can be wasted on masturbation. This is a Victorian idea which went out with the discovery that the libido is a basic drive, like hunger and the need for sleep. 

Masturbating only affects your sex drive for a short time. No need to sew up your pockets.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> On the one hand, you are perfectly 'brave' enough to say that a woman using a dildo is 'perfectly' okay (you like the idea of a woman using a dildo)
> 
> BUT...having established this principle of a feminine 'right' to personal solo mastabatory practice...you decline to extend the same right to men (IIRC, you don't like porn) and take a cowardly way out.
> 
> Does the principle go both ways or not, regardless of your personal preferences?


LOL!

JCD obviously you didn't get it!
I was just trying to expose the double standard, so I just compared both .
And yes, the principle is _supposed _to fly both ways, but somehow it does not.:scratchhead:

I am not a consumer of porn, but I am yet to see any logical sane argument why it is morally right for women to choose their stimuli for their solo sessions and morally wrong for men to do the same.


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


> LOL!
> I am not a consumer of porn, but I am yet to see any logical sane argument why it is morally right for women to choose their stimuli for their solo sessions and morally wrong for men to do the same.


O.k. I'll bite...

When a woman is reading 'those' books, she's drawing a picture in her mind. The 'person' or even the genitals she 'sees' doesn't exist in real life. If 100 different women read the same paragraph, and we were able to 'see' the mental image that each of the women 'draws', you'd see 100 different images...ALL of which don't exist in real life.

When you look at a picture in a magazine or on a pornographic web site, the pics are of REAL people. 

Would *you* like it if you knew your neighbor was having a 'solo session' with your DAUGHTER or WIFE starring as the centerfold?

That *you* isn't directed to YOU, Caribbean Man. It's directed to anyone who "uses" or "watches" porn.

Vega


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> BUT...having established this principle of a feminine 'right' to personal solo mastabatory practice...you decline to extend the same right to men (IIRC, you don't like porn) and take a cowardly way out.


I think you might have missed the point. He seemed to be doing the opposite in that post and calling out a double standard. At least that's how I see it. I hope he comes back to this thread to clarify.


----------



## unbelievable

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

If a woman finds me objectionable she should find me too objectionable to continue stuffing her face with the sweat of my brow. Porn aint my thing but whatever my thing is, I will do it and those who don't like it can get over it or get down the road. We can discuss things. I will consider arguments and opinions. I may adjust fire or I may disagree with her opinion. She can accept that or I'll be happy to show her how the door works. I won't be listening to griping for the rest of my life. The absolute surest way to get me to engage in a behavior is to presume to forbid me from doing it.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> O.k. I'll bite...
> 
> When a woman is reading 'those' books, she's drawing a picture in her mind. The 'person' or even the genitals she 'sees' doesn't exist in real life. If 100 different women read the same paragraph, and we were able to 'see' the mental image that each of the women 'draws', you'd see 100 different images...ALL of which don't exist in real life.
> 
> When you look at a picture in a magazine or on a pornographic web site, the pics are of REAL people.
> 
> Would *you* like it if you knew your neighbor was having a 'solo session' with your DAUGHTER or WIFE starring as the centerfold?
> 
> That *you* isn't directed to YOU, Caribbean Man. It's directed to anyone who "uses" or "watches" porn.
> 
> Vega


Mmm.

From what I recall, Fabio and the other underwear models on the covers of those books ARE real people...perhaps glorified, but still real. 

Men really don't get emotionally involved with their affair partners too much. Check out CWI to see multiple examples of that. Many MANY women who met the love of her life suddenly gets thrown under the bus as soon as the OM's hearth and home are threatened. Suddenly, he can't remember the name of this woman who was blowing him in real life.

How much more likely is it that I am going to emotionally engage in some fake woman I jack off to?


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


> LOL!
> 
> JCD obviously you didn't get it!
> I was just trying to expose the double standard, so I just compared both .
> And yes, the principle is _supposed _to fly both ways, but somehow it does not.:scratchhead:
> 
> I am not a consumer of porn, but I am yet to see any logical sane argument why it is morally right for women to choose their stimuli for their solo sessions and morally wrong for men to do the same.


Yup. _Mea Culpa._

Men are supposed to maturbate...but to what exactly? Little Deer is strangely silent on this issue. Am I supposed to imagine another woman? Am I supposed to pick out a stranger in the crowd...or worse, an ACCESSIBlLE woman, which I think is FAR MORE threatening than whacking off to Judy Juggs?

Or is my masturbation only supposed to be limited to imagining my wife?

Because evolutionarily speaking, it is NATURAL for me to want to sleep with lots of women. Somehow I don't think that part of my 'natural male sexuality' is what Little Deer was talking about.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


> LOL!
> 
> JCD obviously you didn't get it!
> I was just trying to expose the double standard, so I just compared both .
> And yes, the principle is _supposed _to fly both ways, but somehow it does not.:scratchhead:
> 
> I am not a consumer of porn, but I am yet to see any logical sane argument why it is morally right for women to choose their stimuli for their solo sessions and morally wrong for men to do the same.


How about the fact that many women cannot physically cum without added stimulation? Women's orgasms are harder to come by for many women. So that in itself is very different to most men. 

A vibrator is not a person, it's a piece of plastic. 
She can still fantasise about her husband and use it. 

However I personally feel if I use one, I then have trouble orgasming without it, so I do not use one. My partner does not have an issue with it, but if he did, I wouldn't use it, because I can orgasm without it. 

I don't believe it's healthy to replace a penis with a vibrator to get off, unless you are someone who cannot orgasm without it, or orgasms rarely without it. I also don't believe men should use viagra, unless they have trouble getting it up. 

I fail to see how porn compares.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> Yup. _Mea Culpa._
> 
> Men are supposed to maturbate...but to what exactly? Little Deer is strangely silent on this issue. Am I supposed to imagine another woman? Am I supposed to pick out a stranger in the crowd...or worse, an ACCESSIBlLE woman, which I think is FAR MORE threatening than whacking off to Judy Juggs?
> 
> Or is my masturbation only supposed to be limited to imagining my wife?
> 
> Because evolutionarily speaking, it is NATURAL for me to want to sleep with lots of women. Somehow I don't think that part of my 'natural male sexuality' is what Little Deer was talking about.


And it's natural for me to want to apparently run off with a younger fitter better provider. 

I choose to not fantasise about other men, not richer, fitter younger ones either.

I used to fantasise ALL the time, I'm very high drive. I just know that it certainly did not make me more attracted to my husband and I was not more attracted to him. 

I know that the more I fantasise about my SO, the more I want him, and the hornier I am for him, and the better our relationship is.

You can fantasise about who ever you like.

I personally don't think it's a good idea.

And before you say NO man ever just fantasises about their wives, we have had many a porn thread where husbands came in and said they made a choice to do just that!


----------



## BjornFree

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



*LittleDeer* said:


> And it's natural for me to want to apparently run off with a younger fitter better provider.
> 
> I choose to not fantasise about other men, not richer, fitter younger ones either.
> 
> I used to fantasise ALL the time, I'm very high drive. I just know that it certainly did not make me more attracted to my husband and I was not more attracted to him.
> 
> I know that the more I fantasise about my SO, the more I want him, and the hornier I am for him, and the better our relationship is.
> 
> You can fantasise about who ever you like.


Easy for you to say considering you're doing all the fantasizing within your head.




> And before you say NO man ever just fantasises about their wives, we have had many a porn thread where husbands came in and said they made a choice to do just that!


So now why exactly are fantasies bad again? Is is because I'm thinking Jenna Jameson has a great pair of boobs? Or is it because the wife is uncomfortable with the fact that I think jenna jameson has a nice pair of boobs? Don't you think Jenna Jameson has nice boobs, implants and all? If that hurts a woman's ego then its all on her, maybe she lacks the maturity of judging porn for what it really is rather than comparing herself with a pornstar of all the people?

Your arguments are pretty much like sparkyjim's( no offense bud) little to no substantial evidence suggesting that every man who *uses* is an addict, therefore its bad. Little to no evidence suggesting every man(or woman) who *uses* it has an unsatisfactory sex life.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



BjornFree said:


> ( no offense bud)


None taken - in fact no one has offered any evidence to either side. We are all just giving opinions.



BjornFree said:


> little to no substantial evidence suggesting that *every* man who uses is an addict, therefore its bad.


I don't think I ever said this - I did say that porn does have an effect - even if the man thinks that it does not...

I also said that there is growing evidence that the availability of porn is having a deleterious effect on relationships. A lot of this evidence is anecdotal, but then all scientific evidence pertaining to health is anecdotal. There are no current studies that will give you percentage this/percentage that, but that doesn't mean that the anecdotal evidence should be dismissed.




BjornFree said:


> Little to no evidence suggesting every man(or woman) who *uses* it has an unsatisfactory sex life.


Right - but having porn doesn't by default enhance your sex life either. Porn can detract from a relationship and some use porn to add to their relationship.

I think ultimately here, relationship is the key word. If the porn use, the fantasy, the toys, etc are one sided someone is being left out.

I think I see a generalization that men prefer to use porn and women prefer to use fantasy/erotica. But if either uses their preferred choice to the exclusion of the other then I see problems.

Hey, it's a very primal subject. It's hard to talk openly with your SO about your desires because there is so much at stake. Women can feel threatened by porn. Apparently some men are threatened by books like 50 shades.

But often the argument from the pro porn side is that the woman is against it because she has low self esteem.

That's really a laughable argument. It's not fair, it's not logical.

Men are threatened by the idea of women having emotional affairs, right? Well, what if there was an industry that catered to women's apparent need for emotional affairs? How would the men react to that?

It's just a rhetorical question. I don't expect anyone to answer that. Although I do have a new idea to make me some MONEY...


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



*LittleDeer* said:


> How about the fact that many women cannot physically cum without added stimulation? Women's orgasms are harder to come by for many women. So that in itself is very different to most men.
> 
> A vibrator is not a person, it's a piece of plastic.
> She can still fantasise about her husband and use it.
> 
> However I personally feel if I use one, I then have trouble orgasming without it, so I do not use one. My partner does not have an issue with it, but if he did, I wouldn't use it, because I can orgasm without it.
> 
> I don't believe it's healthy to replace a penis with a vibrator to get off, unless you are someone who cannot orgasm without it, or orgasms rarely without it. I also don't believe men should use viagra, unless they have trouble getting it up.
> 
> I fail to see how porn compares.


My point was that if a woman can choose her very , own fantasy / stimuli, why should a man be deprived from doing so himself?


----------



## BrockLanders

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Thread completely derailed lol. It's come full circle where everyone is saying "use" porn.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I think porn use only becomes a problem when a man makes himself unavailable because of his use of it. I am not saying it is "good" to "use". I am not saying it is "bad" to "use". I think this was covered.

I am saying there is a double standard and may need more thought when used in a relationship.

Personally, I didn't like anal sex. It hurt her some. I didn't like that kind of hurt. I wouldn't have minded giving her a little "spanking" if that's what she wanted, but anal sex during her menstrual cycle was not what I wanted. I also thought it was a little gross. That's just how "I" am. I'm not saying it is right or wrong. It's wrong for me. I bet many men are like that in that area or another. 

I can remember missing a few days of sex because of our jobs, too tired, someone was sick, you name it. If her cycle came right after, what do you suggest a man does? If he uses some porn to get him through, is that wrong? I'm not so sure it is. 

I do think it is best to have a good imagination. I think it takes practice to be able to "get off" when using the imagination. Then, the thought police come out to investigate. Then it goes underground. That's when there's a big problem. I think we are not talking enough and making each other aware of our needs and working "with" each other to overcome these little issues.

Some or many women need a vibrator. Men are visual creatures. They find it easier if they can see something. I do understand that it is considered cheating for the very reason that they are "seeing" someone. Women know that men are attracted visually, so it "feels like" cheating. It's very real and natural.

I don't have a solution other than being open with each other. I think we all have a better understanding of what is going on. Men and women may be able to talk about this issue and find a solution which meets their particular needs in their specific relationship. I hope so. I think that's what these discussions are for. Take it to your SO and talk about it. Talk, don't argue.

Maybe it's one hurdle that can be jumped more easily now? I hope so.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> But often the argument from the pro porn side is that the woman is against it because she has low self esteem.
> 
> That's really a laughable argument. It's not fair, it's not logical.


It is both fair AND logical. Not so much as a function of low self esteem though.

Women who dress in tight clothes, low cut blouses, and short skirts...or whatever that equivalent is in other cultures (a kimono which shows the ankles? A TWO INCH wide eye gap in the chador?) will always bring down the approbation of monogamously married women.

Why? Because this young (and sometimes not so young) lady is essentially metaphorically and visually jumping up and down on a male's libido screaming "PICK ME PICK ME!" And since men are visual creatures and evolultionarily designed to want sex with lots of women...well...this gives the id ideas...

Women don't want their 'soulmates' to have ideas and don't want these women to jumpstart anything. They want them at home and monogamous and not looking.

This is in the woman's best interest. Since a steady supply of sex and raised kids are also in the MALE interest...they tend to stay...but they get thoughtful...

Porn is a smorasboard of "Pick me!" and a direct injection into the male libido of ideas.

I would not characterize the issue with the women threatened by this as self esteem. I would put it down to the fact that a) they realize they are NOT prime stock (most likely neither is their spouse...), b) most likely they have NOT been investing 100% into their relationship, making it secure enough to avoid the dangers of Little Miss Hot Pants, and c) maybe their man is an idiot...for at least a little while.




> Men are threatened by the idea of women having emotional affairs, right? Well, what if there was an industry that catered to women's apparent need for emotional affairs? How would the men react to that?
> 
> It's just a rhetorical question. I don't expect anyone to answer that. Although I do have a new idea to make me some MONEY...


Wasn't that Facebook?


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Your word choices on this topic are pretty telling when it comes to your biased reaction to men and porn versus women:



sparkyjim said:


> There was a thread here where some of the HD women were exchanging resources for porn so that they could get off when hubby wasn't available.
> 
> *Yeah it made me laugh. I've never been with a woman like that. Not sure if I would know what to think.*





sparkyjim said:


> Women can feel threatened by porn. *Apparently *some men are threatened by books like 50 shades.



You have strong reaction to men and porn, but you find it not only humorous that women look at porn, but if ever with one who does you're suddenly "not sure" how you'd react? If the issue is porn why wouldn't you automatically take the same hardlining stance with women?

Women definitely can feel threatened by porn, but men are only "apparently", i.e. allegedly, threatned by the types of erotica women freely indulge in with almost no societal stigma or shame.

Reminds me of a thread in the sex section last year when a poor chap came on asking for help regarding his wife. She had gotten deep into 50 Shades and stopped having sex with him. She was spending a lot of time however with the book, getting turned on, and masturbating. 

The general consensus reaction to this man with the wife choosing written erotica over sex with her husband? Suggestions from mostly women, and even a few men, the he buy her MORE erotica and be glad that she's getting turned on by something. The man was appalled and never came back.



Vega said:


> Would *you* like it if you knew your neighbor was having a 'solo session' with your DAUGHTER or WIFE starring as the centerfold?


Interesting how there is rarely any of this mock sympathy for the SONS, BROTHERS, and FATHERS who are in most of those porns right along with the women you have oh so much caring for.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



*LittleDeer* said:


> How about the fact that many women cannot physically cum without added stimulation? Women's orgasms are harder to come by for many women. So that in itself is very different to most men.


And many men have trouble getting off without visual stimulation, and not everyone is particularly good at, or turned on, by fantasizing.

So where is the sympathy for those men? A woman is allowed, without reprimand, to use a man made toy that gets her off in a way that a penis or fingers can never do, but men who need some visual stimulation to have a pleasant orgasmic experience are left out in the cold?

Why? Are both people in this scenario not choosing to lean on something outside of each other to reach orgasm?


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> Women who dress in tight clothes, low cut blouses, and short skirts...or whatever that equivalent is in other cultures (a kimono which shows the ankles? A TWO INCH wide eye gap in the chador?) will always bring down the approbation of monogamously married women.
> 
> Why? Because this young (and sometimes not so young) lady is essentially metaphorically and visually jumping up and down on a male's libido screaming "PICK ME PICK ME!" And since men are visual creatures and evolultionarily designed to want sex with lots of women...well...this gives the id ideas...
> 
> Women don't want their 'soulmates' to have ideas and don't want these women to jumpstart anything. They want them at home and monogamous and not looking.


What a crock. Of course women don't really want their husbands to cheat on them. This is different from men how?




JCD said:


> I would not characterize the issue with the women threatened by this as self esteem. I would put it down to the fact that a) they realize they are NOT prime stock (most likely neither is their spouse...), b) most likely they have NOT been investing 100% into their relationship, making it secure enough to avoid the dangers of Little Miss Hot Pants, and c) maybe their man is an idiot...for at least a little while.


What's interesting about this is that there is another thread going on right now full of men who are repulsed (!!) by women with lots of sexual experience, but over here it's the faithful wives who are subprime and told to jump through hoops to act more like women with lots of sexual experience.

Men are so confusing sometimes.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



always_alone said:


> Men are so confusing sometimes.


I'm pretty sure that's a universal human problem.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



always_alone said:


> What a crock. Of course women don't really want their husbands to cheat on them. This is different from men how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's interesting about this is that there is another thread going on right now full of men who are repulsed (!!) by women with lots of sexual experience, but over here it's the faithful wives who are subprime and told to jump through hoops to act more like women with lots of sexual experience.
> 
> Men are so confusing sometimes.


Women are also really confusing, who say they appreciate their respectful, nice guy husbands who provide for and worship them, but that they wish they were more take charge, rough-me-up-a-little alpha in the bedroom. Like it is just a switch we men can flip.


----------



## BjornFree

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



always_alone said:


> What's interesting about this is that there is another thread going on right now full of men who are repulsed (!!) by women with lots of sexual experience, but over here it's the faithful wives who are subprime and told to jump through hoops to act more like women with lots of sexual experience.


Wait a minute..

You draw a distinction between women with lots of sexual experience and faithful wives who consider themselves subprime but over in the other thread you're all about defending women and their sexual freedom all for one and one for all.

So where do you actually stand in this issue?

Besides drawing all those comparisons is all on you. We never do it. The same way LittleDeer never fantasizes about anyone other than her husband.


----------



## SomedayDig

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



always_alone said:


> What's interesting about this is that there is another thread going on right now full of men who are repulsed (!!) by women with lots of sexual experience, but over here it's the faithful wives who are subprime and told to jump through hoops to act more like women with lots of sexual experience.
> 
> Men are so confusing sometimes.


Where's that thread? LOL

I prefer a woman who knows what she's doing as opposed to a tight lipped, just lay there and wonder kind of girl. I dated one of those for a few months about 15 years ago and it was horrible. Blah.

Maybe if she'd watched some porn...


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> You have strong reaction to men and porn, but you find it not only humorous that women look at porn, but if ever with one who does you're suddenly "not sure" how you'd react? If the issue is porn why wouldn't you automatically take the same hardlining stance with women?




I appreciate your comments...

I know I have taken a hard line stance on porn use, and I know my focus has been the effects that it can have on men.

That's because I speak from my experience.

But I am not in a vacuum. I work with men and I see the same kind of thinking in them that I see here and elsewhere. Basically, they see no harm at all with porn and they do not think that it affects them.

I don't work with women - nor do I think that I would be privy to their intimate conversations - so I can't speak for women, and I do find it a bit of a novelty to hear women talking about using porn. The thread that I did read was WAY more respectful than what I hear at work.

Back to the effects porn use has...

It's my opinion that men do not see how porn can affect them in a negative way.

For me I have come to the conclusion that it does, and so I try to avoid it.

I said that I wouldn't know what to think if I was with a woman who liked to use porn. I have thought about it, and I don't know what I would do about it.

I don't need any porn at all to be aroused. I like how sex is, for me, when I am not influenced by porn and fantasy. 

I would be concerned that if I was with someone who liked to use porn, that using it in our relationship would make the sex not as good.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



BrockLanders said:


> Thread completely derailed lol. It's come full circle where everyone is saying "use" porn.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You're like a little kid in a candy store who has been told he can have whatever he wants...


I must be reading a different thread:scratchhead:


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I appreciate your comments...
> 
> I know I have taken a hard line stance on porn use, and I know my focus has been the effects that it can have on men.
> 
> That's because I speak from my experience.
> 
> But I am not in a vacuum. I work with men and I see the same kind of thinking in them that I see here and elsewhere. Basically, they see no harm at all with porn and they do not think that it affects them.
> 
> I don't work with women - nor do I think that I would be privy to their intimate conversations - so I can't speak for women, and I do find it a bit of a novelty to hear women talking about using porn. The thread that I did read was WAY more respectful than what I hear at work.
> 
> Back to the effects porn use has...
> 
> It's my opinion that men do not see how porn can affect them in a negative way.
> 
> For me I have come to the conclusion that it does, and so I try to avoid it.
> 
> I said that I wouldn't know what to think if I was with a woman who liked to use porn. I have thought about it, and I don't know what I would do about it.
> 
> I don't need any porn at all to be aroused. I like how sex is, for me, when I am not influenced by porn and fantasy.
> 
> I would be concerned that if I was with someone who liked to use porn, that using it in our relationship would make the sex not as good.


Now sparkyjim , there is another thread where the OP suggested that when couples engage in lovemaking and sex, the man should allow only the lady to reach orgasm and he should withold himself from orgasm because his orgasm actually robs him of a closed, deeper tie with his spouse.
He quoted all sort of studies and research.
Can you see where I'm going with this?

Anything good can be addictive, what is necessary is self control.
That no porn works better for your relationship is good. I can say in mine we only use it together , very rarely.

However other people are different. There are couples who enjoy porn together , there are couples who have a zero tolerance to it.
Still there are sexless couples where the man use porn because he's in a bitter , sexless marriage and divorce may not be an option.
Then, there are men who abuse porn.

So it varies widely.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


> Now sparkyjim , there is another thread where the OP suggested that when couples engage in lovemaking and sex, the man should allow only the lady to reach orgasm and he should withold himself from orgasm because his orgasm actually robs him of a closed, deeper tie with his spouse.
> He quoted all sort of studies and research.
> Can you see where I'm going with this?
> 
> Anything good can be addictive, what is necessary is self control.
> That no porn works better for your relationship is good. I can say in mine we only use it together , very rarely.
> 
> However other people are different. There are couples who enjoy porn together , there are couples who have a zero tolerance to it.
> Still there are sexless couples where the man use porn because he's in a bitter , sexless marriage and divorce may not be an option.
> Then, there are men who abuse porn.
> 
> So it varies widely.


I agree with you on the majority of your post. 

I have a little difficulty with accepting the part about the man using porn because of his bitter marriage. I think that is using the porn to medicate something which needs to be fixed.

Even if it is painful, a fix is better than avoiding, isn't it? Even if the forbidden "no option" divorce happens. The pain might be great, but it might be the only way to find healing.

Also, you left out the one scenario which has come up in these threads...

The man wants to use porn and his wife does not want him to.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> The man wants to use porn and his wife does not want him to.


I left it out on purposely, because that's for both of them to work out.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



always_alone said:


> What a crock. Of course women don't really want their husbands to cheat on them. This is different from men how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's interesting about this is that there is another thread going on right now full of men who are repulsed (!!) by women with lots of sexual experience, but over here it's the faithful wives who are subprime and told to jump through hoops to act more like women with lots of sexual experience.
> 
> Men are so confusing sometimes.



First point. Naturally women are angry at ittle Miss Hot Pants for enticing their husband. And they are angry at hubby for responding.

But porn isn't a real person AT ALL. So it's even the concept that a man COULD possibly be dissatisfied with them that seems offensive, or that the man might want something more however grand the woman is. And it's not real!

Second point: a wife of 18 years screws her husband every way past Sunday...no problem. Marry her in an instant.

A woman for the last 18 years screws everyone with a wink and a smile...big problem if I want any relationship with her. For a ONS, not so big a deal. This comes down to faithfulness, not skills...at least for me.

This isn't complicated at all....

So...do wives fear that porn will make their men more sexually 'adventurous'? Why is the male fear of 'The Vixen' bad but the female fear of the same 'good'? Only difference is that the Vixen EARNED her knowledge the hard way and with other people...


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> But porn *isn't* a *real* person AT ALL.


HUH???????


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Must be talking about manga porn lol.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I'm just throwing this out there...

Physiologically speaking when a man or a woman orgasms the brain releases different chemicals - such as dopamine.

Some current theories say that those chemicals are also "bonding" chemicals - i.e. they influence the person to bond socially and psychologically with whomever he/she is with at the moment.

That's why some people can become hooked on manga porn, some people can become hooked on "real" porn and it also helps to explain why couples who have a good sex life experience a boost in their relationship.

Take it farther - it's why couples who do not have a good sex life often feel distant from their SO.


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I'm just throwing this out there...
> 
> Physiologically speaking when a man or a woman orgasms the brain releases different chemicals - such as dopamine.
> 
> Some current theories say that those chemicals are also "bonding" chemicals - i.e. they influence the person to bond socially and psychologically with whomever he/she is with at the moment.
> 
> That's why some people can become hooked on manga porn, some people can become hooked on "real" porn and it also helps to explain why couples who have a good sex life experience a boost in their relationship.
> 
> Take it farther - it's why couples who do not have a good sex life often feel distant from their SO.


So...if a man has an orgasm with a prostitute, does that mean he's "bonded" with her?


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> So...if a man has an orgasm with a prostitute, does that mean he's "bonded" with her?


Bonded? Probably not from just one occurrence.

But over time... yeah it could happen...

It's brain science. I'm not being asinine here. It is a concern in my opinion. I think it is something to look at.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

It's not difficult to find a cautionary tale.

What you don't hear nearly as often are stories from the (mostly) silent majority. You know the ones who look at some porn here and there, yet still manage to have great sex lives. The ones whom are not, and never will be, addicted to pornagraphy.

One of the worst things you can do is assume because one person has an addiction all people potentially have the same addiction. It is not true.


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

The people whom porn doesn't harm their sex life aren't posting here or participating in some study...

They too busy watching porn and enjoying their sex life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> One of the worst things you can do is assume because one person has an addiction all people potentially have the same addiction. It is not true.



I am definitely NOT assuming that. I know that is not the case.

Each person has to reach their own conclusion for themselves.

Don't assume that porn is harmless though. That is not a good thing to do either.

I drink and have no issue at all with alcohol. I should not then try to forward the notion that alcohol is safe for everybody.

I know there are those who resist the idea that porn might be addictive. But it can be for some, and the physiology of it is there.

I've said it before and I will say it again - I am not anti porn. Certainly not from a religious point of view.

But I do think that men should be concerned and should educate themselves about how porn affects them. Aside from the obvious, of course...


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> Take it farther - it's why couples who do not have a good sex life often feel distant from their SO.


I think this is putting the cart before the horse. I think it SHOULD read: "If couples feel distant from their SO they're probably not having a good sex life either". 

All marriages have a 'climate' and sex is the 'barometer'. One doesn't solve the issues in the marriage by having MORE sex or 'BETTER' sex. 

Vega


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> HUH???????


She is not a living breathing PRESENT person. It is a mere image. I do not get to smell her, taste her, feel the little irregularities on her skin. My mouth does not touch another person when I use porn. 

It is a PICTURE.

For what it's worth, I have a very wide definiton of cheating: *if it involves another personality whom one can interact with, it CAN (and probably IS) cheating.*

So...Maude IMing Claus to the detriment of her husband is cheating. Maude reading 50 Shades of Gray is not.

Jim watching Judi Juggs on a video is not cheating. There is 'no one there'. Jim doing webcam with Tatiana the Russian Webcam 'model' IS...as it the virtual hummer he got from Sebastian on Second Life (granted, Sebastian's log in name is HornyGirl365)

In those cases there is SOMEONE to intellectually and emotionally bond with. That is not the case with porn stills or video.

So webcams are a definite no no in my book.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> *I think porn today is different than porn in the past.* I think it can destroy men and women and has a great tendency to lure abused or low confidence men and women into performing it for a quick buck and a stigma that will inevitably follow them for the rest of their lives.


I ^^^disagree.

"...._Rome is the birthplace of modern pornography; the history begins amongst the print culture of the Italian Renaissance. In 1524, Marcantonio Raimondi published sixteen sexually explicit engravings that were designed by Giulio Romano and collectively titled the I Modi. The I Modi visually depicted figures from Greco-Roman mythology to Classical antiquity, enjoying the pleasures of copulation. In response to this scandal, Pope Clement VIII placed Raimondi in prison, where he remained for almost a year, until a consortium including Pietro Aretino (the founder of modern pornography) negotiated his release. (Lawner, 1988).
Pietro Aretino (1492-1556), the Italian author, polemicist and satirist, was a product of Renaissance humanism (Symonds, 1881)..."_
Excerpt from:
http://www.pornographyhistory.com/


The only difference between pornography in the past and modern porn is that we live in the digital era and production is dirt cheap. A porn clip can be made using a mobile phone that cost less than $100.00, and a willing partner to participate pro bono.
Your reference to it attracting abused people of low confidence can be said of any other industry. In fact , at the very core of the US economy is cheap , immigrant labour. Abused , low confidence people who do jobs that others won't do, for salaries much , much, much worse than what obtains in porn.


----------



## 2ntnuf

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## *LittleDeer*

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Societies may have had some pornographic depictions in art, on walls or even on a vase.

I seriously doubt it was prolific and that men sat around masturbating to it multiple times a day. 

To even compare it today's Internet porn is ridiculous and naive. 

I have posted something along these lines before, but I can just picture in ancient times : man buys a vase depicting a sexual scene on one side and a cow on the other, his wife is disturbed by the vase and hides it from the husband, she compares herself to the vase and her self esteem suffers, the man feels its his "right" to have the vase and use it as much as he wants, he ends up not being able to get an erection without looking at the vase. The wife smashes the vase. This starts happening all over Pompeii or the like. Thus the lack of ancient artefacts, including vases from this era. 

Lol NOT.

Any who, yes there were naked depictions and many caused an uproar much of that was artistic or even depictions of daily life. A lot of it had to do with fertility. It was not hours and hours of real imagery at the fingertips.


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Wait a second, is the argued stance that porn can be abused to an unhealthy degree by some people? Of course that is common sense and will have data to support it, much like there is data that consumption of too much wine can harm someone's health... Also, some people, just shouldn't have it at all... Is wine bad then, or just the misuse of it?

Couple A uses porn every weekend to spice up their sex for fun, and they enjoy each other.

Couple B the husband masturbates to porn daily and has become dysfunctional sexually in his marriage.

It sounds to me like a husband problem not a porn problem...

Why are so many so quick to make it a "nutritional" argument, emotionally? Why support the habit today of removing personal responsibility from human decisions...

The argument is clearly an ethical one in my opinion, and I'd rather shake a finger at a man's deliberate choice than a piece of art/media.

When Thomas the cat stepped on a garden rake and felt the painful strike of the wood against his face, should he have blogged later at home that such tools are destructive with anecdotal, qualitative data (severity of bruising), and quantitative data (number of other household cats whose faces have also been harmed by garden rakes)?

Reason can even be bad, according to Pascal, whose love was math, the lack of reason is bad and so is its excess/misappropriation...

Common sense was mentioned... Seems pretty common sense to me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



*LittleDeer* said:


> Societies may have had some pornographic depictions in art, on walls or even on a vase.
> 
> I seriously doubt it was prolific and that men sat around masturbating to it multiple times a day.
> 
> To even compare it today's Internet porn is ridiculous and naive.
> 
> I have posted something along these lines before, but I can just picture in ancient times : man buys a vase depicting a sexual scene on one side and a cow on the other, *his wife is disturbed by the vase and hides it from the husband*, she compares herself to the vase and her self esteem suffers, the man feels its his "right" to have the vase and use it as much as he wants, he ends up not being able to get an erection without looking at the vase. The wife smashes the vase. This starts happening all over Pompeii or the like. Thus the lack of ancient artefacts, including vases from this era.
> 
> Lol NOT.
> 
> Any who, yes there were naked depictions and many caused an uproar much of that was artistic or even depictions of daily life. A lot of it had to do with fertility. It was not hours and hours of real imagery at the fingertips.


That's the second mistake. The first was is marrying the man without knowing that he liked porn and would use it during the marriage. I think it boils down to knowing your own boundaries. I am not advocating the use of pornography in a marriage. I am not saying it is a horrible thing either. That is for each person in each relationship to determine for themselves. If they do not know themselves, that is there own fault.

Take responsibility for not knowing important facts about yourself. Don't be passive aggressive by hiding, discarding or breaking things which are not yours. See a counselor for help if you can't talk to your spouse. See one for your passive aggressive behaviors.

Do I think it can destroy a relationship? Yes, most certainly it can. Can it help some? It may. I don't know. Do I have a right to tell you what to do? No. Do what you think is best as long as you are not stepping on my freedom.

If my wife gave me oral during her period instead of trying to make me have anal sex with her or bloody PIV sex, I would not have thought about using ANY pornography. Funny thing is, I did not require her to do anything. She chose to do what she did. She chose to allow pornography in the marriage. We discussed it. 

The other thing is, I did not expect her to give me oral every time she had her cycle. There were a few times I wanted it, but only when it was a long time since we had sex. Yes, sex with her was that important. I wanted to keep that bond with her. 

She had options. She chose what she could tolerate. I think communication, compromise and respect for someone else's opinion is crucial in a relationship. Don't you?


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

If guys are hiding porn use from would-be wives and it gets discovered post-marriage, then those wives have my sympathy of course... But then it sounds like an honesty issue, not a porn one.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I am definitely NOT assuming that. I know that is not the case.
> 
> Each person has to reach their own conclusion for themselves.
> 
> Don't assume that porn is harmless though. That is not a good thing to do either.
> 
> I drink and have no issue at all with alcohol. I should not then try to forward the notion that alcohol is safe for everybody.
> 
> I know there are those who resist the idea that porn might be addictive. But it can be for some, and the physiology of it is there.
> 
> I've said it before and I will say it again - I am not anti porn. Certainly not from a religious point of view.
> 
> But I do think that men should be concerned and should educate themselves about how porn affects them. Aside from the obvious, of course...


This is all absolutely true.

But then again that was never the point of my arguments. I personally am well aware that porn, like nearly all things, has a dark underbelly. I'd go as far as to say that on the whole porn potentially does more harm than good.

But let's remember that the point of this thread was the OP taking issue with what he believes is a language of shame directed at men and pornography. That is the heart of the debate.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



*LittleDeer* said:


> I seriously doubt it was prolific and that men sat around masturbating to it multiple times a day.


No, the men would just see such images and head down to the local brothel or wh*rehouse and take those sexual frustrations out on a live woman, girl, or boy.

Oh yes, the past was just so, so much better. Instead of dealing with your husband's interactions with a fake image on a computer screen you were more than likely turning a blind eye to his regular visits to local sex workers.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



*LittleDeer* said:


> Societies may have had some pornographic depictions in art, on walls or even on a vase.
> 
> I seriously doubt it was prolific and that men sat around masturbating to it multiple times a day.
> 
> To even compare it today's Internet porn is ridiculous and naive.
> 
> I have posted something along these lines before, but I can just picture in ancient times : man buys a vase depicting a sexual scene on one side and a cow on the other, his wife is disturbed by the vase and hides it from the husband, she compares herself to the vase and her self esteem suffers, the man feels its his "right" to have the vase and use it as much as he wants, he ends up not being able to get an erection without looking at the vase. The wife smashes the vase. This starts happening all over Pompeii or the like. Thus the lack of ancient artefacts, including vases from this era.
> 
> Lol NOT.
> 
> Any who, yes there were naked depictions and many caused an uproar much of that was artistic or even depictions of daily life. A lot of it had to do with fertility. It was not hours and hours of real imagery at the fingertips.


LOL,
LittleDeer, everytime you give that example of the ancient man's wife angry at him masturbating at the painted figures on the vase, honestly , you make me laugh...


Reality however, paints a very different picture.
Like Jaquen said, ancient men had freer access to prostitutes , brothels , and yes LIVE SEX SHOWS , than modern men in this era.
Here's another excerpt, based on historical FACT.

1] "...._The first thing to come to mind when anyone imagines the Colosseum are the spectacles of gladiatorial combat. Two men fighting one another to the death to the jeers and howls of the crowd before one finally capitulates, then the sadistic emperor let's loose the lions - these are the images we think of when we imagine one of the New Seven Wonders of the World.
* But what most people don't consider when thinking of the Roman Colosseum is the live sex shows that occurred there.
No doubt intrigued, don't think that this was a simple exaggeration - these were not just simple stripteases to keep older men happy between bouts of blood and gore, but were actual spectacles of skin and lust, the Spice Channel of the ancient world, as it were....*_*"*

If you have ever read the Bible, Paul in his letters to some of the Christian believers in Rome , warned them to stay away from these live sex shows, which often featured acts of homosexuality , lesbianism and even beastiality.

2] "..._But perhaps the most alluring of the shows were actually something of advertisements. Rome was a city much accustomed to sexual profligacy, it was a part of their every day lives. *In any Roman home, there was easy access to any number of sexual devices through the forms of slaves and catamites. When that wasn't enough, when a real professional delicacy was needed, Romans could turn to the brothels, which would often run their shows in the Colosseum. These worked both as "commercial advertisements" as well as raw, raunchy spectacles of earthly delight*_..."
Sources :

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/...man-Prostitutes-Brothels-And-Prostitution.htm

History of Sex: Roman Empire 

Clearly, what we have today as " porn " is a very mild form of erotica compared to what the ancient Romans , Greeks and many other civilizations enjoyed , not under the cover of darkness in their basement, but in the light of day at PUBLIC venues.
It was both LEGAL and COMMON in ancient cultures.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> All of my objections to porn have nothing to do with viewing it as a form of cheating. I have never felt threatened by porn. I find it trite and lacking authenticity. I've no doubt that I don't have to compete with it.
> 
> *I think porn today is different than porn in the past*. I think it can destroy men and women and has a great tendency to lure *abused or low confidence men and women into performing it *for a quick buck and a stigma that will inevitably follow them for the rest of their lives.
> 
> Statistics and figures back my stances up as do interviews. There is viable quantitative and qualitative data to support what my views are even though, take all that away, and my stance is still common sense.
> 
> If you "watch" porn you do so sometimes. If you "use" porn you find yourself browsing regularly and don't be foolish, it absolutely will change your perceptions and ideals in regards to sex, expectations, brain chemistry and more.
> 
> We can pretend it is harmless fun. That sex is a part of our humanity and we have flirted with various versions of pornography throughout time. I won't debate this nor will I say it is unnatural.
> 
> I think if you were to take some time to investigate, you'd see that today we're dealing with an entirely different monster and it is affecting relationships, our children and will impact our futures.
> 
> Call it what you will, allow it to make you feel as it does. Don't be ignorant, naive or self serving.


I disagree. I think that it is much more ubiquitious and less easily dismissed...which was one of the defenses against allowing porn to...inspire any particular bedroom activities "Howard, only perverts would expect me to stick that in my mouth!" just isn't going to fly anymore. Which means that women have to self reinforce boundaries without society support. And that is a much harder row to hoe.

"120 Days in Sodom" was much more extreme than the rather feeble fare of a woman enjoying sex with a man who isn't her husband. Only now are we approaching that level of perversion with some of the cartoons and machine porn out there.

And yes, i agree that there is a major problem with jaded tastes.

The problem is technology is afflicting society in any number of ways which we still haven't been able to cope with...yet!

So pining for the June Cleaver days isn't exactly going to help unless you are going to start a commune.


----------



## Starstarfish

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

And one of the reasons there was such free access to such things is that a Roman wife had essentially little to no negotiating power with her husband - she had less legal rights than him, and the legal definition of adultery did not include slaves or prostitutes.

Yet - that's no longer the situation. Women are no longer under the "hand" of their father and then passed over to their husband's "control." Women can now petition for divorce of their own power, and they can make their own determination about what is or what it is not considered adultery within the confines of their relationship. 

So - I think trying to say oh "Well, at least men can't see live sex shows these days" is kind of out of context with how patriarchal that system was. I doubt these things happened because Roman women loved the idea of live sex shows, or their husbands sleeping with male and/or female prostitutes. They just couldn't do anything about it.


----------



## 2ntnuf

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

"With great power comes great responsibility."

"Know thy self."

"Take responsibility for your actions."

I'd post more, but that's all I thought of at this time.

It's wonderful to be around women who have their own opinions, express them and carry them out with action. It is a turn-on. It is not when those same women want to force men to do things the way they would do them. That is controlling in itself. Think about it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Starstarfish said:


> And one of the reasons there was such free access to such things is that a Roman wife had essentially little to no negotiating power with her husband - she had less legal rights than him, and the legal definition of adultery did not include slaves or prostitutes.
> 
> Yet - that's no longer the situation. Women are no longer under the "hand" of their father and then passed over to their husband's "control." Women can now petition for divorce of their own power, and they can make their own determination about what is or what it is not considered adultery within the confines of their relationship.
> 
> So - I think trying to say oh "Well, at least men can't see live sex shows these days" is kind of out of context with how patriarchal that system was. I doubt these things happened because Roman women loved the idea of live sex shows, or their husbands sleeping with male and/or female prostitutes. They just couldn't do anything about it.


That's the point Starstarsfish,
women now have much more freedom than their Roman counterparts. Men now, have much less access to erotica than their Roman counterparts.
so in essence , the issue is more one about control of male sexuality by females, and not one of ethics or morals.
There is a school of thought which states that some women view digital / internet porn is as a direct threat to a woman's power of control over male sexuality.
Could there be some truth to that?

It's hard for me to conceive how depictions of human sexual behaviour could be so offensive to some women, outside of an ethical/ moral standpoint.

So my argument is that a woman cannot be morally opposed to digital erotica , whilst at the same time embracing written erotica. Erotica is erotica.
Both sexes just prefer different types of medium.

If a person is morally opposed to erotica l, like St. Paul in the Bible , he or she would condemn any form of erotica, written or digital. After all, the Romans didn't have internet , cable , DVD's, smartphones or Playboy subscriptions.

As far as I can see , it is hypocritical to argue against porn usage outside of the realms morality .
A married couple can however negotiate usage based on their feelings on the issue.
However, beyond morality, it becomes just another argument to shame men , and control their sexuality.


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Just a question (not trying to make a argument just curious), how do people who don't like porn in their relationship feel about graphic novels or manga porn?


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


> However, beyond morality, it becomes just another argument to shame men , and control their sexuality.


Perhaps men should control their OWN sexuality WITHOUT the use of a _woman_. 

I wonder what men would do if ALL women stopped having sex with them as a way of controlling _her_ own sexuality? After all, don't women have a RIGHT to say "NO" to sex with a man, and to have that 'NO' respected by him? 

Lest we forget that the time in Roman history that's described albeit hedonistic was also FORCED sexual slavery. Women didn't have the choice to say 'no' without dire consequences, including death. 

To reiterate, if a woman says 'no' to a man, she's not trying to control HIS sexuality; she's trying to control her own.

Vega


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Hypothetically, if a woman says to her husband, "I don't want you using porn anymore, you porn user," whose sexuality is she trying to control?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson

aribabe said:


> Porn is most certainly used.
> What is the purpose of watching it if you're not going to use it?
> 
> Do you just turn some porn on and grab a tub of popcorn so you can watch it?
> Or do you grab some lube and "use it" to help you get off?
> 
> I'm not even against porn, and I use it myself.
> 
> But the claim that millions of men are merely watching porn, and not using it, is silly.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Late to the party, but....

No tub of popcorn, but I've been known to put on some porn (softcore or hard core) while I do other things. No really paying attention to it, but more as background "white noise," that - when I look up from whatever I'm doing, I think, "Hey! Hot naked people. Right on!" then go back to whatever I was doing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Starstarfish

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

While men might be the ones most frequently getting shamed, they aren't the only ones. I mean, there's been quite a few threads about how written erotica is so much worse than visual erotica for X, Y, and Z reasons. How women obviously get way more into than men do, how men forget the images of porn as soon as they've watched it. 

So - that seems a rather common perspective, that whatever form of a erotica a person enjoys is fine, but obviously any other form is "worse" or "more wrong" etc, etc.


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Interlocutor said:


> Hypothetically, if a woman says to her husband, "I don't want you using porn anymore, you porn user," whose sexuality is she trying to control?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Hypothetically, if a man says to his wife, "I can't have sex with you NOW because I just finish m*bating to porn 15 minutes ago" whose sexuality is _HE_ now controlling??

Edited to add: The wife in your scenario never said, "Don't masturbate". She said, "I don't want you to use PORN". A man can masturbate WITHOUT the use of porn. After all, MOST men first started masturbating when they were 9,10,12 years old and MANY of them did so WITHOUT the use of pornography. Seems if they could do without it THEN, they can do without it NOW...

Vega


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

If someone made it clear they didn't want to be with someone who watches porn from very early on and decided to go into a relationship/marriage knowing this would be a deal breaker for their partner, can they really say they are being controlled if they get caught watching porn (having made a choice to into a relationship with someone who they knew had this stance on porn of their own free will)?

Again hypothetically

On the other side, if someone who has a stance against porn and years down the road your sex drive takes a dive (and their not willing to compromise with their partner about the amount of sex they have), can they then be angered when porn comes onto the scene?


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Starstarfish said:


> And one of the reasons there was such free access to such things is that a Roman wife had essentially little to no negotiating power with her husband - she had less legal rights than him, and the legal definition of adultery did not include slaves or prostitutes.
> 
> Yet - that's no longer the situation. Women are no longer under the "hand" of their father and then passed over to their husband's "control." Women can now petition for divorce of their own power, and they can make their own determination about what is or what it is not considered adultery within the confines of their relationship.
> 
> So - I think trying to say oh "Well, at least men can't see live sex shows these days" is kind of out of context with how patriarchal that system was. I doubt these things happened because Roman women loved the idea of live sex shows, or their husbands sleeping with male and/or female prostitutes. They just couldn't do anything about it.


No, the reason the context of the past is brought up is because the anti-porn brigade often begins romanticizing the past with nostalgic, ill conceived views of the "good ole days" when evil video and internet porn didn't corrupt the purity of humankind.

Except that's a false illusion. Things weren't as bad as now, they were _worse_. So you can not stoop to recalling a false past to support your present ire and then when called on it turn around and villainize the exact same nostalgic lie that you hitherto propagated.

Want to go back in time before your spouse could easily click on to an endless stream of sexy-time images copulating a 1,001 ways? Well enjoy your subjugation and rampant adultery! Look honey, now you can have the real thing, and I can't really do anything about it! How great the "good ole days" were!


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



BjornFree said:


> Wait a minute..
> 
> You draw a distinction between women with lots of sexual experience and faithful wives who consider themselves subprime but over in the other thread you're all about defending women and their sexual freedom all for one and one for all.
> 
> So where do you actually stand in this issue?
> 
> Besides drawing all those comparisons is all on you. We never do it. The same way LittleDeer never fantasizes about anyone other than her husband.


*I* didn't say that faithful wives are subprime, JCD did. And *I* didn't say that women with sexual pasts are repulsive, a bunch of guys on another thread did.

*I* am not making these comparisons at all.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> I wonder what men would do if ALL women stopped having sex with them as a way of controlling _her_ own sexuality?


Have lots of sex with one another. See prisons, all male boarding schools, and Sparta.

Or, unfortunately, rape.

There is a long history of men "finding a way" to get their rocks off. Which is why women have never, and will never, truly control male sexuality regardless of what they do. History shows us that men will always "find a way".


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*




jaquen said:


> Well enjoy your subjugation and rampant adultery!


Hmm...we STILL have quite a bit of this TODAY. Makes me wonder how "far" we've really come as a society...


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> Except that's a false illusion. Things weren't as bad as now, they were _worse_. So you can not stoop to recalling a false past to support your present ire and then when called on it turn around and villainize the exact same nostalgic lie that you hitherto propagated.
> 
> Want to go back in time before your spouse could easily click on to an endless stream of sexy-time images copulating a 1,001 ways? Well enjoy your subjugation and rampant adultery! Look honey, now you can have the real thing, and I can't really do anything about it! How great the "good ole days" were!


Worse? Except for the fact that it's actually dead easy to watch a live sex show or engage in rampant adultery or employ the services of a sex worker in these glorious days of digital internet technology.


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> Have lots of sex with one another. See prisons, all male boarding schools, and Sparta.
> 
> Or, unfortunately, rape.
> 
> There is a long history of men "finding a way" to get their rocks off. Which is why women have never, and will never, truly control male sexuality regardless of what they do. History shows us that men will always "find a way".


The PROBLEM is that in the name of trying to control their own sexuality, men try to control FEMALE sexuality.


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> Hmm...we STILL have quite a bit of this TODAY. Makes me wonder how "far" we've really come as a society...


Society hasn't changed very much IMO, the difference is divorce is now a option for women, it's easier to prove cheating and DNA tests are now available.


----------



## SomedayDig

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Can we get back to talking about porn now?


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Starstarfish said:


> While men might be the ones most frequently getting shamed, they aren't the only ones. I mean, there's been quite a few threads about how written erotica is so much worse than visual erotica for X, Y, and Z reasons. How women obviously get way more into than men do, how men forget the images of porn as soon as they've watched it.


Women using porn, written or visual, are absolutely not "frequently" shamed on this board. 

I mean lets be real here. A "few threads" about women and their porn usage, which are almost always in retaliation to the strong "shame on you men" attitude prevalent here, aren't remotely in competition with the plethora of anti-men&porn threads here.

But you know what you can easily find here on the TAM? Quite a few posts of people talking positively, and encouraging, about erotica aimed at women. 

There was, just a few weeks ago, two simultaneous threads running in the sex section about porn; one about men and porn, the other women and porn. Guess which was the lengthier one and filled with vitriol and debate, and which was comparatively short and downright pleasant? 

Also guess which one had NONE of the usual anti-porners posting in it?


----------



## SomedayDig

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> Women using porn, written or visual, are absolutely not "frequently" shamed on this board.
> 
> I mean lets be real here. A "few threads" about women and their porn usage, which are almost always in retaliation to the strong "shame on you men" attitude prevalent here, aren't remotely in competition with the plethora of anti-men&porn threads here.
> 
> But you know what you can easily find here on the TAM? Quite a few posts of people talking positively, and encouraging, about erotica aimed at women.
> 
> There was, just a few weeks ago, two simultaneous threads running in the sex section about porn; one about men and porn, the other women and porn. Guess which was the lengthier one and filled with vitriol and debate, and which was comparatively short and downright pleasant?
> 
> Also guess which one had NONE of the usual anti-porners posting in it?


Sorry everyone...

Game, Set, Match.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> Edited to add: The wife in your scenario never said, "Don't masturbate". She said, "I don't want you to use PORN". A man can masturbate WITHOUT the use of porn. After all, MOST men first started masturbating when they were 9,10,12 years old and MANY of them did so WITHOUT the use of pornography. Seems if they could do without it THEN, they can do without it NOW...
> 
> Vega


Oh they had porn. It just wasn't the kind that their little girlfriends and mothers could gasp and pearl clutch over because it was safely tucked away in their minds.

Also you probably need to spend a bit more time talking to guys about their first masturbation experiences. A lot of pre-internet first time experiences involved play over underwear catalogues and dad's tit mags.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> Hmm...we STILL have quite a bit of this TODAY. Makes me wonder how "far" we've really come as a society...


Yep. The major difference being that now the women are screwing around almost as much as the men.


----------



## Grayson

Starstarfish said:


> While men might be the ones most frequently getting shamed, they aren't the only ones. I mean, there's been quite a few threads about how written erotica is so much worse than visual erotica for X, Y, and Z reasons. How women obviously get way more into than men do, how men forget the images of porn as soon as they've watched it.
> 
> So - that seems a rather common perspective, that whatever form of a erotica a person enjoys is fine, but obviously any other form is "worse" or "more wrong" etc, etc.


I wouldn't say that one is "worse" than the other, simply because I don't see anything inherently wrong with either.

I do, however see a bit of an inequity in the responses to sexually charged stimuli that society seems to deem acceptable along gender lines. On the one hand, men are expected to publicly demonstrate restraint...to look, but be quiet about it. If they openly display enthusiasm, it is frowned upon. On the other hand, women are all but encouraged to be rather boisterous in their appreciation of sexually charged content...in fact, their appreciation of such material is celebrated.

The funny thing being that (speaking in a gross overgeneralization), women seem to "get" that such entertainment is exactly that...entertainment...when they're the target audience.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Hey, have fun guys. Some of you have taken this too personally for me. Thank you to those who tried to keep this discussion civil and educational. Take care.


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> Yep. The major difference being that now the women are screwing around almost as much as the men.


Actually, women DID screw around as much as men LONG BEFORE biblical times. Women were "allowed" to have more than one husband, also. 

Once men caught on that if a woman became preganant--and he had no way of knowing if the child was HIS--, did men begin to tighten the noose around women's sexuality, while allowing himself much more freedom in that area.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



always_alone said:


> *I* didn't say that faithful wives are subprime, JCD did. And *I* didn't say that women with sexual pasts are repulsive, a bunch of guys on another thread did.
> 
> *I* am not making these comparisons at all.


Excuse me if I miscommunicated.

The point I was trying to make is 'the best ones get snapped up early'.

You know that friendly girl? The one with the lusterous hair, the nice attitude, and the perfect curves? She is going to have a ring on her finger just as soon as a she desires it to happen...and it will be pretty early. 

Just like that studly law student or Med student who has the chiseled abs, the great work ethic, the kindness to strangers and that dreamy smile. Some girl (probably the one in the first example) is going to make sure that he's sewn up RIGHT quick!

So the 'prime stock' who are at all interested in marriage WILL be married...early!

Which means that the guy who is struggling with finance, setting up his mechanics shop, or that girl who DOESN'T have that same luster and personality will have to choose second (or third or tenth) rate mates. That doesn't change the fact that they still WANT first rate mates...hence the wandering eye.

And just to be clear, I am NOT a first rate 'prime stock' guy...but neither is my wife...and probably, neither are you.

There is nothing wrong with this, but it explains the drive for adultery in some context.

Women want the genes of that Prime Breeding stock...and are willing to put up with that useless fleshy appendage he calls a wife to get it...and a guy will act like a pure fool for that young prime hottie if she'll spend a few hours with him.

Or do you think everyone is marvelous in their own different way? Well...maybe...and maybe there are 'grades' of mates. As any thirty year old woman looking for an unmarried husband can tell you, picking are slim. Ditto for the men...though they tend to have a wider age range they can pull from.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Starstarfish said:


> And one of the reasons there was such free access to such things is that a Roman wife had essentially little to no negotiating power with her husband - she had less legal rights than him, and the legal definition of adultery did not include slaves or prostitutes.
> 
> Yet - that's no longer the situation. Women are no longer under the "hand" of their father and then passed over to their husband's "control." Women can now petition for divorce of their own power, and they can make their own determination about what is or what it is not considered adultery within the confines of their relationship.
> 
> So - I think trying to say oh "Well, at least men can't see live sex shows these days" is kind of out of context with how patriarchal that system was. I doubt these things happened because Roman women loved the idea of live sex shows, or their husbands sleeping with male and/or female prostitutes. They just couldn't do anything about it.


Well, lets be clear on the economics as well.

A bunch of people living in a village dont' have the luxury of buying naughty vases or having murals of The Rape of the Sabine Women put on their walls.

Hence porn was mostly limited to the wealthy. And even there, finding a...discrete artist or writer was a matter of some concern.

However, as the link Caribean Man posted indicates, as soon as cheap photographs and printing came about, people printed saucy stories and pictures in GREAT numbers. Many women posed for 'art pictures' for a little extra cash...

Computers has made it dirt cheap. This concerns me as well, but the drive is as old as our genes.


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> First point. Naturally women are angry at ittle Miss Hot Pants for enticing their husband. And they are angry at hubby for responding.


Just as men are upset when their wives drool over the random hot men in their lives, or the players that buy them drinks and promise them the world



JCD said:


> So...do wives fear that porn will make their men more sexually 'adventurous'? Why is the male fear of 'The Vixen' bad but the female fear of the same 'good'?


 
The male 'fear' of the so-called vixen is mostly hypocritical, IMHO. Men are usually all over the vixen, and they come here wishing their wives were more like one. But gawd forbid a wife ever enjoyed sex before he came along, as all of a sudden he feels inadequate and not special. 

And then he judges his wife and calls her all sorts of horrible names (insecure, controlling, prudish, etc.). for worrying about the same kinds of things. He wants to be the center of her sexual world, but is not even willing to consider returning the favour.

I call BS.


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> Also guess which one had NONE of the usual anti-porners posting in it?


And which threads had absolutely none of the usual pro-porn advocates? Those posted by men stating that they did not want porn use in their relationships.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



always_alone said:


> And which threads had absolutely none of the usual pro-porn advocates? Those posted by men stating that they did not want porn use in their relationships.


Possibly due to a difference in approach?

The few such threads that I've seen tend to follow a flow of, "It's not for me, so I prefer not to have it around."

Meanwhile, the threads that go on for pages and pages with both "sides" involved tend to start off from the standpoint of, "It's vile, it's evil, my spouse is a monster for looking at it. So, how do we get it off the planet?"

The former frames it in a subjective light, contextual with the individual. The latter attempts to frame a universal objective truth from a matter of opinion.


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> Excuse me if I miscommunicated.
> 
> The point I was trying to make is 'the best ones get snapped up early'.


What you said, though, was that women are hostile and judgmental of attractive women. And maybe that does happen, but no more so, I would venture, than men who are hostile and judgmental of the 'a$$hole' players. 

As for the whole "prime stock" thing, I think it is largely BS. Yes, people will often go after youth and beauty when cheating on each other. Not always, but often. Either way, it doesn't mean they are chasing 'prime'.

Edited to add: If i had even an inkling that my SO felt about me the way that you apparently feel about your wife, I'd be gone in an instant.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



always_alone said:


> What you said, though, was that women are hostile and judgmental of attractive women. And maybe that does happen, but no more so, I would venture, than men who are hostile and judgmental of the 'a$$hole' players.
> 
> As for the whole "prime stock" thing, I think it is largely BS. Yes, people will often go after youth and beauty when cheating on each other. Not always, but often. Either way, it doesn't mean they are chasing 'prime'.
> 
> Edited to add: If i had even an inkling that my SO felt about me the way that you apparently feel about your wife, I'd be gone in an instant.


Excuse me. I happen to love my wife to death. However, do I consider her the BEST WOMAN IN THE ENTIRE WORLD? No. But she fits with me just fine.

Do I think, if she had been given a 'free husband' coupon and had free choice of ALL the men in the world, she'd have automatically picked me? No. I know this for a fact. And it doesn't bother me. We have what we have and have found a good place for us.

That doesn't mean we are worthless people. It means that we both have issues. Everyone has SOME warts but some of us have more than others.

This is called 'realism'. Please let me know if it upsets you to continue to have a reality based conversation.

And no, I think most women go after older and more successful men, not necessarily younger and prettier. As was beaten to death in another thread: Women value status. Men value looks.

She wants a charming Senator or Governor (see Edwards, Clinton).

Edited to add: You know what? I don't know of many men magazines which spend a significant amount of time tearing down Mel Gibson or Tom Cruise or Kit Harrington. We generally don't care about 'the pretty boys' except maybe wanting to be them.

Women seem to enjoy seeing pictures of these 'gorgeous women' without make up or photo retouching. They like to hear about their failed relationships. They tear each other down...particularly if they are prettier.

So...you tell me if I'm offbase.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



always_alone said:


> Just as men are upset when their wives drool over the random hot men in their lives, or the players that buy them drinks and promise them the world
> 
> I call BS.


Accepting drinks isn't an innocent action. And you understand men less well than you think.


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Totally can't relate to your relationship JCD, my husband is the one of the best men in the world to me hence why I married him.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



always_alone said:


> And which threads had absolutely none of the usual pro-porn advocates? Those posted by men stating that they did not want porn use in their relationships.


Not. True. At. All. I've posted along side men who've said "I had a problem/I don't want it in my marriage/I've moved on from porn". So have others who are actually, again, less "pro-porn" and more "pro-not shaming men" or "pro-mind your own damn business".

Here is the difference. Those you consider "pro-porn" almost always respect the rights of anybody to say "nope, no porn for me".

The anti-porners however tend to come into EVERY thread about porn, regardless of the tone, and turn it into a crusade where they declare that not only should they refrain, ALL men should refrain. And trust me, 99% it is absolutely only the men. Because the threads about females looking at, or reading, porn are almost always pleasant, kind, and devoid of the picket liners.

Which just continues to prove a point I said to you once. Most of the anti-porn threads are just thinly veiled anti-male crusades.


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> Excuse me. I happen to love my wife to death. However, do I consider her the BEST WOMAN IN THE ENTIRE WORLD? No. But she fits with me just fine.


I'm glad you love your wife, and i'm sorry, I wasn't trying to derail this thread by suggesting otherwise. We are talking about porn here, and my only real point was that your insinuation that a wife is subprime because she lacks the big boobs or lustrous hair of a porn star is just sad, IMO.

Women do not, in my experience, enjoy trashing other women. I think we only see this phenomenon because some of us have been trashed for so long and called subprime by so many men that we simply enjoy feeling a little less alone for a while.

That, and the media's ability to sensationalize and capitalize on the worst of our behaviour.

Personally, I take no part in trashing either men or women, especially on something as stupid, ephemeral, and surface as looks.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



always_alone said:


> Edited to add: If i had even an inkling that my SO felt about me the way that you apparently feel about your wife, I'd be gone in an instant.


Didn't you originally come here because you felt like your husband was choosing spank time with his digital harem over sex with you? 

And this is what I'm talking about. More women need to just leave their husbands when they get to the point you've arrived to. This topic obviously upsets you, and for good reason. You seem like a person of strong moral fiber who has a palpable sense of personal dignity. Have you made the decision yet to stand your ground and leave? Because your issue isn't porn. Nobody's real issue is porn. The issue is the PERSON.



always_alone said:


> Women do not, in my experience, enjoy trashing other women.


Unless your experience is on a desert island with a population of one, you can not be serious! Nobody can tear a woman apart like another woman, and women are far more likely to be trashed by another woman than they will ever be by a man.


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> Didn't you originally come here because you felt like your husband was choosing spank time with his digital harem over sex with you?
> 
> And this is what I'm talking about. More women need to just leave their husbands when they get to the point you've arrived to. This topic obviously upsets you, and for good reason. You seem like a person of strong moral fiber who has a palpable sense of personal dignity. Have you made the decision yet to stand your ground and leave? Because your issue isn't porn. Nobody's real issue is porn. The issue is the PERSON.


:iagree:


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> Which just continues to prove a point I said to you once. Most of the anti-porn threads are just thinly veiled anti-male crusades.


You see all of the nuances in the "pro" side, but none of them in the "anti". And there are many; there is no single voice here.

You've accused me time and time again of being anti-male, shaming men, and so on, when none of this was ever my intent.

For example, I've never said no man (or woman) should watch porn, and even posted times when I thought it understandable, even perfectly fine.

The goal in participating in these threads, at least for me, is to challenge what seems to be double-talk, share my POV, learn from others, and yes, sometimes to vent a little frustration.

Yet, all I am good for is celibacy or lesbianism (your words).

As for pro-mind your own business: Doesn't this have to go both ways? That is, if men want to be left alone to do whatever they want, do they not also need to leave their wives alone to do whatever they want?


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> The anti-porners however tend to come into EVERY thread about porn, regardless of the tone, and turn it into a crusade where they declare that not only should they refrain, ALL men should refrain.
> 
> I suspect, in part, that ONE of the reasons for this is because of how unfair the porn 'attitude' is among many men who use it. As I've tried pointing out before, it seems that the 'miliatant' pro-porn users wave their 'right' to use porn like it's some kind of banner...screaming about their 'masculinity'. Yet those same men, when asked, are almost VIOLENTLY AGAINST other men oogling and masturbating to naked pics or internet sex with "*THEIR*" wives and daughters. Just imagine your neighbor coming over to your house with the latest copy of Playboy, opening up to the centerfold and saying, "I see your daughter is in the July issue! I'm going to have FUN beating off to HER tonight!" That "friend" would probably leave your property with a bloody lip...or worse...
> 
> If it's o.k. to view someone else's girlfriend, daughter or even wife, then what would be wrong with other men viewing _your OWN _naked daughter or wife?
> 
> Which just continues to prove a point I said to you once. Most of the anti-porn threads are just thinly veiled anti-male crusades.


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> Hypothetically, if a man says to his wife, "I can't have sex with you NOW because I just finish m*bating to porn 15 minutes ago" whose sexuality is _HE_ now controlling??


Hers... He's a jerk. I blame the guy, not porn.



Vega said:


> Edited to add: The wife in your scenario never said, "Don't masturbate". She said, "I don't want you to use PORN". A man can masturbate WITHOUT the use of porn. After all, MOST men first started masturbating when they were 9,10,12 years old and MANY of them did so WITHOUT the use of pornography. Seems if they could do without it THEN, they can do without it NOW...
> 
> Vega


Who said he "has" to use porn... What if he effing feels like it? Is she going to control his sexual preferences?

Women got off without vibrators prior to their invention... Is that an argument that a man would be justified in demanding his wife stop masturbating with them...

Besides, in your counter-hypothetical, it seems the issue is the husband masturbating, which can easily be done without porn, by your own admission...

SO...

The conclusion for me again is that porn is not the problem, and I thank you for helping support that.


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> And you understand men less well than you think.


Oh, I don't understand men at all. Never have. They always tell you that men are only interested in sex, will not even speak to a woman unless they want in her pants, and cannot be trusted -- but they only mean other men. When it comes to them personally, they love their wives, and their flirtations with their co-workers or trawling on webcams is "meaningless", and their "controlling, prudish wives should just STFU and mind her own business".


----------



## johnnycomelately

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> I suspect, in part, that ONE of the reasons for this is because of how unfair the porn 'attitude' is among many men who use it. As I've tried pointing out before, it seems that the 'miliatant' pro-porn users wave their 'right' to use porn like it's some kind of banner...screaming about their 'masculinity'.


It has nothing whatsoever to do with masculinity. That is a fallacy that the porn-haters constantly try to push. Every adult man _and_ woman has the right to watch porn. There is no arguing that. It is enshrined in law. 

Why do you try and turn this into a gender issue?


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

It's a lot harder for a woman to say:
"Ughhh... I married an insensitive jerk... I ****ed up and I need to figure out why I did this and how to solve this. What can I do for my own happiness here since he doesn't care about my preferences... Why did I pick this man? Why am I staying with him? Why are we together if he does things that bother me?"

than to say:
"Ughhhh... This damn porn is what's messing everything up! My husband would be so different if it wasn't for that! I chose the right man and my choices are right to stay with this man, but porn is just obviously harmful..."


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Interlocutor said:


> Hers... He's a jerk. I blame the guy, not porn.
> 
> 
> 
> Who said he "has" to use porn... What if he effing feels like it? Where in my post did I mention that he *had* to use it? Is she going to control his sexual preferences?
> 
> Women got off without vibrators prior to their invention... Is that an argument that a man would be justified in demanding his wife stop masturbating with them...
> 
> Besides, in your counter-hypothetical, it seems the issue is the husband masturbating, which can easily be done without porn, by your own admission...
> 
> SO...
> 
> The conclusion for me again is that porn is not the problem, and I thank you for helping support that.


In all honesty, I'm with YOU...*I* don't think it's the REAL issue either...


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



always_alone said:


> As for pro-mind your own business: Doesn't this have to go both ways? That is, if men want to be left alone to do whatever they want, do they not also need to leave their wives alone to do whatever they want?


Where in my post did I say that men need to be left alone to do whatever they want?

The "pro-mind your own business" was in references to the sides people take in these TAM debates, not real life. The "pro-mindyourownbusiness" debater is someone who doesn't understand why your (universal your) desire to have no porn in your life needs to be translated into other men you do not know also being reprimanded for having porn in their life.

Obviously in a marriage you can't just live in a vacuum. I believe, as I always have, two people in a marriage need to work to come to some compromise regarding this matter, some solution they can both live with. Whether that ends up with no-porn, some porn, a lot of porn, porn watching together, or apart, is something that can only be ascertained by any given couple who faces this issue.

I simply do not now, and never will, buy into the notion that a woman can cry a few tears, or wag a few fingers, and men should just be expected to have an issue with porn just because she has an issue with porn. That doesn't seem fair to me at all.


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Interlocutor said:


> It's a lot harder for a woman to say:
> "Ughhh... I married an insensitive jerk... I ****ed up and I need to figure out why I did this and how to solve this. What can I do for my own happiness here since he doesn't care about my preferences... Why did I pick this man? Why am I staying with him? Why are we together if he does things that bother me?"
> 
> than to say:
> "Ughhhh... This damn porn is what's messing everything up! My husband would be so different if it wasn't for that! I chose the right man and my choices are right to stay with this man, but porn is just obviously harmful..."


:iagree:
If a man/woman pulled a bait and switch with porn (or anything else) that's on them.


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> In all honesty, I'm with YOU...*I* don't think it's the REAL issue either...


No, it's that in the edited part of your earlier post it seemed to me you were saying that I implied a man needed porn to masturbate...

And thanks for agreeing on the latter...

People like to blame the things most unrelated in degree to their own choices, and women are no exception.


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



TiggyBlue said:


> :iagree:
> If a man/woman pulled a bait and switch with porn (or anything else) that's on them.


Totally! :iagree:


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



johnnycomelately said:


> It has nothing whatsoever to do with masculinity. That is a fallacy that the porn-haters constantly try to push. Every adult man _and_ woman has the right to watch porn. There is no arguing that. It is enshrined in law.
> 
> Why do you try and turn this into a gender issue?


Go back and read what you quoted. I did not say ALL men; I said MANY men. We're obviously talking about the men who use porn...not the men who do NOT use it. I THOUGHT this thread was regarding men who "use" it or "watch" it. After all, the title of the thread is ".......to shame *MEN*".


----------



## SomedayDig

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



SomedayDig said:


> If you utilize porn, alcohol, tobacco and your spouse if perfectly okay with it: ZERO problem.
> 
> If you utilize porn, alcohol, tobacco and you hide it from your spouse because of disapproval: BIG problem.
> 
> In my opinion it's really that simple.



Yeah...this needs to be restated cuz all of this other stuff is getting kinda silly. 

If YOUR spouse is doing description 1 with your approval - Congrats.

If YOUR spouse is doing description 2 - then DO something about it in YOUR marriage. Not everyone who watches porn does so in a demeaning or addictive way.

It's like blaming the gun when someone goes on a shooting rampage.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> I suspect, in part, that ONE of the reasons for this is because of how unfair the porn 'attitude' is among many men who use it. As I've tried pointing out before, it seems that the 'miliatant' pro-porn users wave their 'right' to use porn like it's some kind of banner...screaming about their 'masculinity'. Yet those same men, when asked, are almost VIOLENTLY AGAINST other men oogling and masturbating to naked pics or internet sex with "THEIR" wives and daughters. Just imagine your neighbor coming over to your house with the latest copy of Playboy, opening up to the centerfold and saying, "I see your daughter is in the July issue! I'm going to have FUN beating off to HER tonight!" That "friend" would probably leave your property with a bloody lip...or worse...
> 
> If it's o.k. to view someone else's girlfriend, daughter or even wife, then what would be wrong with other men viewing your OWN naked daughter or wife?


So you're basically pointing out the contradictions that exist in all humankind?

Because in the US, and almost every other westernized nation, the vast majority of goods we use are made cheaply by millions of people who are working in what are basically near no-wage sweatshops. 

However ask the typical American if they'd be comfortable with their sons, daughters, wives, etc working long hours, for next to nothing, in abject poverty and how many people do you think would dream of their kids aspiring to become slave laborers?

When you go to the McDonalds, or any other fast food joint, and see a grown adult working there do you refuse service because you personally would have a problem with your own child or spouse's career aspirations taking them only as far as a cashier at the Mc D's?


----------



## Starstarfish

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I wonder how much of the time is truly "bait and switch" or simply - 

1 - It wasn't really discussed before marriage. 

I mean - I'll confess, it never came up in conversation once between me and my husband. So - if we have a problem down the line, it will be as much my fault as his for not getting my feelings out on the table (though, I'm kind of torn about what exactly my feelings are.)

2 - It was discussed but you thought the other person was joking, that their opinion would change, or that your opinion would change. 

There's plenty of threads following that theme about related sex topics - she told me how many partners she had, but I thought she was joking. Yeah, she was always LD but I thought it would get better. No, I was never really turned on by her, but I thought it wouldn't be a problem. So the idea that this same mindset applied to porn discussions doesn't seem that far off.


----------



## johnnycomelately

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> Go back and read what you quoted. I did not say ALL men; I said MANY men. We're obviously talking about the men who use porn...not the men who do NOT use it.


Exactly. I use porn and I do not claim it as a right for men only. I don't 'wave around my masculinity'. This is not a gender issue. This is a rights issue. 




Vega said:


> it seems that the 'miliatant' pro-porn users wave their 'right' to use porn like it's some kind of banner...screaming about their 'masculinity'.


I am militantly pro-freedom to use porn. Just as I am militantly pro-gay rights and pro-women's rights. You seem to be desperate to paint those who are pro-porn as male-chauvinists, when in fact you are the one displaying the sexism in this situation.


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> Didn't you originally come here because you felt like your husband was choosing spank time with his digital harem over sex with you?


And I was told that I would have to be celibate or a lesbian if I wanted to not have to compete with porn. All men do it, so where's the incentive to switch?

No, correction, you are right: you and a few others told me the problem was with him, not with porn, and that I should leave him. 

But I didn't. Instead I told him that he had to start putting me first, or he would lose me. Then I took him away from the Internet for a month vacation, and we sexed each other up. No porn at all during that period. That's the base, and we're still working on it.



jaquen said:


> Unless your experience is on a desert island with a population of one, you can not be serious! Nobody can tear a woman apart like another woman, and women are far more likely to be trashed by another woman than they will ever be by a man.


Of all of my female friends, and there are many, not a single one of them engages in tearing apart women. Not one. I have one friend who sometimes likes to read the "look at the cellulite on this celebrity's a$$" articles, and when I asked her about it, she said that it just made her feel a bit better to know that even beautiful women have cellulite.

So maybe you are just hanging out with the wrong women.


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> So you're basically pointing out the contradictions that exist in all humankind?
> 
> No. I believe we're talking about PORNOGRAPHY on THIS thread. If you want to start a thread about sweatshops and minimum wage jobs at McDonald's I'll be happy to chime it!
> 
> But I also know you didn't answer the question so I'll pose it again:
> 
> If it's o.k. to view someone else's girlfriend, daughter or even wife, then what would be wrong with other men viewing your OWN naked daughter or wife?


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

FYI, when you reply inside the body of the quoted post, it makes it difficult to respond without manually manipulating it. Were I on my phone and not computer, I wouldn't be able to do so all that effectively.



Vega said:


> I suspect, in part, that ONE of the reasons for this is because of how unfair the porn 'attitude' is among many men who use it. As I've tried pointing out before, it seems that the 'miliatant' pro-porn users wave their 'right' to use porn like it's some kind of banner...screaming about their 'masculinity'. Yet those same men, when asked, are almost VIOLENTLY AGAINST other men oogling and masturbating to naked pics or internet sex with "THEIR" wives and daughters. Just imagine your neighbor coming over to your house with the latest copy of Playboy, opening up to the centerfold and saying, "I see your daughter is in the July issue! I'm going to have FUN beating off to HER tonight!" That "friend" would probably leave your property with a bloody lip...or worse...
> 
> If porn is "o.k." to use, then what would be wrong with your wife or daughter starring in it?


I'd agree that it's sometimes far too easy for both sides of this argument to run to the extreme when making their points.

And, undoubtedly, there are some who enjoy porn who wouldn't want a family member to be in it. There are also people who go to a convenience store frequently, but would prefer a family member not work in one. Or, who watch football, but would prefer their son not play. Thus, I don't think the "I'm a consumer but wouldn't want family to be a participant" litmus test is a good or fair one.

As far as a spouse being in porn (after the marriage), that would be something for both parties to discuss. I wouldn't want my wife in porn, not because I have a problem with a generic someone masturbating to her image (I'm well aware that I'm not the first she's had sex with, that others have likely masturbated to her...and I'd imagine that some will do so in the future...I can't control what someone else fantasizes about), but because sex with someone else is a boundary that we've set. If it were just nude pics...I can't say. It would take discussion.

I don't (and won't) have a daughter (not a claim of control over gender in reproduction...my wife's had a hysterectomy), so I can only approach that aspect as an intellectual exercise. A job in porn wouldn't be my first choice, because of how those who participate are judged by those who dislike porn (and even some who like it). And, I'd expect her to let us know about it, as it would certainly require my viewing choices to be more selective. Assuming that we're talking about a reasonably intelligent girl making the decision with as much information as she could gather...it's her decision.

The problem you describe is one of decorum. There's nothing to stop anyone's masturbatory fantasies from including one's spouse or child without their participation in porn, and I'd just as readily take issue with someone behaving in such a manner without porn.

When I was in my early 20's, a co-worker's girlfriend - a Hooters waitress - posed for a Playboy "Girls of Hooters" pictorial. And, the scenario you described played out with some of our other co-workers. Not really because she was naked in Playboy, but because (here's the key), they were being jerks! And, that sort of scenario will continue to play out as long as porn is demonized by those strongly opposed to it.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> Here is the difference. Those you consider "pro-porn" almost always respect the rights of anybody to say "nope, no porn for me".



This thread may have passed me by. My fault for going to work...

jaquen - just wanted to ask you this.


If the wife says that she doesn't want porn in her life, wouldn't that by extension include her husband? She doesn't want to be affected by porn, and if he is using it wouldn't she be affected?

So should the pro porn husband respect the desires of the anti porn wife?


edit: p.s. Is she then trying to "control" his sexuality or trying to control her own...?


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

This thread really may have passed me by...

I never came at this subject from an anti male point of view.

And I have seen as many anti woman comments as I have seen anti male comments on these threads.

I am concerned by the astounding availability of hard core porn nowadays. Anyone who knows how to use a computer - and that includes kids - can access porn at the click of a button.

And it is not just the porn, but the unending choices that I think is a problem.

I would not want to try to censor anything. I am simply speaking up for self control, and for educating one self about what porn is and the effect it can have on a person, male or female. I am also concerned about the effect it can have on relationships.

Many speak of the "right" to use porn. Be careful of this. You have the RIGHT to do a lot of things that you would not do, so this is a very weak argument, in my opinion.

I most simply believe that men are not educating themselves about how porn affects them.

I will give you a simple litmus test...

If you are having less sex than you used to and using more porn than you used to then porn is affecting you in a negative way. That's my opinion, and you don't have to jump to agree (edit: or disagree) with me, but you should think about it...


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> This thread may have passed me by. My fault for going to work...
> 
> jaquen - just wanted to ask you this.
> 
> 
> If the wife says that she doesn't want porn in her life, wouldn't that by extension include her husband?


I don't want soap operas in my life. My wife enjoys them. Does that mean that she shouldn't watch them? Or that *I* don't want to watch them?



> She doesn't want to be affected by porn, and if he is using it wouldn't she be affected?


Not necessarily. Are you, by definition, affected negatively by everything your spouse does that you don't share in? I chose long, long ago not to drink. I just plain never acquired a taste for alcohol. My wife does drink occasionally. As long as she doesn't overdo it, am I being "affected?" That's up to each person to decide for themselves.



> So should the pro porn husband respect the desires of the anti porn wife?


I'm not sure this is, at its core, a "yes" or "no" answer, as it grants far more power to a genre of entertainment than any genre of entertainment inherently possesses, and is steeped in the societal stigma that has been imposed upon porn.

If you heard tell of a husband who was neglecting his wife weekly to watch a violent clash of opposing forces competing for the entertainment of the masses, and she wants him to stop, would you say the husband should respect the desires of the wife? Probably.

When I give that clash the name "football," I think you'd find that the vast majority of the American public would turn around and say, "It's just a game. She needs to get over it."


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> If it's o.k. to view someone else's girlfriend, daughter or even wife, then what would be wrong with other men viewing your OWN naked daughter or wife?



If my wife, girlfriend, daughter, or SON (since, again, males are often left out this equation) was to become involved in porn my issue would be with them, NOT any consumer who chose to view them through their work. Why would I want to beat up somebody who masturbated to what my loved one did, if my loved one consented to do the work in the first place?


And to go to my original point, the reasons I mentioned the sweatshops is simple: it's perfectly natural to partake in services that you wouldn't necessarily want your loved ones to be responsible for crafting or doing. We all do it.


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> FYI, when you reply inside the body of the quoted post, it makes it difficult to respond without manually manipulating it. Were I on my phone and not computer, I wouldn't be able to do so all that effectively.
> 
> Oh, I'm so sorry! Wait...did I just do it again, lol? Seriously, thank you for pointing that out to me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, undoubtedly, there are some who enjoy porn who wouldn't want a family member to be in it. There are also people who go to a convenience store frequently, but would prefer a family member not work in one. Or, who watch football, but would prefer their son not play. *Thus, I don't think the "I'm a consumer but wouldn't want family to be a participant" litmus test is a good or fair one.*
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in my early 20's, a co-worker's girlfriend - a Hooters waitress - posed for a Playboy "Girls of Hooters" pictorial. And, the scenario you described played out with some of our other co-workers. Not really because she was naked in Playboy, but because (here's the key), they were being jerks! And, that sort of scenario will continue to play out as long as porn is demonized by those strongly opposed to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we will have to contend with militant attitudes from people on BOTH ends of the spectrum.
> 
> When I was married to my first husband, he bought Playboy each month. That was the extent of his "porn dabbling". He never used videos or bought anything else. In fact, I even BOUGHT him a few copies (and yes, he DID actually read the articles, lol!) I never got on his case about it or made faces. To me, his 'indulgence' was tasteful.
> 
> We divorced and I remarried a man who told me that he also 'dabbled' in it. Turned out that I made a HUGE discovery only 2 weeks into our marriage. He was HEAVILY into porn mags, porn on t.v., porn stashed in his car and office, and yes, he was into cybersexing. I posed the question, "How would you like it if *I* had cybersex with some man?" He laughed and said, "As long as I could be there with you when you do it, I wouldn't have a problem with it" I reminded him that *I* was not with HIM while HE was doing it, therefore HE didn't get to 'supervise' ME!
> 
> And suddenly our conversation went cold...
> 
> A week later, he came to me and told me that he would NOT "like it". In fact, he'd be quite jealous. (ya THINK?!). He told me that I opened his eyes and that he would STOP...which he did.
> 
> I do not believe that I was "controlling his sexuality". I only wanted him to be FAIR.
> 
> By the way...it turned out that although he DID stop, he also had a big sexual addiction and eventually, we DID divorce...
> 
> Vega
Click to expand...


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

:smnotworthy::smnotworthy:


sparkyjim said:


> This
> I would not want to try to censor anything. I am simply speaking up for self control, and for educating one self about what porn is and the effect it can have on a person, male or female. I am also concerned about the effect it can have on relationships.
> 
> Many speak of the "right" to use porn. Be careful of this. You have the RIGHT to do a lot of things that you would not do, so this is a very weak argument, in my opinion.
> 
> I most simply believe that men are not educating themselves about how porn affects them.
> 
> I will give you a simple litmus test...
> 
> .


:smnotworthy: Good points, Sparky!


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> This thread really may have passed me by...
> 
> I never came at this subject from an anti male point of view.
> 
> And I have seen as many anti woman comments as I have seen anti male comments on these threads.
> 
> I am concerned by the astounding availability of hard core porn nowadays. Anyone who knows how to use a computer - and that includes kids - can access porn at the click of a button.
> 
> And it is not just the porn, but the unending choices that I think is a problem.
> 
> I would not want to try to censor anything. I am simply speaking up for self control, and for educating one self about what porn is and the effect it can have on a person, male or female. I am also concerned about the effect it can have on relationships.


The same, however, can be said about any choice of entertainment genre or other pastime. It's not porn, itself, that has an effect...it's how one chooses to respond to it that has an effect.



> I will give you a simple litmus test...
> 
> If you are having less sex than you used to and using more porn than you used to then porn is affecting you in a negative way. That's my opinion, and you don't have to jump to agree (edit: or disagree) with me, but you should think about it...


Your litmus test is a bit too generalized to be effective. You assume the amount of sex is the result of the amount of porn viewing, when the opposite may be the case. For instance, I'll apply your litmus test:

I'm having less sex than I used to, and viewing about the same amount of porn (if not less). As presented, your litmus test would conclude that the latter is the cause of the former. But, it's not. It's because medical reasons have made my wife's drive virtually non-existent, thus the quantity of sex has dropped like a rock.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> This thread may have passed me by. My fault for going to work...
> 
> jaquen - just wanted to ask you this.
> 
> 
> If the wife says that she doesn't want porn in her life, wouldn't that by extension include her husband? She doesn't want to be affected by porn, and if he is using it wouldn't she be affected?
> 
> So should the pro porn husband respect the desires of the anti porn wife?
> 
> 
> edit: p.s. Is she then trying to "control" his sexuality or trying to control her own...?


If the wife made it clear _before_ she was married that she would not tolerate porn in her marriage, and the husband agreed, but lied and continued looking at porn in secret, I believe he should give it up.

And if he does not want to give it up I believe he should cop to the fact that he either lied to bait and switch her, changed his mind, or was too weak to resist. At which point a wife can then make her decision as to whether she wants to say with him, or not.

I don't make any posts that are for, or against, porn in a marriage. My posts are always about two people finding a way to be on one accord, of if they can't finding a way to compromise.


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> If my wife, girlfriend, daughter, or SON (since, again, males are often left out this equation) was to become involved in porn my issue would be with them, NOT any consumer who chose to view them through their work.


So you WOULD or WOULD NOT have an "issue" with it?


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> It's because medical reasons have made my wife's drive virtually non-existent, thus the quantity of sex has dropped like a rock.


I remember your story Grayson..

I hope your doing well...


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> If you are having less sex than you used to and using more porn than you used to then porn is affecting you in a negative way. That's my opinion, and you don't have to jump to agree (edit: or disagree) with me, but you should think about it...


Actually I tend to have _more_ sex when I view more porn...


----------



## SomedayDig

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> Actually I tend to have _more_ sex when I view more porn...


Same.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> If the wife made it clear _before_ she was married ...


Absolutely...

If through experience - or for what ever other reason - she decided after marriage that porn was not for her then the whole relationship would be up for debate wouldn't it?

He could choose either way, she could choose either way - they would *have to work it out*.

I don't see this as her trying to control his sexuality. Not in the least. ANd I am not saying that you said this - someone else did - I am just saying that I don't see it that way.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> We divorced and I remarried a man who told me that he also 'dabbled' in it. Turned out that I made a HUGE discovery only 2 weeks into our marriage. He was HEAVILY into porn mags, porn on t.v., porn stashed in his car and office, and yes, he was into cybersexing. I posed the question, "How would you like it if *I* had cybersex with some man?" He laughed and said, "As long as I could be there with you when you do it, I wouldn't have a problem with it" I reminded him that *I* was not with HIM while HE was doing it, therefore HE didn't get to 'supervise' ME!
> 
> And suddenly our conversation went cold...
> 
> A week later, he came to me and told me that he would NOT "like it". In fact, he'd be quite jealous. (ya THINK?!). He told me that I opened his eyes and that he would STOP...which he did.
> 
> I do not believe that I was "controlling his sexuality". I only wanted him to be FAIR.
> 
> By the way...it turned out that although he DID stop, he also had a big sexual addiction and eventually, we DID divorce...
> 
> Vega


But your second husband lied. THAT is the issue. He said he "dabbled", when he knew that not to be the case.

Porn wasn't the issue. Your lying ass ex-husband was the issue.

You WOULD be trying to "control his sexuality" if he told you that he was a regular connnosuier of pornagraphy, including cyber sex, and you told him you were fine with it, married him, and then suddenly decided that you were uncomfortable with his behavior and that alone should be enough for him to stop.


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> Absolutely...
> 
> If through experience - or for what ever other reason - she decided after marriage that porn was not for her then the whole relationship would be up for debate wouldn't it?
> 
> He could choose either way, she could choose either way - they would *have to work it out*.
> 
> I don't see this as her trying to control his sexuality. Not in the least. ANd I am not saying that you said this - someone else did - I am just saying that I don't see it that way.


:iagree:
Yes their are people a few on this forum who try to shame someone who watches porn, there is also a few on the board who try to shame people who porn is a deal breaker/issue for them and try to dismiss their pain.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> I'm not sure this is, at its core, a "yes" or "no" answer, as it grants far more power to a genre of entertainment than any genre of entertainment inherently possesses,


I know you are going to hold onto this idea that it is just a harmless entertainment...






Grayson said:


> and is steeped in the societal stigma that has been imposed upon porn.


I am not speaking out about the possible harmful affects of porn because of any stigma...


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> Grayson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm so sorry! Wait...did I just do it again, lol? Seriously, thank you for pointing that out to me!
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. And, yeah...you started to do it again.
> 
> It's really easy to reply that way on a computer...just jump right in and make the reply a different color. But, especially when posting from a mobile device, that reply doesn't show up in a later reply's quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...I went on to explain that in the next couple of paragraphs, so.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was married to my first husband, he bought Playboy each month. That was the extent of his "porn dabbling". He never used videos or bought anything else. In fact, I even BOUGHT him a few copies (and yes, he DID actually read the articles, lol!) I never got on his case about it or made faces. To me, his 'indulgence' was tasteful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Awesome. It was my college girlfriend who suggested that I subscribe to both Playboy and Penthouse, rather than buying them on the newsstand, as it saved a lot of money for us. And, yes...I read articles in both, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We divorced and I remarried a man who told me that he also 'dabbled' in it. Turned out that I made a HUGE discovery only 2 weeks into our marriage. He was HEAVILY into porn mags, porn on t.v., porn stashed in his car and office, and yes, he was into cybersexing. I posed the question, "How would you like it if *I* had cybersex with some man?" He laughed and said, "As long as I could be there with you when you do it, I wouldn't have a problem with it" I reminded him that *I* was not with HIM while HE was doing it, therefore HE didn't get to 'supervise' ME!
> 
> And suddenly our conversation went cold...
> 
> A week later, he came to me and told me that he would NOT "like it". In fact, he'd be quite jealous. (ya THINK?!). He told me that I opened his eyes and that he would STOP...which he did.
> 
> I do not believe that I was "controlling his sexuality". I only wanted him to be FAIR.
> 
> By the way...it turned out that although he DID stop, he also had a big sexual addiction and eventually, we DID divorce...
> 
> Vega
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, as you pointed out, that was a result of him, not an inherent trait of porn. Both my college girlfriend and my wife (the two major relationships in my life) were aware of my viewing porn from day one, and had/have no problem with it. If they did, it would be something we'd discuss. At the end of the day, it's nothing more than a genre of entertainment. Some aren't entertained by it, and that's fine. Not every genre will entertain everyone. I don't care for westerns, for example. I can't stand football, although my wife watches occasionally. I wouldn't dream of telling her that she "shouldn't" watch it...she just shouldn't expect me to watch it with her.
> 
> So, I wouldn't say that the objections of every woman who disagrees with porn is a matter of trying to control her significant other's sexuality, but I think you and I can agree that the law of averages suggests that at least some cases of insisting their husbands cease and desist any and all viewing of porn do fit that description. While it's a cliche, there's some truth to the idea that, given the nature of sexual "politics" as they stand in American society, women control the flow of sex in most relationships. (There's a reason that Ghostbusters had the "Key Master" and the "Gate Keeper.") We even saw one thread here on TAM a month or two back where an anti-porn wife decided to "allow" porn into their sex life, once a week, on her terms. She decided to reschedule one week, and when her husband didn't respond to her satisfaction (and, in fairness, he did seem a bit clueless), she mentioned telling him that he needed to "keep wifey happy" to elicit sex, and also that she was considering pulling the proverbial sexual rug out from under him that night...letting him think sex was going to happen, having him give her a massage, then denying him sex. I'm not trying to suggest that's the norm...I don't go around asking people about that dynamic to their lives. But, I think it's safe to say that wasn't an isolated incident, either.
Click to expand...


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> But your second husband lied. THAT is the issue. He said he "dabbled", when he knew that not to be the case.
> 
> Porn wasn't the issue. Your lying ass ex-husband was the issue.
> 
> You WOULD be trying to "control his sexuality" if he told you that he was a regular connnosuier of pornagraphy, including cyber sex, and you told him you were fine with it, married him, and then suddenly decided that you were uncomfortable with his behavior and that alone should be enough for him to stop.


Yes, he DID lie. And yes, porn wasn't so much the issue; his LYING was the issue. Once I learned that, I asked him one more time, if he was going to stop. He said, "No", and that if I left, that *I* was trying to control HIM! He also threatened to "use it again" if I didn't have sex with him (for the third time in a day)

Yeah. I'm pretty happy to be out of THAT marriage...

Vega


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> So you WOULD or WOULD NOT have an "issue" with it?


I absolutely WOULD have an issue with my wife deciding she wanted to get into porn. And I still look at porn from time to time.

I would likewise have an issue with my wife quitting her job at NPR and deciding to work for minimum wage at the local Dunkin Doughnuts as a cashier. And I still enjoy Dunkin Doughnuts coffee from time to time.

I would likewise have an issue with my wife deciding to become an abortion doctor. But I still support a woman's right to choose.

I would have a major problem with my hypothetical daughter coming to me and telling me she wants to pursue life as a professional actor._ And I yet I, myself, am a professional actor._

So yes, I readily, and shamelessly, admit that I have different standards between what I chose to pursue, consume, watch, and participate in and whether, or not, I want my loved ones do partake in those same matters.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I know you are going to hold onto this idea that it is just a harmless entertainment...


You're right. Because, at the end of the day, it is no more or less inherently harmful than any other genre of entertainment...medical dramas, soap operas, horror movies, sitcoms, super-hero comics, etc.

What's harmful is how one responds to it, which is intrinsic to the individual.



> I am not speaking out about the possible harmful affects of porn because of any stigma...


Porn does not, inherently, have harmful effects, possible or inevitable. Nor does it inherently have positive effects, possible or inevitable. As with all genres of entertainment, the effects lie with the viewer.

And, given that the only portion you chose to respond to was just an introductory statement...do you feel that American society, in general, would give a free pass to someone habitually neglecting his wife to watch football much quicker than it would give a free pass to someone who watches porn?


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> Vega said:
> 
> 
> 
> While it's a cliche, there's some truth to the idea that, given the nature of sexual "politics" as they stand in American society, *women control the flow of sex in most relationships. *
> 
> 
> 
> I came here from an abuse board, and I can say that what I've bolded here has NOT been *my* experience, nor has it been my _discovery_ upon researching human sexuality in pre-history. Things have changed, albeit sloooooowly, as many men do not want to lose their 'power' over women; power that they never should have had in the first place. Even in the US in today's society, women do not enjoy the sexual freedom that men have had. The double-standard of a man being a 'hero' if he beds numerous women and a women being a '****' if she sleeps with 'many' men, is, unfortunately, still alive and well.
> 
> Vega
Click to expand...


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I remember your story Grayson..
> 
> I hope your doing well...


Thanks.

Not too bad. Although it's still a proverbial desert, with the occasional oasis of, "If I wasn't so tired, I'd..." that turns out to be a mirage.:crazy:


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> So yes, I readily, and shamelessly, admit that I have different standards between what I chose to pursue, consume, watch, and participate in and whether, or not, I want my loved ones do partake in those same matters.


Why?


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> I came here from an abuse board, and I can say that what I've bolded here has NOT been *my* experience, nor has it been my _discovery_ upon researching human sexuality in pre-history. Things have changed, albeit sloooooowly, as many men do not want to lose their 'power' over women; power that they never should have had in the first place. Even in the US in today's society, women do not enjoy the sexual freedom that men have had. The double-standard of a man being a 'hero' if he beds numerous women and a women being a '****' if she sleeps with 'many' men, is, unfortunately, still alive and well.
> 
> Vega


Warning: generalization time!

I'd say that such a double-standard is a reaction/response to the lack of male control over access to sex. The woman controls whether or not sex will happen. The "Gate Keeper" has to open the gates. Thus, the man must "negotiate" for the gates to be opened. Because the ultimate decision and power rests with the woman, the man is congratulated by his fellow negotiators for successfully gaining entrance to the gates. Meanwhile, these negotiators speak ill of a "Gate Keeper" who has been tricked into opening the gates frequently.

Even in saying, "I'm with this person for the long haul. I'm never going to deny him sex," the woman still controls access to sex. Some wield that access as a weapon. My wife certainly used to in her younger days.

Note, I'm not making a judgment call on whether or not any of this is fair or right. Just discussing some of the dynamics. It's like some of the underlying themes of the one-man show "Defending the Caveman," but a bit heavier than the more comedic aspects of gender differences that the show highlights.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> Why?


Why what?


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> Warning: generalization time!
> 
> I'd say that such a double-standard is a reaction/response to the lack of male control over access to sex. The woman controls whether or not sex will happen. The "Gate Keeper" has to open the gates. Thus, the man must "negotiate" for the gates to be opened. Because the ultimate decision and power rests with the woman, the man is congratulated by his fellow negotiators for successfully gaining entrance to the gates. Meanwhile, these negotiators speak ill of a "Gate Keeper" who has been tricked into opening the gates frequently.
> 
> Even in saying, "I'm with this person for the long haul. I'm never going to deny him sex," the woman still controls access to sex. Some wield that access as a weapon. My wife certainly used to in her younger days.
> 
> Note, I'm not making a judgment call on whether or not any of this is fair or right. Just discussing some of the dynamics. It's like some of the underlying themes of the one-man show "Defending the Caveman," but a bit heavier than the more comedic aspects of gender differences that the show highlights.


I dunno, Grayson. I've 'seen' an awful lot of men who have REFUSED sex to women also. A woman might be 'willing', but if the man can't/won't 'perform', it ain't happenin', lol! So I guess that BOTH genders can be 'Gatekeepers', so to speak. I think it goes back to _control_. But shouldn't BOTH gender's have the right to say 'yes' OR 'no' to what they do with their own body? Why is it that if a woman says 'no' to sex that she's viewed as 'controlling', when she, in fact, simply may not feel like getting undressed...or for any other OTHER multitude of _legitimate_ reasons she may have OTHER THAN being 'controlling'? Maybe she would rather read...or watch t.v...or go bowling...or maybe she really IS _tired_! 

Then again, there are men who seem to ONLY want sex from women, and have no other want or need from her. THAT is causes a woman to feel _used_

And speaking of being "used", isn't that what this thread is about? 

Women's objections to a man's use of pornography is just that: Pornography is used. The images of REAL WOMEN are being "used" for ONE purpose and ONE purpose ONLY. Women don't like being used for sex (or anything else). Women don't like when OTHER WOMEN are used for sex. 

In a MC session one day, our MC told a short story to my husband (the sex addict). She said that a man and woman came to her office and the woman complained about his usage of porn. He became very irate and shouted, "I don't see what her problem is! My using porn _has NOTHING to do with my wife_!" The MC leaned forward, looked him in the eye and said, "*Exactly*!" 

Get the point?

Edited to add: I've heard about Defending the Caveman and have been wanting to see it! 

Vega


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> Why what?


Why do you...



> "...*have different standards *between what I chose to pursue, consume, watch, and participate in and whether, or not, I want my loved ones do partake in those same matters."


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> Perhaps men should control their OWN sexuality WITHOUT the use of a _woman_.
> 
> I wonder what men would do if ALL women stopped having sex with them as a way of controlling _her_ own sexuality? After all, don't women have a RIGHT to say "NO" to sex with a man, and to have that 'NO' respected by him?
> 
> Lest we forget that the time in Roman history that's described albeit hedonistic was also FORCED sexual slavery. Women didn't have the choice to say 'no' without dire consequences, including death.
> 
> To reiterate, if a woman says 'no' to a man, she's not trying to control HIS sexuality; she's trying to control her own.
> 
> Vega



And what does this have to do with porn?


----------



## Malcolm38

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

If a woman wants to be with a man who doesn't and won't watch porn, that is her right to ask/expect. 

If a guy doesn't want to have the woman in his life dictate if he watches porn or not, that it his right.

These are the issues that need to be addressed before getting married, so you are on the same wavelength. Nothing better than finding out the guy you married has a collection of DVD's and whatever else. Or that the woman you married wants to have you arrested for looking at the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition.


----------



## tm84

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Late to the convo, but, yeah, I "use" porn, there's no two ways about it. I approach porn with the intent of it helping me to get off, that's it. I'm a very visual person and the sights and sounds of some porn are a great tool to get off to.

Sure, I can use my own imagination and do that when I can't or don't feel like accessing porn, but porn can make that time more enjoyable and intense.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> ...do you feel that American society, in general, would give a free pass to someone habitually neglecting his wife to watch football much quicker than it would give a free pass to someone who watches porn?



I wouldn't...and I don't care what the popular opinion is...


----------



## SouthernMiss

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Malcolm38 said:


> If a woman wants to be with a man who doesn't and won't watch porn, that is her right to ask/expect.
> 
> If a guy doesn't want to have the woman in his life dictate if he watches porn or not, that it his right.
> 
> These are the issues that need to be addressed before getting married, so you are on the same wavelength. Nothing better than finding out the guy you married has a collection of DVD's and whatever else. Or that the woman you married wants to have you arrested for looking at the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition.




Well said! If people would just say who they are, and be honest about what they want...most marital troubles would never occur.

The porn thing is really a compatibility issue & should be ironed out before marriage. It's just another thing you should discuss HONESTLY.

I don't like porn. My ex-husband said he didn't. Well he was lying. This caused some problems  

My current husband doesn't watch porn (he's HD but doesn't do porn...he's weird but he's compatible with my weird lol) It isn't a problem.

Makes sense right? 

People don't really talk to each other


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Malcolm38 said:


> *If a woman wants to be with a man who doesn't and won't watch porn, that is her right to ask/expect.
> 
> If a guy doesn't want to have the woman in his life dictate if he watches porn or not, that it his right*.
> 
> These are the issues that need to be addressed before getting married, so you are on the same wavelength. Nothing better than finding out the guy you married has a collection of DVD's and whatever else. Or that the woman you married wants to have you arrested for looking at the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition.


My point^^^ exactly!


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> Women's objections to a man's use of pornography is just that: Pornography is used. The images of REAL WOMEN are being "used" for ONE purpose and ONE purpose ONLY. Women don't like being used for sex (or anything else). Women don't like when OTHER WOMEN are used for sex.


But the point is frankly, who cares? If any given woman objects to pornagraphy than she shouldn't watch it herself.

If she objects to her man watching it, and he won't stop, she should leave.

That's the bottom line. The only person whose actions you can affect are your own. 

And that's the kind of action you took for yourself, and it is commendable.

Why should a single man care what women in general supposedly object to, if he has no personal conflicts with his own behavior? 



Vega said:


> Why do you...


Because I am free to have different standards between what I want for my loved ones and the services I chose to partake in for myself.

I don't want my wife quitting her well paying job to work at Dunkin Doughnuts because it would be a waste of her talents, skills, and it would represent a huge pay cut.

I don't want my hypothetical daughter being involved in the same career I love, and make a living out of, because it's an extremely tough, often eviscerating, business that I'd hate to see my child in unless they absolutely felt they had no choice.

I wouldn't want my wife to participate in a business where she is having sex with other people because we made vows to stay sexually exclusive. Not to mention that I absolutely am well aware of the many potential negative side affects porn performers can face, and I'd like for her to avoid those potential pitfalls.

And none of that will stop me from grabbing the crack like coffee from Dunkin Doughnuts, continuing to work in my field, nor stop looking at porn. Because I am comfortable with the contradictions, and cognizant of the fact that just because I don't want something for people in MY life doesn't mean I get to project those same standards on people who are in the services that I enjoy.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> I dunno, Grayson. I've 'seen' an awful lot of men who have REFUSED sex to women also. A woman might be 'willing', but if the man can't/won't 'perform', it ain't happenin', lol! So I guess that BOTH genders can be 'Gatekeepers', so to speak. I think it goes back to _control_. But shouldn't BOTH gender's have the right to say 'yes' OR 'no' to what they do with their own body? Why is it that if a woman says 'no' to sex that she's viewed as 'controlling', when she, in fact, simply may not feel like getting undressed...or for any other OTHER multitude of _legitimate_ reasons she may have OTHER THAN being 'controlling'? Maybe she would rather read...or watch t.v...or go bowling...or maybe she really IS _tired_!


Hence the generalization alert.

As I said, I'm not suggesting that *all* women use sex as a means of exerting control. And, I don't think it's being suggested (it certainly isn't being suggested by me) that all instances of "no" are attempts to do so. I think you can agree, though, that such a dynamic can and does exist in the world.



> Then again, there are men who seem to ONLY want sex from women, and have no other want or need from her. THAT is causes a woman to feel _used_


I've not suggested otherwise, have I?



> Women's objections to a man's use of pornography is just that: Pornography is used. The images of REAL WOMEN are being "used" for ONE purpose and ONE purpose ONLY. Women don't like being used for sex (or anything else). Women don't like when OTHER WOMEN are used for sex.


Here, I think we run the risk of entering a dictionary whirlwind that can carry us to a dangerously slippery slope of interpretation and projection.

For the sake of discussion, let's take your definition of "use" as it applies to the conversation as a given. We'll ignore the inherent fallacy of "one purpose and one purpose only" and, still for the sake of discussion agree that said purpose is the primary purpose. For starters, we have the conclusion that "women don't like being used for sex" (going with your previous definition of "being used for sex" meaning engaging in sex for its own sake with no intent of engaging in a deeper relationship), when we know for a certainty that some women do enjoy engaging in recreational sex with the proverbial no strings attached. We proceed to the assumption that women don't like when other women are "used for sex." Personally, I don't think women (or men) are terribly concerned with most other women's sex lives on a day to day basis.

At the same time, we must also consider that a woman embarking on a career in porn (or contributing material to an outlet for amateur porn) does so knowing what that primary purpose we agreed to is. So, can we really consider such a woman to be "used," if she's accomplished the intended goal?



> In a MC session one day, our MC told a short story to my husband (the sex addict). She said that a man and woman came to her office and the woman complained about his usage of porn. He became very irate and shouted, "I don't see what her problem is! My using porn _has NOTHING to do with my wife_!" The MC leaned forward, looked him in the eye and said, "*Exactly*!"
> 
> Get the point?


I do, but I think it's a bit over-simplified and, to use a phrase I've used before, accords porn more power than it truly possesses. Many times, I've agreed that, if one partner's needs are not being met due to energies being devoted to any pastime, there's a problem, but the problem isn't the nature of the pastime...it's the nature of at least one of the partners. Faced with an over-simplified attempt at a "stinger" like the MC gave your ex, I'd have been likely to respond with something like, "My reading comics has nothing to do with her, either, but she's not making an issue of that." (Just using comics as an example of a pastime of mine that my wife doesn't necessarily share.)



> Edited to add: I've heard about Defending the Caveman and have been wanting to see it!
> 
> Vega


It's very funny. As I understand it, Rob Becker has turned over the entire production to the guys who now do the show. We were lucky I enough to see it the last time Becker toured with it. If you get a chance, I recommend seeing it.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



tm84 said:


> Sure, I can use my own imagination and do that when I can't or don't feel like accessing porn, but porn can make that time more enjoyable and intense.


than having sex with my wife...


See what I did there?

And here is where I see the tip of the iceberg that others do not see. And why, for me, I think that porn *can* have an inherent danger.

If I was the first person to ever say this about porn then I would be the pink elephant, but I am not the first person to notice that porn has an element that is more enjoyable and intense than real sex. (I know the poster was talking about masturbation - I extrapolated... )

I understand that there are many here who do not see porn this way. But for those who are in relationships that are not as fulfilling as you want I think porn has an attraction which cannot be matched in your real relationship, and it can become a major block to finding satisfaction with that person.

Hell, porn *might be the reason why* you are dissatisfied with that person.

That is my view. I am not saying that all porn is dangerous. But I am certainly NOT saying that it is harmless entertainment.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> To your last point, let's not bring in another equally debilitating and humanity sucking issue with this. Although I could argue it, I think you'd find we are on the same side in regards to U.S. cheap, immigrant labor. How does one problem make another problem more OK? It won't, ever, for me.


I absolutely do think analogizing porn with bottom basement near-slave labor is relevant. Because how am I, or anyone, expected to take seriously the judgemental finger wagging of a single person objecting to porn based off the potential negative industry realities performs face, and yet is pushing their cart to Walmart, shopping for goods on Amazon, or picking up groceries at their local supermarket?

My only instinct is to tell said person to worry about the moat in their own eye before posting statistics about the speck in mine.

It's very hard to stand in judgement when you live a life of systematic hypocrisy.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I wouldn't...and I don't care what the popular opinion is...


A fair answer.

Personally, I'd be more likely to give a porn viewer a pass, because I find no redeeming value in football.

But, my point that we're talking about was speaking to how, in the larger picture, one genre of entertainment is more socially acceptable than another, and society at large is more willing to forgive, but often even expects men to be engrossed in certain pastimes to the exclusion of their wives.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Philip Zimbardo: The demise of guys? | Video on TED.com
> 
> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...rn-induced-sexual-dysfunction-growing-problem
> 
> Pornography and Relationships | Men's Health
> 
> Porn and relationships



That is quite an extensive list...

I want to highlight the four above because they deal more closely with "the harmless entertainment" factor of porn.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

OK, why are children being brought into this debate? It stated a few pages ago and frankly it's a little disconcerting. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest every person in this conversation is against children having unchecked access to internet pornagraphy. Debating it as a reason you're against porn suggests that those who don't have the same issues with adult porn use somehow condone the easy availability that has allowed children access. That's pretty disingenuous.


----------



## unbelievable

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

People have the "right" to expect whatever. In the real world, people go through some changes between age 20-100. The mate you have in your twilight years isn't going to be the same one you started out with. Whether it's porn or something else, your partner is going to engage in activities you don't not like or understand. Might as well lose that "my way or the highway" stuff before you get started or save your ultimatums for the really huge deal breakers. A wedding isn't a promotion to boss.


----------



## Shoto1984

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I'm sure somewhere in this thread you all finally worked out the "what is porn?" question right? lol


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Simple. You do not abide by or support either. You work to raise awareness and counter both. You do not pretend that both are the same issue with the same root cause.


But who pretended both were the same issue? 

The issue is that you it's pretty absurd to reprimand me for overeating while you have crackpipe burns on your finger tips.

People have trouble listening to hypocrites.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> than having sex with my wife...
> 
> 
> See what I did there?
> 
> And here is where I see the tip of the iceberg that others do not see. And why, for me, I think that porn *can* have an inherent danger.
> 
> If I was the first person to ever say this about porn then I would be the pink elephant, but I am not the first person to notice that porn has an element that is more enjoyable and intense than real sex. (I know the poster was talking about masturbation - I extrapolated... )
> 
> I understand that there are many here who do not see porn this way. But for those who are in relationships that are not as fulfilling as you want I think porn has an attraction which cannot be matched in your real relationship, and it can become a major block to finding satisfaction with that person.
> 
> Hell, porn *might be the reason why* you are dissatisfied with that person.
> 
> That is my view. I am not saying that all porn is dangerous. But I am certainly NOT saying that it is harmless entertainment.


That's not a danger inherent in porn. That's a danger inherent to the viewer in question. It's a matter of seeing an effect, one entertainment choice as one of multiple common factors, and concluding that the choice of entertainment (rather than the person's mental makeup) being the source.

Is like in the late 70's/early 80's when we saw a rash of so-called "Dungeons and Dragons suicides." It was much more convenient and attention-grabbing to say that than to say, "Depressed, anti-social teen who was bullied, reads science-fiction, listens to rock music, plays a fantasy-based role-playing game, commits suicide."

Porn is "bad," so it must be the cause of the problems you cite, rather than simply being an element in the life of the person having those problems.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> A fair answer.
> 
> Personally, I'd be more likely to give a porn viewer a pass, because I find no redeeming value in football.
> 
> But, my point that we're talking about was speaking to how, in the larger picture, one genre of entertainment is more socially acceptable than another, and society at large is more willing to forgive, but often even expects men to be engrossed in certain pastimes to the exclusion of their wives.


And it is uniquely cultural.

Because you will find societies that view sexuality, and pornagraphy, with a laissez faire attitude, while they'd find sport like American football and Boxing to be the height of abuse against the state and society. 

In the States we tend to still lean heavily back to our puritanical roots. A general societal comfort with violence, and a deep discomfort (and simultaneous teenage like titillation) with sexuality.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



unbelievable said:


> A wedding isn't a promotion to boss.


And that, I believe, is the heart of why so many men push back on this topic.

It has little to do with porn itself. It's a power struggle. Just another incarnation of the battle of the sexes.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Know the damage you are promoting so that you can have a conscience and not just a c*ck or a p^ssy that is longing for orgasm. That's my message and it ain't going to change.


I'm not asking you to change your message.

I'm saying that the premise your message is built on is false.

The issue is way more complicated that how you feel about it. 
I'm not saying that how you feel about it wrong.
I'm saying there are more poignant perspectives to consider.

If you want an alternative perspective based on FACTS here is a simple link that you may fine useful.

Women Have A Complex Relationship With Porn


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> If you think the effects of porn are limited to the adult world...well then, you don't have anything to do with, have of your own or work with children and have a very jaded view of the ease of access to porn among young boys and girls.


You _*really*_ missed my point.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> And it is uniquely cultural.
> 
> Because you will find societies that view sexuality, and pornagraphy, with a laissez faire attitude, while they'd find sport like American football and Boxing to be the height of abuse against the state and society.
> 
> In the States we tend to still lean heavily back to our puritanical roots. A general societal comfort with violence, and a deep discomfort (and simultaneous teenage like titillation) with sexuality.


I've quoted this son before, so forgive me for doing so again,but it's relevant. The band Ten Hands had a song called "I Was Confused (About the Television Set)" that had the following verse:

Well, I watched this show just the other night
And I must say something was not right.
How come people on television's weird in the head?
Well, they won't show sex, but they show a lot of killin'
I guess it must be better to show blood spillin'
Than to let little Junior see two naked people in bed.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


> I'm not asking you to change your message.
> 
> I'm saying that the premise your message is built on is false.
> 
> The issue is way more complicated that how you feel about it.
> I'm not saying that how you feel about it wrong.
> I'm saying there are more poignant perspectives to consider.
> 
> If you want an alternative perspective based on FACTS here is a simple link that you may fine useful.
> 
> Women Have A Complex Relationship With Porn


Lol a perspective based on facts, because it aligns with your own belief and dismisses all of the other reasons why some women and men don't use porn.

Yes some women like porn, and some men don't and vice versa. That doesn't diminish nor change the fact that it is a terrible industry, it is harmful, it changes our brains and many many women are harmed and used abused and raped in the making of it. And so on.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Very interesting and completely lacking in context or actual rebuttal. If I were completely without a brain I might be remotely impressed, convinced, or decidedly thinking you very well may have a point somewhere within that short and shallow response.


Umm wow.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Very interesting and completely lacking in context or actual rebuttal. If I were completely without a brain I might be remotely impressed, convinced, or decidedly thinking you very well may have a point somewhere within that short and shallow response.


Ok Trenton.

Lemme ask you a direct question.

What percentage of women do you think use porn?
Do you think that percentage is increasing?
If yes, why do you think its increasing?


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


> Ok Trenton.
> 
> Lemme ask you a direct question.
> 
> What percentage of women do you think use porn?


I think probably even higher than what ever your going to quote lol


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> I've quoted this son before, so forgive me for doing so again,but it's relevant. The band Ten Hands had a song called "I Was Confused (About the Television Set)" that had the following verse:
> 
> Well, I watched this show just the other night
> And I must say something was not right.
> How come people on television's weird in the head?
> Well, they won't show sex, but they show a lot of killin'
> I guess it must be better to show blood spillin'
> Than to let little Junior see two naked people in bed.



I totally agree with this and have wondered the same thing.

And PLEASE don't get me started on violence on TV....

and just to really tweak what you think of me - I like MMA.

And, just for you Grayson - I don't think it is harmless entertainment and I do notice how it makes me feel. Not good, and thus I rarely watch it. Just another one of those weird twists that is me...


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


> Ok Trenton.
> 
> Lemme ask you a direct question.
> 
> What percentage of women do you think use porn?
> Do you think that percentage is increasing?
> If yes, why do you think its increasing?


Porn? Not that high.

Erotica? Higher than you think.

BUT, women use porn/erotica to connect with their partner. (Yes, I read yet another study - I am NOT unprepared...)

I don't know if that makes it better - I'm just putting that out there.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Then please explain again. You asked who brought children into the issue. I stated in my post that I thought the effects of watching porn at an early age with ease of access does impact young boys and girls. So although my post was not a few pages ago, I did want to respond to your thinking that it is disingenuous to bring the correlation between porn watching and children up at all. Yet, I think it is very relevant and short sighted not to.
> 
> Correct me where I'm wrong.


This debate was about _*adults*_ and porn usage.

Not a single person in this thread said, or implied, that they were comfortable with children having easy access to pornagraphic material.

Beginning to argue that you are against porn partially because it's too accessible to children, in a thread where NO ONE was stating otherwise, leaves the impression that those who aren't anti-porn then have no problem with children accessing pornagraphy. When I mentioned this fact you went as far as to suggest that I'm jaded and haven't worked with kids, or don't have kids I care about (FALSE on all fronts). 

And that is disingenuous. Pulling the child card emotionally loads a debate where _not a single person_, pro, neutral, or against porn is likely to condone children looking at porn. 

It's below the belt, it's manipulative, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.


----------



## BrockLanders

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

STOP SAYING "USE PORN". It's disingenuous at best, whatever the gender. No one says that in real life. Admit it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



*LittleDeer* said:


> Lol a perspective based on facts, because it aligns with your own belief and dismisses all of the other reasons why some women and men don't use porn.


Hello, kettle. This is the pot. You're black.



> Yes some women like porn, and some men don't and vice versa. That doesn't diminish nor change the fact that it is a terrible industry, it is harmful, it changes our brains and many many women are harmed and used abused and raped in the making of it. And so on.


More accurately, *some elements* of the industry are terrible and harmful. But then, the same can be said of *any* industry (not even limited to entertainment). I brought up the example in another thread when you used the problems of segments of the industry as a rationale for railing against the industry as a whole, and you didn't respond. Perhaps you will this time, so here goes....

Cory Monteith of Glee was admitted to rehab a few months ago for an unspecified "substance abuse" issue. He's also certainly not the only actor to have developed such a problem. As such, if we follow your logic, the entire tv/movie industry causes substance abuse and is harmful to those who participate in it. The industry should be abolished, and anyone who watches tv or movies supports the mistreatment of actors. I mention Monteith specifically, because Glee is a two-fer, crossing over into the music industry, demonstrating the same abusive tendencies as the tv/movie industry. It, too, must go for the same reasons. That's two industries down because Cory Monteith had a substance problem.

Also, porn itself changes no one's brain. It does not directly impact the body. Now, if you want to say that people's learned behaviors in response to porn can have a physical and mental impact, I'll agree with you, while pointing out that such a reaction is not limited to porn, and can be had via any pastime.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



BrockLanders said:


> STOP SAYING "USE PORN". It's disingenuous at best, whatever the gender. No one says that in real life. Admit it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I will not stop.

The last time I USED porn I USED it to get off....


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



BrockLanders said:


> STOP SAYING "USE PORN". It's disingenuous at best, whatever the gender. No one says that in real life. Admit it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Some people say "use porn" because ...wait for it....

SOME PEOPLE *USE* PORN!!


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I totally agree with this and have wondered the same thing.
> 
> And PLEASE don't get me started on violence on TV....
> 
> and just to really tweak what you think of me - I like MMA.
> 
> And, just for you Grayson - I don't think it is harmless entertainment and I do notice how it makes me feel. Not good, and thus I rarely watch it. Just another one of those weird twists that is me...


MMA doesn't make you feel anything. Your tastes and life experiences lead you to react to MMA in a particular way. Watching it turns my stomach, but I wouldn't dream of saying that any reaction is inherent to the genre.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> I actually laughed when I read your response.



Delightful.




Trenton said:


> Please do state the rules of which I have to obey in a debate that starts with the differentiation between the terms "use" and "watch" specifically in regards to porn.


First off, it didn't have anything to do with you. The "children shouldn't use porn" business started before you arrived. My post didn't mention you. YOU made it about you. 



Trenton said:


> .I can assess very easily that it is not I who is interested in manipulation one bit but you who is interested more in proving semantics than addressing a very serious issue that I feel strongly about.


Then start a thread about the horrors of children having access to pornagraphy. What does THIS thread however have to do with this, a topic that likely everyone here is on your side about?

This is the equivalent of us having a debate about whether euthanizing sick animals is right or wrong, and you stepping in and going "I am appalled that healthy puppies are routinely drowned in Indonesia and therefore I am against euthanizing sick animals!".


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> I have no idea. If I were to guess, I'd imagine the same amount as men but that would be a complete and utter guess.


That's why I said its a more complicated issue than you think / feel.

You have presented a simplistic view to a very complicated subject.
Firstly you cannot generalize porn. Porn is so varied and to many people constitute different things.
Secondly, you cannot generalize the attitudes of those who decide to get into porn.
Thirdly, porn usage is connected to a lot of other tangential issues.
If porn was banned in the USA, live sex shows, strip joints and prostitution would mushroom.
Humans are naturally voyeuristic.

In Japan porn is heavily regulated and censored yet Japanese pornstars are the highest paid in the world.

See?


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> Also, porn itself changes no one's brain. It does not directly impact the body. Now, if you want to say that people's learned behaviors in response to porn can have a physical and mental impact, I'll agree with you, while pointing out that such a reaction is not limited to porn, and can be had via any pastime.


Are you splitting atoms here?

Do you mean that we should be talking about masturbation here, not porn?

Or rather masturbation to porn...


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Clearly this entire thread, like every single other porn thread before it, and running simultaneously along side it, is totally off the rails...


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> Porn? Not that high.
> 
> Erotica? Higher than you think.
> 
> BUT, women use porn/erotica to connect with their partner. (Yes, I read yet another study - I am NOT unprepared...)
> 
> I don't know if that makes it better - I'm just putting that out there.


*Women and Pornography*

13% of Women admit to accessing pornography at work.

70% of women keep their cyber activities secret.

17% of all women struggle with pornography addiction.

*Women, far more than men, are likely to act out their behaviors in real life, such as having multiple partners, casual sex, or affairs.*

*Women favor chat rooms 2X more than men.*

*1 of 3 visitors to all adult web sites are women.*

*9.4 million women access adult web sites each month.*

Source:

https://wsr.byu.edu/pornographystats


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> Clearly this entire thread, like every single other porn thread before it, and running simultaneously along side it, is totally off the rails...


I thought you and I were getting somewhere. And Grayson too.

It's hard to follow because everyone has an opinion, but that is also why it is so interesting.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> Geez - Can you split an atom?
> 
> You are totally dividing porn from what people do with porn.
> 
> Yes, they do masturbate to it - everyone! repeat after me...
> 
> SO what's the big deal?
> 
> You are acting like you have it on in the background like elevator music. Yeah I read that guys post too.


I'm acting like that because...I *am* "that guy" who made the post you reference. Notice I didn't say that's how I viewed it all the time, or even most of the time. I even agree that being used as masturbation material or to spark sex is the predominant use of the genre. Any division between the genre and what people utilize it for is because a division is inherent. We can say that alcohol, for instance, changes body chemistry because it does...it introduces external chemistry to the body. This alteration is essentially the same from person to person, with slight variance for individuals' unique makeup. Introducing alcohol in sufficient quantities into the body leads to inebriation, whether one enjoys the taste or not. Not so with porn...if your don't like it, it doesn't arouse. Likewise, if a particular comedian doesn't strike your funny bone, you don't lau, even if the rest of the room is on the floor. (Remind me to tell you sometime about getting the evil eye from Elayne Boosler for most of her set because I wasn't laughing.)

And, as for being that guy with the background music...what would you say if, during some of my posts earlier today, I also checked out some...adult pictures...and kept my hands to myself?


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


> *Women, far more than men, are likely to act out their behaviors in real life, such as having multiple partners, casual sex, or affairs.*




Well yeah, when you're the Gate Keeper...


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> I'm acting like that because...I *am* "that guy" who made the post you reference. Notice I didn't say that's how I viewed it all the time, or even most of the time. I even agree that being used as masturbation material or to spark sex is the predominant use of the genre. Any division between the genre and what people utilize it for is because a division is inherent. We can say that alcohol, for instance, changes body chemistry because it does...it introduces external chemistry to the body. This alteration is essentially the same from person to person, with slight variance for individuals' unique makeup. Introducing alcohol in sufficient quantities into the body leads to inebriation, whether one enjoys the taste or not. Not so with porn...if your don't like it, it doesn't arouse. Likewise, if a particular comedian doesn't strike your funny bone, you don't lau, even if the rest of the room is on the floor. (Remind me to tell you sometime about getting the evil eye from Elayne Boosler for most of her set because I wasn't laughing.)
> 
> And, as for being that guy with the background music...what would you say if, during some of my posts earlier today, I also checked out some...adult pictures...and kept my hands to myself?



That's right...you were the guy! I'm sorry, I thought that was a bit much...not judging.... Maybe a little... I used to do the same thing... Maybe it struck a chord, and that's why it caught my eye. 

Kept your hands to yourself? TMI.


Look, masturbation to porn DOES affect the brain chemistry. You should do some research.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> That's right...you were the guy! I'm sorry, I thought that was a bit much...not judging.... Maybe a little... I used to do the same thing... Maybe it struck a chord, and that's why it caught my eye. Kept your hands to yourself? TMI.


Maybe TMI, but used to illustrate a point. You seemed incredulous to the idea that someone might view porn without proceeding to the primary resulting action.

[Quite]Look, masturbation to porn DOES affect the brain chemistry. You should do some research.[/QUOTE]

Masturbation is not porn. Thus, porn does not affect brain chemistry. Masturbation can occur without porn and have the same result. Engaging in other pastimes can result in similar responses. That does not mean the pastime "trigger" that the person has chosen to reach the desired effect is the cause of the change.

It's similar to the late Sam Kinison's bit about Charles Manson's claim that he was influenced by the Beatles' music, "He would've gotten the same 'message' from The Monkees!!"


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Masturbating to porn does affect brain chemistry.

Watching porn affects brain chemistry.

Eating dessert affects brain chemistry.

Watching movies that scare you affects brain chemistry.

Getting a hug from somebody you love affects brain chemistry.

We are chemical beings, with our chemistry in constant flux depending on the stimuli.

So I suppose my question to the statement that porn affects brain chemistry is this:

So what?


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> I don't know much about Japanese porn or pay rate. How is heavily regulated and censored defined in this circumstance? How does that negate the findings of other studies I cited?
> 
> Doesn't it actually go against your own argument?



Ok, 
Let me break it down .
There are tons of studies that show the negative effects of alcohol on the body. The liver especially, yet the Beverage business in the USA is one of the largest in the world.

There was a period in the history of the USA when the manufacture and sale of alcohol was banned, yet people risked their lives to manufacture and consume it.

People will still consume alcohol even though it causes death.

Why?
Because its part of our human nature . I affords a temporary escape from the harsh realities of personal existence.

Alcohol can be used in moderation, there are varying levels in different beverages, but most of all, the LAWS control the sale and use of it.

Can the history, regulation ,manufacture and use of alcohol be compared to porn?
You be the judge.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> Masturbation is not porn. Thus, porn does not affect brain chemistry. Masturbation can occur without porn and have the same result.



We can agree on one thing. Elaine Boosler is not funny.

But masturbation to porn has a different chemical effect than
orgasming with a partner, or masturbating without using fantasy.

Over time this can lead to a burn out of the dopamine receptors in the brain, and an escalation in the type or quantity of porn used, in an effort to achieve that same high.

All anecdotal evidence, to be sure, and if you missed my earlier post about that subject I said that all evidence that pertains to human health is anecdotal, i.e. "How does this make you feel?"

The fact that there are no percentage this/percentage that attached to what I am saying just means that no one has compiled all the evidence yet. YET.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> We can define porn.


And how can "we" define porn?

How many millions of little boys lost their self-virginity to pictures in the underwear section of those old Sears and K-Mart catalogues?

Many ultra conservative people consider a show like True Blood, or pics inside the local Victoria Secrets, porn.

I personally don't believe all nudity automatically equals porn. But countless others disagree and believe the human body should never been photographed, painted, or captured nude for public consumption. 

Many women wag their fingers at husbands watching porn online, or looking at tit mags, but don't consider their 50 Shades and the like porn at all.

Are all explicit sex scenes in every film porn?

I don't find the sight of horse peen titillating, but to someone who is caught up in bestality it's like the Playboy bunnies on display!

So where is this easy to define, universal line for porn? Isn't, to an extent, porn defined on an individual basis?


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> Masturbating to porn does affect brain chemistry.
> 
> Watching porn affects brain chemistry.
> 
> Eating dessert affects brain chemistry.
> 
> Watching movies that scare you affects brain chemistry.
> 
> Getting a hug from somebody you love affects brain chemistry.
> 
> We are chemical beings, with our chemistry in constant flux depending on the stimuli.
> 
> So I suppose my question to the statement that porn affects brain chemistry is this:
> 
> So what?


:iagree:

You forgot to mention,posting on TAM also affects your brain chemistry.

Pretty soon they would release a vid:

"..._Your brain on TAM_.."


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> So what. Okies...
> 
> :rofl:


Condescension won't advance the discussion.

A sound, intelligent response to the question would. Or if you have not one to provide scrolling would be just as effective.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> I am writing you off as someone more interested in semantics than the topic at hand.


Something you could have easily told me several pages ago before I bothered investing a single rebuttal into a debate with someone obviously not interested in a differing view and who seems unwilling, or unable, to refrain from making her posts personal.

The "topic at hand" was flowing along just fine before you arrived. You've actually spoken very little about the actual "topic at hand". So you'll excuse me if the irony is just too delicious not to note.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> We can agree on one thing. Elaine Boosler is not funny.
> 
> But masturbation to porn has a different chemical effect than
> orgasming with a partner, or masturbating without using fantasy.
> 
> Over time this can lead to a burn out of the dopamine receptors in the brain, and an escalation in the type or quantity of porn used, in an effort to achieve that same high.


This same sort of effect, though, can be said of other pastime triggers that affect the pleasure centers of the brain. I've been a fan of Bill Cosby's standup since I was very young. I used to laugh hysterically at his old standup albums. The first time I saw him live, tears were streaming down my face, I was laughing so hard, and I literally had to hang onto my father's shoulder to keep from falling out of the chair. Much of the material from that show was later seen in "Himself." Over time, I've laughed less and less at "Himself." Not because I find the material unfunny, but because I'm familiar with it. The second time I saw Cos live, I found it funny, but I wasn't beside myself with laughter. So, if we use your yardstick, I should say that standup comedy in general deadens one's sense of humor.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> And how can "we" define porn?
> 
> How many millions of little boys lost their self-virginity to pictures in the underwear section of those old Sears and K-Mart catalogues?
> 
> Many ultra conservative people consider a show like True Blood, or pics inside the local Victoria Secrets, porn.
> 
> I personally don't believe all nudity automatically equals porn. But countless others disagree and believe the human body should never been photographed, painted, or captured nude for public consumption.
> 
> Many women wag their fingers at husbands watching porn online, or looking at tit mags, but don't consider their 50 Shades and the like porn at all.
> 
> Are all explicit sex scenes in every film porn?
> 
> I don't find the sight of horse peen titillating, but to someone who is caught up in bestality it's like the Playboy bunnies on display!
> 
> *So where is this easy to define, universal line for porn? Isn't, to an extent, porn defined on an individual basis?*


:iagree:

My point exactly!

I remember one time when I was single a lady friend invited me to her home to look at a porn vid.
I was excited because I anticipated quite a lot happening.

About 5 mins after she slipped in the vid into the VCR, and the movie started running, I began to laugh. She looked at me and started laughing too.

It was a spanking vid.
We both nearly died laughing.
Nothing happened , because she did it as a prank on me.
The point being, that to us,
It was not erotic,hence we didn't see it as "porn." But to those into that sort of thing, it may have been erotic.

It was the first time I had seen that type of thing.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> So where is this easy to define, universal line for porn? Isn't, to an extent, porn defined on an individual basis?



I don't think we can define "porn."

I think we live in a very sex negative culture. I do not like this at all. But I also think that what passes for porn is a reflection of that very same sex negative culture - I do not believe that it is a positive portrayal of what good sex can be.

This is where Grayson and I part ways. I think that most of the porn available is from this sex negative viewpoint.

And because of that I think it is not "harmless entertainment."


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I don't think we can define "porn."
> 
> I think we live in a very sex negative culture. I do not like this at all. But I also think that what passes for porn is a reflection of that very same sex negative culture - I do not believe that it is a positive portrayal of what good sex can be.
> 
> This is where Grayson and I part ways. I think that most of the porn available is from this sex negative viewpoint.
> 
> And because of that I think it is not "harmless entertainment."


Yes, porn can have very negative consequences. 

Do many people, men and women, underestimate the potential negative affects porn can have on their lives? Yes.

Porn, erotica, and even common sex toys like vibrators and dildos, all can have very serious consequences, particularly with overuse.

To use the alcohol warning, drink responsibly.

Or to tie back into the actual origins, and purpose, of this thread:

_Use_ responsibly.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Alcohol usage is a personal thing. The person consuming alcohol will be held accountable for any choice they make while drinking.


So too porn usage.
Just like alcohol, if it begins to affect your judgement, job and your relationships then a problem exist.

But much like alcohol, porn usage is also a personal thing.
The person using porn should be held accountable , and not blame porn.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> I've been a fan of Bill Cosby's standup since I was very young.


I am a big fan of Bill Cosby too. (Saw him when I was 16.)

This we agree on.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I don't think we can define "porn."
> 
> I think we live in a very sex negative culture. I do not like this at all. But I also think that what passes for porn is a reflection of that very same sex negative culture - I do not believe that it is a positive portrayal of what good sex can be.
> 
> This is where Grayson and I part ways. I think that most of the porn available is from this sex negative viewpoint.


No, I think where we part ways is in that I don't think it's meant to be a realistic portrayal of what good sex can be any more than, say, CSI is meant to be a realistic portrayal of what police forensics is like. It's factionalized and optimized for the pleasure of the audience, not the participants. Even truly amateur porn takes the audience into account with its composition. It might be a real couple genuinely enjoying themselves, but they're doing what they can to make sure the audience enjoys what they're looking at.



> And because of that I think it is not "harmless entertainment."


If we are to apply the standard that fiction doesn't accurately reflect all of reality as being enough to say it's "not harmless entertainment," then no fiction is "harmless entertainment."

So, by that token, even Sesame Street isn't "harmless entertainment."


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> You don't have to define porn. Check it out! It's already been defined.
> 
> Pornography - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Phew for me!


Trenton - I appreciate your post with the links in it. A lot of that information is very useful, and I hope that posters will peruse them.

But, I don't think it is helping to throw stuff like this out here.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> You don't have to define porn. Check it out! It's already been defined.
> 
> Pornography - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Phew for me!


The is the definition , according to your link:

Definition of PORNOGRAPHY

1
: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2
: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3
: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction



Based on those definitions, certain sections of TAM can be considered pornographic.
I've seen many women and men post that reading or participating in the Sex In Marriage sub forums actually gets them aroused and they have sex with their SO.
It results in increasing their immediate desire for sex between them and their spouse.

See the problem with trying to define it?


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Well, we agree on this...




Grayson said:


> I don't think it's meant to be a realistic portrayal of what good sex can be...



and this...




Grayson said:


> ... even Sesame Street isn't "harmless entertainment."


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I am a big fan of Bill Cosby too. (Saw him when I was 16.)
> 
> This we agree on.


Around 10 the first time. The 'verse aligned to get us in the invited guests line in Vegas, so I was about 20 feet away from him for the entire show. Second time was for my birthday about 4-5 years ago. But, my parents introduced me to his stuff when I was about 7 or 8. Didn't make the connection to the Fat Albert guy til I heard the "Buck Buck" sketch.

But, I guess both Fat Albert and The Cosby Show weren't harmless entertainment, either. 

Meant to mention in the last post, I agree as to the very sex-negative society, and it may contribute to the manner in which sex is fictionalized for porn, but there's also the simple truth that storytelling methods change over time. Compare the original Hawaii Five-0 to the current version. By today's standards, the original moves at a glacial pace with stiff performances. But, that was the storytelling methods of the time. Entertainment of all genres has to compete with multiple outlets and methods of delivery, and so have to grab the audience right out of the gate.

Curiously, as all other media (including porn) have become faster paced, comics have slowed down, stretching out stories that once would take one or two issues to six or twelve. Not relevant to the rest of the topic. Just an observation.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> Curiously, as all other media (including porn) have become faster paced, comics have slowed down, stretching out stories that once would take one or two issues to six or twelve. Not relevant to the rest of the topic. Just an observation.



Curiously? That's to get guys like you to spend more of your money...

C'mon Grayson...


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> But your second husband lied. THAT is the issue. He said he "dabbled", when he knew that not to be the case.
> 
> Porn wasn't the issue. Your lying ass ex-husband was the issue.
> 
> You WOULD be trying to "control his sexuality" if he told you that he was a regular connnosuier of pornagraphy, including cyber sex, and you told him you were fine with it, married him, and then suddenly decided that you were uncomfortable with his behavior and that alone should be enough for him to stop.


I would go farther. Her husband was an addict. Once burned by this, I would absolutely revile porn too in the off chance that Mr. "Playboy once a month" was just starting a 'gateway drug'.

But for every guy like that, there are 50 guys out there who once a week or so look at a little something. So is it fair to discuss the addict or the drug?


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Alcohol usage is a personal thing. The person consuming alcohol will be held accountable for any choice they make while drinking.
> 
> But ask yourself about the realities of alcohol usage and then translate it to porn.
> 
> Previously pregnant women regularly used alcohol until a campaign that was 1 part shame and 1 part reality.
> 
> Society does have a responsibility to educate itself.
> 
> *I prefer to not make these topics personal and I'm all for adult choice. Yet, I think education and reality a great thing when we're dealing with such topics and with porn, being so wrapped up within the fantasy and the realistic portrayal of that fantasy (regardless of how unrealistic it is) do sometimes cross the lines into our actual behaviors. Without counter measures and reality checks and ease of access to more and more fantastic scenarios, of course the human mind is confused by reality vs. what they believe that perceived reality should amount to.*
> 
> It is the same with the Happily Ever After scenario or the Once Upon a Time scenario. And all such a shame considering the really deep sh!t is so much better than the fantasy.


The same thing, however, can be said of *any* work of fiction, not just porn. What is it about the people on screen being naked that makes so many feel that the average person will suddenly expect what they see on screen to happen in their lives?

Don't get me wrong...I get that there are people who can't separate fiction from reality, but they're not limited to porn viewers, nor do I think they make up the bulk of the audience of any genre.

I mean, we don't assume that the average person will think their hospital visit will play out like House, that high school show choirs are as seen on Glee, that university scientists are represented accurately on the Big Bang Theory, or that WW II POW camps were a hotbed of wacky Hijinks like on Hogan's Heroes. So why do we assume that the average person thinks that porn is how sex should be? Is it because the performers often play fictionalized versions of themselves? If so, why didn't we assume, for instance that, while at the top of the Neilsen ratings, Jerry Seinfeld lived in a small NY apartment and went about his days doing nothing?


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> Curiously? That's to get guys like you to spend more of your money...
> 
> C'mon Grayson...


Nh. It's because sales of the monthly books are dropping. It's easier to get the books into book stores and on Amazon in collections, and 4-6 issues is ideal for collection. You don't need to stretch out a story to keep the readers coming back...just tell good stories, and make them as long or short as the story demands. They can still be collected.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> I would go farther. Her husband was an addict. Once burned by this, I would absolutely revile porn too in the off chance that Mr. "Playboy once a month" was just starting a 'gateway drug'.
> 
> But for every guy like that, there are 50 guys out there who once a week or so look at a little something. So is it fair to discuss the addict or the drug?


I even have trouble using the term "addict" when it's not something introduced into the body. It's more like compulsive behavior to me, but "addiction" seems to be easer for people to understand, and the methods of treating addiction can often be adapted to such behaviors, so I understand the shorthand.


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


> The is the definition , according to your link:
> 
> Definition of PORNOGRAPHY
> 
> 1
> : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) *intended to cause sexual excitement*
> 
> 
> Based on those definitions, certain sections of TAM can be considered pornographic.
> I've seen many women and men post that reading or participating in the Sex In Marriage sub forums actually gets them aroused and they have sex with their SO.
> It results in increasing their immediate desire for sex between them and their spouse.
> 
> See the problem with trying to define it?


What I've highlighted in bold is what 'defines' porn. The ceiling paintings in the Sistine Chapel have nude paintings. But when it was painted, the _intention_ wasn't meant to cause 'sexual excitement'. Still, some people _can_ become aroused by seeing them. 

When I learned about sex in middle school, I did not become 'aroused' by the discussions. But my exh. said that he DID become aroused. Does that make the conversation 'pornographic'?

I think _intention_ is an integral part of the answer.

Vega


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



SouthernMiss said:


> Well said! If people would just say who they are, and be honest about what they want...most marital troubles would never occur.
> 
> The porn thing is really a compatibility issue & should be ironed out before marriage. It's just another thing you should discuss HONESTLY.
> 
> *I don't like porn. My ex-husband said he didn't. Well he was lying. This caused some problems  *
> 
> My current husband doesn't watch porn (he's HD but doesn't do porn...he's weird but he's compatible with my weird lol) It isn't a problem.
> 
> Makes sense right?
> 
> People don't really talk to each other


Bolded part is important, because this is the SECOND man described who has 'lied' about porn use in this discussion.

But do the women ever ask WHY? Snippy "they are just lying liars who lie' doesn't cut much mustard, I'm afraid.

Similar question: why do women minimize how many sexual partners they've had in their lives (not ALL women...but many...and many women say 'it's none of your business...which is a lie of ommission)

Same reason for both people: they are afraid of being judged by the other person for something they think is a personal part of their lives. 'But porn is ONGOING.' says the clever woman 'All my sexual partners are in my past.'

But they are still alive, right? You can still meet them, they can still hit on you, they might have effects on your relationship dynamics. And if it's in your past, what is the problem? As women know, a lot of men WILL judge them. So they...lie. They don't bring it up. (I wonder how many of these men 'liars' who just didn't bring it up...but the wives are calling them liars because they were blindsided)

I guess they are just lying liars who lie instead of people who like someone else and want to stay with them over what they consider irrelevant.

The husband is probably shocked at the vehemence of the wife's reaction to his porn use just as much as some women are shocked at the reaction of her husband when she finds out that her number of partners has more zeros in it than his...


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> porn requires objectification of others. Since it is willing objectification it makes it a trickier topic for me.
> 
> How can I on one hand say I value adult choice and on the other claim that an adult would not have made that choice if they were not vulnerable?
> 
> Then I begin to think that perhaps it's because the "user" or "watcher" doesn't want to consider it and why would they? What's in it for the "user" or "watcher" to consider it?


I can understand your dilemma, and I think I have the answer for _myself_. That is...

People are becoming more and more self-serving. I can't tell you how many threads I read DAILY where someone says, "I *DESERVE*..." We as a general population don't seem to feel a sense of 'we're all in the world together' or feel a sense of responsibility TOWARD others (not to be confused with a sense of responsibility FOR others). 

I could go on about this, but I don't want to derail this thread any more than it already is!

Vega


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Now I am not certain where this thread is going.

My point was always that porn should not be used in a blithe manner. I think that men underestimate the negative influence it can have on them. I think they make other excuses too.

Whatever. But I don't want to try to ban porn, or to even define porn. I do not have a problem with something that is "intentionally" trying to arouse.

I just think that men should have a little more caution, and a little more understanding about how their SO's might feel about the subject. I think there is a better way to find sexual fulfillment than USING porn.

ANd I understand the posters who say that there are other obstacles in their life that are blocking a healthy sex life with their SO's. Still, to resort to porn as a default, and not to find other ways, kind of denies the SO's needs, doesn't it? I may have no right to say this - I am not in their shoes. Still that is what I feel.

If you are interested in more sex, or different sex, get yourself a book on Tantric sex, or Karezza sex, or whatever kind of sex you want. Spend some time learning something new. Talk with your spouse. Find out what she wants. But don't USE porn. 

That's my opinion. And to the OP... I am not trying to shame anyone. I just think there is a better way to find what it is that would float your boat.


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> Bolded part is important, because this is the SECOND man described who has 'lied' about porn use in this discussion.
> 
> But do the women ever ask WHY? Snippy "they are just lying liars who lie' doesn't cut much mustard, I'm afraid.


I did ask. He told me that he thought my aversion to it was "stupid". I asked him why he didn't SAY anything back then. As we talked, he eventually confessed that he didn't think I'd want to be with him if I knew he used porn, and HE wanted to be with ME. I guess I was supposed to feel flattered. I wasn't. 

I never minimized how many partners I had. But he told me that HE had over 2,500. I LMAO when he told me that, and actually pulled out a pen and some paper and started 'doing the math' in front of him. He stopped me after about 2 minutes. 

And yes, I felt like I was blindsided. I ASKED the 'right' questions, and I was lied to. Had I known the truth, I never would have been with him...

Vega


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I'm out. This has gone places I don't want to go and I'm frankly bored of the topic at this point.

Additionally, it's getting way too personal.


----------



## moxy

*People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I think that "to use" means something different from "to watch". Using implies an unhealthy addiction, for instance. I think it would make sense to use the term for a porn or sex addict, but not for every instance of viewing. Most people do, however, use it as a tool...but I don't think that is always a bad thing, unless its replacing intimacy in the relationship. If the intention behind the word choice is to shame or humiliate, then it sullies the speaker as much as the object of his/her derision to choose words in this way.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Yes, except it's a work of fiction. Whereas porn is made up of real live people.


Setting aside for the moment that porn, too, is a work of fiction, are you suggesting that the casts of other filmed/photographed works of fiction such as those I used as examples *aren't* real live people? I'm sure that will come as a shock to their friends and families.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> Now I am not certain where this thread is going.
> 
> My point was always that porn should not be used in a blithe manner. I think that men underestimate the negative influence it can have on them. I think they make other excuses too.
> 
> Whatever. But I don't want to try to ban porn, or to even define porn. I do not have a problem with something that is "intentionally" trying to arouse.
> 
> I just think that men should have a little more caution, and a little more understanding about how their SO's might feel about the subject. I think there is a better way to find sexual fulfillment than USING porn.


I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees that sex with a live, willing partner is more fulfilling than masturbation. I certainly don't make such a claim. Likewise, I think there's room in life for high art and for relatively mindless entertainment. I can be engrossed in a gripping drama like Saving Private Ryan then turn around and enjoy a stupid comedy like EuroTrip. I can savor a wonderful steak for one meal, but sometimes, darn it, I want those freakin' McDonald's fries.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> No because that wouldn't make sense. I get your point but I see a difference between pretending to have sex in a movie (fiction) and having actual sex in a movie (non-fiction).


So, performing a real-life action in a work of fiction somehow makes that work non-fiction? Running, walking, talking...do these real-life actions turn fiction into non-fiction? Or is it just intimate acts? Kissing? That transforms fiction into non-fiction? That makes most movies and television shows non-fiction. Or is it just sex that has some cosmic power to turn fiction into non-fiction?

If so, what degree of non-simulated sexual activity transforms a fictional story into a non-fiction account of real events? Does the non-simulated fellatio in The Brown Bunny make that movie non-fiction? How about the on-screen masturbation to climax in a Showtime or HBO series from a few years ago whose title escapes me? Is Shortbus suddenly non-fiction because there are multiple non-simulated sex acts in it? The current trend of porn parodies off tv shows and movies are non-fiction because of sex? Porn costume period pieces like Pirates is a true story because the sex isn't pretend?

You'll have to explain this concept to me further, because I honestly don't follow the logic.

ETA: Actors perform real-life actions in portraying fictional events every day. It's part of their job. So is convincing the audience that all aspects of the situation are genuine. Be it Hugh Laurie diagnosing a patient who's bled from every orifice, Robert Downey Junior as an armor-clad super-hero, Chris Hemsworth as a Norse god of thunder, Neil Patrick Harris as a sleazy ladies' man, Chris Pine as a starship captain or, yes, Jesse Jane having sex with a stranger on an island, they all have the same goal: to get the viewer to buy into the moment. That these actors perform real-life actions in doing that job doesn't turn fiction into non-fiction.


----------



## richie33

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Chloe Sevigny performed oral sex in the movie The Brown Bunny (2003). It had not hurt her career at all. She went on to star on HBO Big Love.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## johnnycomelately

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> Now I am not certain where this thread is going.
> 
> My point was always that porn should not be used in a blithe manner. I think that men underestimate the negative influence it can have on them. I think they make other excuses too.
> 
> Whatever. But I don't want to try to ban porn, or to even define porn. I do not have a problem with something that is "intentionally" trying to arouse.
> 
> I just think that men should have a little more caution, and a little more understanding about how their SO's might feel about the subject. I think there is a better way to find sexual fulfillment than USING porn.


I don't think you can assume that millions of people are incautious. I notice you say 'men' specifically. Are women somehow able to resist the negative effects in a way that men aren't? 

You also say porn-users make 'excuses'. This is an interesting choice of words and points to your moral issue with pornography. This is at the core of your argument, although you try and dress it in terms of the 'negative effects' of porn use. We have not seen a massive manifestation of pathology, attributable to porn, which would be the inevitable result of the widespread use of something you claim is so dangerous. 

As for the idea that you can't enhance your sex life through the use of porn, many would disagree with you. Both written and visual erotica have helped my wife and I to enhance our sex lives, and I am fairly sure we aren't the only ones. 

Do you believe that men and women (especially) had better sex lives in the 50s, before the widespread availability of porn? I think it would be pretty hard to argue that one. Are people reporting higher levels of dissatisfaction? If your claim that porn prevents sexual fulfillment where is the data that suggests that people had better sex before the widespread availability of porn? 

As so often in this debate you are claiming cause but you are unable to show effect.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



johnnycomelately said:


> As so often in this debate you are claim cause but you are unable to show effect.


I think you are confusing the sexual revolution with the wider availability of porn.

But I am saying that neither one is necessarily bad, it's just that porn has overtaken the open discussion and acceptance of sexuality because it is the "easier" road - maybe because it can be the solitary road.

Women process erotic stimuli different. There are studies about this. You should find them on your own. Women can also abuse erotica to their own detriment. However I think it is much less an issue for them.

Was it you who attacked Gary WIlson's web site? Called it a big money making scam? If not you then someone did.

He's never charged me or anyone I know who has used his site a dollar, that I know of. I am not saying he is not earning some sort of living from it. You can't deny someone earning a living.

I'm just saying that he is at the leading edge of the modern study of the cause and effect of porn use. And he has acquired a lot of anecdotal evidence of how porn has effected people and relationships detrimentally.

No I am not coming at this issue from a moral point of view. I am coming at this as someone who went through the experience. When I see men here make the same excuses that I made for why they use porn I am concerned. If they had new and novel reasons then maybe I would not be concerned, but it just sounds like the same broken record that I used.

Mine is a cautionary voice. You don't have to heed it. If your sex life is every thing that you want it to be and you can show how porn helped it to get there then that's good for you.

I referred before to the sexual revolution. I think it was about time. We need to be more open and honest in how we deal with the subject of sexuality. But with every good thing there also comes a greater responsibility to educate one's self. That is ultimately what I am saying.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


> So too porn usage.
> Just like alcohol, if it begins to affect your judgement, job and your relationships then a problem exist.
> 
> But much like alcohol, porn usage is also a personal thing.
> The person using porn should be held accountable , and not blame porn.


Alcohol isn't available freely to people of all ages including those under age and at the click of a button 24 hrs a day. 

There are laws and regulation and lots of information about alcohol and recognition that the use of alcohol often causes issues, is bad for you and your brain, can be damaging for you for families etc. 


The porn industry is not properly policed, the regulations are not enforced and it is freely available. No one shows ID to get it and you don't have limitations as you don't have to pay for it.


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Ok so it should be policed better...

Can the topic stay on a husband, obviously over 18, using porn?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Yet, actors and actresses of the like that you mentioned never perform actual sex acts not because sex acts are an impossible feat for them to perform (like flying is) but because it is an extremely intimate act and if they were to perform it would lower their status rather than raise it.


Richie beat me to being even more specific in my example of The Brown Bunny by mentioning Chloe Sevigny by name. There's also still the cast of Shortbus, as well.

So, it's intimacy that has the magical power to make something that is a work o f fiction instantly transform into non-fiction.

There are many who would argue that kissing is also an extremely intimate act, yet we see it all the time in TV and movies. Why, when fans were debating the mystery of current companion Clara on Doctor Who, a version of Clara kissing The Doctor was an element latched onto to disprove the theory that she was a regeneration of his "daughter" (long story) Jenny or granddaughter Susan. There's even the cliche that many seeking purely recreational sex and many "professionals" won't kiss because they see it as "too intimate."

Using this measure, everything from How I Met Your Mother to House to Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Game of Thrones to Star Trek to Pirates (one of the highest-grossing professional porn movies of all, a period piece cashing in on the popularity o f Pirates of the Caribbean) and everything in between are all works of non-fiction.


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Alcohol can be harmful???

Next time I see my wife taking a sip of wine with dinner on the weekend, I'm going to accuse her of trying to control my life by harming her own.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Yet, actors and actresses of the like that you mentioned never perform actual sex acts not because sex acts are an impossible feat for them to perform* (like flying is) but because it is an extremely intimate act and if they were to perform it would lower their status rather than raise it.*


Soooooo,

What about actors and actresses who actually kiss, passionately in movies?
Are you saying that kissing isn't intimate?


----------



## *LittleDeer*

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Oh and as per the movies in comparison to porn, actors are pretending to be in love, pretending to have sex etc. 

I don't think there is any doubt that violence and the media and movies etc have an effect on people and there are definitely issues there that need to be looked at and people should be concerned IMO about what they put into their brains. But it's a separate issue to porn. Porn is changing our sexuality in a negative way. And the media definitely influences people, if it didn't companies wouldn't bother to spend millions on advertising. 

To pretend you are not changed not effected by porn is to live in denial.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



*LittleDeer* said:


> Alcohol isn't available freely to people of all ages including those under age and at the click of a button 24 hrs a day.
> 
> There are laws and regulation and lots of information about alcohol and recognition that the use of alcohol often causes issues, is bad for you and your brain, can be damaging for you for families etc.
> 
> 
> The porn industry is not properly policed, the regulations are not enforced and it is freely available. No one shows ID to get it and you don't have limitations as you don't have to pay for it.


 Well I think that of which you speak can be controlled by parents.
There are tons of anti porn software available to parents, just like there's parental control on direct TV.

I have even recommended anti porn software in the past, to parents who asked my opinion.
My neighbour has a daughter who's online quite a lot.
The software he uses sends alerts to his mobile phone if she tries to access any porn online , when she's home alone.
In fact, it also monitors her facebook , and other social media use.

However, I don't think this discussion is about kids accessing porn.
Its about whether or not adults men, who choose to access it for their watching or using, should be shamed.


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Opening your eyes and walking through the city daily changes your life, reading a billboard leaves your life forever affected... It was enough to make H. Thoreau move out to Walden Pond to write and think in the wilderness... Though he did move back into town a year later and continued writing...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



*LittleDeer* said:


> To pretend you are not changed not effected by porn is to live in denial.


I have looked at porn, used for quite some time, and seriously, I am definitely addicted to TAM.
I've stopped viewing porn for quite some time now because I no longer see the need for it in my life.

So clearly, TAM has changed me and my brain is affected by it.
Should i quit TAM too?
Does that make TAM bad?


----------



## 2ntnuf

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



*LittleDeer* said:


> Oh and as per the movies in comparison to porn, actors are pretending to be in love, pretending to have sex etc.
> 
> Not unlike real life is it?
> 
> I don't think there is any doubt that violence and the media and movies etc have an effect on people and there are definitely issues there that need to be looked at and people should be concerned IMO about what they put into their brains. But it's a separate issue to porn. Porn is changing our sexuality in a negative way. And the media definitely influences people, if it didn't companies wouldn't bother to spend millions on advertising.
> 
> I agree with this.
> 
> To pretend you are not changed not effected by porn is to live in denial.


I agree with this.


----------



## Grayson

*LittleDeer* said:


> Alcohol isn't available freely to people of all ages including those under age and at the click of a button 24 hrs a day.


Strictly speaking, neither is porn. To have such access, one must first obtain (usually through purchase) a device capable of delivering the content...a computer, a DVD player, etc. Likewise, one can purchase alcohol for future consumption rather than immediate. This puts te alcohol in the household where people of all ages, including those under age, have free access to it 24 hours a day. Unless, that is, parents take precautions to prevent minors' access to it. As with porn.



> There are laws and regulation and lots of information about alcohol and recognition that the use of alcohol often causes issues, is bad for you and your brain, can be damaging for you for families etc.


Likewise, there are laws and regulations regarding distribution of sexually explicit material. As with any other laws and regulations, these are sometimes enforced better than others (and sometimes over-enforced). For instance, the long-time manager of the comic store I go to was arrested and ultimately convicted of obscenity charges abou 10 years ago because he sold an imported adult book that was clearly labeled "adults only" and kept in the store's separated "mature readers" section to (wait for it) an adult.



> The porn industry is not properly policed, the regulations are not enforced and it is freely available. No one shows ID to get it and you don't have limitations as you don't have to pay for it.


All of what you say here can be true, depending on the distribution channel. However, none of that...not one single bit...is a condition that is inherent to the genre being distributed.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson

*LittleDeer* said:


> Oh and as per the movies in comparison to porn, actors are pretending to be in love, pretending to have sex etc.


Thanks for making my point: that an actor's job is to convince the audience that their make-believe is real in the moment. When Nathan Fillion and Stana Katic "pretend to be in love" every week on Castle, do their kisses stop short of contact? Or, do they appear to kiss passionately? Without a doubt, actors in porn are performing non-simulated sex acts, and you may not want to watch that, which is perfectly within your rights. Why, though, do you determine that no one else should, either? And, as has been pointed out, actors outside of porn have performed non-simulated sex acts on camera as part of the storytelling process. It's all about what the storytellers - writers, directors, actors - choose to show the audience.



> I don't think there is any doubt that violence and the media and movies etc have an effect on people and there are definitely issues there that need to be looked at and people should be concerned IMO about what they put into their brains. But it's a separate issue to porn. Porn is changing our sexuality in a negative way. And the media definitely influences people, if it didn't companies wouldn't bother to spend millions on advertising.
> 
> To pretend you are not changed not effected by porn is to live in denial.


In the strictest of senses, you're right, because *all* of our experiences ultimately change us. But it's those experiences, how we choose to respond to those stimuli, that make the changes, not the stimuli themselves. (Please note that I also make a distinction between media stimuli and genuine controlled substances such as alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, etc that directly introduce foreign materials into the body.) Or, would you be one who believes that, for example, the U2 song "Exit" really did influence Robert John Bardo to murder actress Rebecca Schaeffer?

To pretend people have no responsibility for how they react to media and to empower it with inherent controlling properties is not only living in denial, it's dangerously irresponsible.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson

richie33 said:


> Chloe Sevigny performed oral sex in the movie The Brown Bunny (2003). It had not hurt her career at all. She went on to star on HBO Big Love.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I wonder if those who insist that "real" actors don't/wouldn't have non-simulated sex on camera give The Brown Bunny a pass (that is, ignore the example completely whenever it's brought up) because Sevigny and the film's director/star/recipient of her fellatio, Vincent Gallo, were or had been an off-screen couple at the time.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson

Trenton said:


> I think many actors/actresses think it's not but find it is which can be seen by the larger than normal divorce rates and relationships that form on set.
> 
> I don't know who Chloe is, honestly.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So, if kissing is intimate, and we accept the magical powers of non-simulated intimate acts to turn fiction into non-fiction by their mere presence, then Steven Yeun and Lauren Cohan really do live in a zombie apocalypse? Chris Pine really is a starship captain? Henry Cavill (assuming a kiss in the upcoming movie) is really the last son of Krypton?

Cool.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson

Trenton said:


> Not ignored, never heard of and on phone waiting for MTG not about to search. I hope you can understand it's not the norm.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Never claimed it was.

You, however, claimed that non-simulated acts of intimacy transformed fiction into non-fiction, which they clearly don't.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cosmos

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Watching hours of porn has no influence on our attitudes or behaviour, but a 30 second Super Bowl ad is worth $3.8 Million because it will make us run out and buy a product. Interesting...


----------



## Grayson

Trenton said:


> Actually...often they do, not clearly they don't.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As I asked earlier, please explain how a performer, performing a non-simulated action of any kind transforms any work of fiction into non-fiction.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson

Trenton said:


> Way to miss my previous point, Grayson, and then way to miss my further points. Awesome convenience for you and your worldview.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No convenience at all. You've claimed that fiction becomes non-fiction when non-simulated intimate acts are part of the performance. So, either the work of fiction becomes true, regardless of what that work of fiction is - The Walking Dead, Star Trek, Superman, what have you - or you're unclear on what the terms "fiction" and "non-fiction" mean, or you're being intentionally disingenuous in applying those terms to the discussion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson

Cosmos said:


> Watching hours of porn has no influence on our attitudes or behaviour, but a 30 second Super Bowl ad is worth $3.8 Million because it will make us run out and buy a product. Interesting...


No commercial can "make" anyone do anything. Their reaction to a commercial is their choice. So, again, it's the viewer's response to the stimulus, not the stimulus itself.

Meanwhile, a spot on the Super Bowl is "worth" so much because information about the product or service is seen by the largest television audience of the year. The cost is due to the spread, not effectiveness.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Interlocutor

Grayson said:


> No commercial can "make" anyone do anything. Their reaction to a commercial is their choice. So, again, it's the viewer's response to the stimulus, not the stimulus itself.
> 
> Meanwhile, a spot on the Super Bowl is "worth" so much because information about the product or service is seen by the largest television audience of the year. The cost is due to the spread, not effectiveness.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Logic! It's pretty cool.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Everything we watch affects our minds. Everything. You do not continue returning to your favorite TV shows week after week, year after year, because they have had zero effect on your mind.

The question isn't whether pornagraphy affects the mind. The question is does it affect the mind, for each given person, in a way that produces negative results for that person's life.

For some it does. 

For some it does not.

Educating yourself on the effects porn has, and whether it's a detriment, an asset, or inconsequential to your life goals is only being responsible. 

Beyond that, what's the point of this debate? What exactly is the end goal for the anti-porners?


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

And yet the only discernible impact occasional pornographic viewing and use has done to my sex life is help increase my desire to masturbate, which ramps up my libido, which directly leads to me wanting more sex with my wife. Why? Because the way my libido works is the more I feed it, the more it wants. 

When I'm in a period of little to no porn use, such as now, I tend to have less sexual activity all around. I self please less, and I crave sex less.

So porn indirectly increases sexual activity, and thus bonding time, with my wife. 

And no, the sex does not increase because I am acting out porn plots using my wife. 

Is this the case for all? Of course not. But I'd be a damn fool to change my habits based off other people's inability to handle what I have never had an addiction to.

It's like sweets. The only potentially negative food that I have trouble abstaining from/limiting are certain sugary desserts. Processed sugar can, and does, have astronomically bad side effects on the human body when consumed in excess, on a regular basis. I have to largely abstain from sweets because I know I have a weakness, and because my mother and grandfather had T2D it's imperative that I keep things firmly in check. 

I could go on a rampage about the negative side effects of sugar and processed carbohydrates. I could fill many threads full of convincing studies, and endless anecdotal evidence, to highlight exactly why sugar/processed carbs in excess are detrimental to the human body and mind.

Yet what happens when I am approached by the many people who are fully capable of enjoying these foods without consequence? Those who have zero trouble limiting their usage, or even the very few who can consume high volumes of the stuff with no apparent ill effects? Wouldn't I look the fool if I made it a mission to villainize this potentially hazardous food stuff for everyone, even if it's not a problem for everyone? And when a person who has zero temptation to overindulge regularly in sugary foods tells me that they have it perfectly under control, how would I look disbelieving their own personal experience and continuing to treat them like they're a sugar addict?


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Education in a sea of justification and self satisfaction, Jaquen.


I don't feel the need to justify myself to you, or anyone here. I don't even justify porn use with my own wife. 

I really hope anybody who is comfortable with porn, and has it well under control, doesn't feel the slightest need to justify their behavior, especially to strangers on an internet forum.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Sort of but not quite because porn requires objectification of others. Since it is willing objectification it makes it a trickier topic for me.
> 
> How can I on one hand say I value adult choice and on the other claim that an adult would not have made that choice if they were not vulnerable?
> 
> Hence it is very tricky for me.
> 
> But every time I delve into it, I find the same horror. So I delve again. This leads me to asking more questions.
> 
> What both irritates me and confounds me is that so many seemingly intelligent folk don't face this same dilemma. Then I have to ask myself...why is that?
> 
> Rather circular but still important. I mean, if it is in actually the truth you are looking for, rather than justification for your own personal world view.
> 
> I am absolutely open to being proven wrong. I can't seem to find anyone willing to get off their firm stance long enough to even take a look at it unless they are specifically in direct pro/anti position. Frustrating.
> 
> Then more data comes out and shows that it has implications that were not previously addressed due to modern times. Why won't we look at this either.
> 
> Then I begin to think that perhaps it's because the "user" or "watcher" doesn't want to consider it and why would they? What's in it for the "user" or "watcher" to consider it?
> 
> But I want to consider it regardless. Must be some fault in my DNA somewhere. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.


I think the difference for you than some others is that for some reason you believe the word "objectification" is automatically a bad thing and much of your stance has to do with defending that position.

As for me, I don't think objectification of people is inherently bad, I do it all the time, and I acknowledge that others have done so to me, and I don't mean just sexually.


----------



## Grayson

Trenton said:


> Stranger than fiction. A healthy human brain is very capable of discerning reality from non-reality. My point was not that non-simulated intimate acts turn fiction into non-fiction, it was that over exposure of anything can confuse the human emotion and blur the line between fiction and non-fiction.


Agreed that some *can* be confused as to reality vs fiction. So, my takeaway here is that we should cater all fiction to the outliers who have trouble separating the two, rather than the average person who doesn't have that difficulty. We should design all entertainment as if the entire audience was made up of Robert John Bardos and John Hinckleys. If this descent into a fantasy land madness is inevitable, why are examples of them so few, not to mention shocking and greeted with skepticism when they occur?

As for the confusion between your stance on non-fiction and fiction, I'm afraid you'll have to take the blame for that, as it stemmed from you comparing an actor performing one non-simulated action to serve their performance as fiction and another performing a different non-simulated action to serve their performance as non-fiction. 



> This is why actors and actresses who value their bodies aren't willing to have actual intercourse on the screen.


Quite a leap to judgment there. So any actor willing to have non-simulated sex on screen doesn't value his/her body? Gallo, Sevigny, the entire cast of Shortbus...they don't value their bodies? Researched them and evaluated them thoroughly, have you? I know your evaluation of Sevigny must have been quite thorough, given you hadn't hear if her til this conversation. In fairness, in a 2011 Playboy interview, she said she probably wouldn't film an explicit sex scene again, simply because she's at a different place in her life.



> Varying value system that is then projected onto society. I also already cited that in choosing to be an actor/actress they are more vulnerable to a high divorce rate (for varying reasons that is not dependent on performing intimate kissing scenes so please don't mistake my words here).


Chicken or egg. Assuming your statistic here as a given (although I'd prefer more context), do actors have a higher divorce rate due to their profession, or are they predisposed to relationships that end in divorce as part of their personality that leads them to acting as a profession?



> Porn is a one track thing. It always includes sex and variations of how to have sex or foreplay. There are no deep plots, only similar stereotypes portrayed over and over and over again and these very hyped up, bleached, and staged scenes are so easy to access that it's ridiculous at this point.


As has been said countless times, the same arguments about being formulaic can be applied to many (if not all) genres of entertainment, not just porn.



> You can pretend that it's having no effect and jizz away all over your sock or replay what you watched while making love to your significant other, whatever have you.


I'm not pretending anything. I'm quite capable of separating reality from fiction, as are most people. I know that, when the pizza guy comes to the door, it's not going to turn into a threesome in lieu of payment. I also know that, when I go to the doctor, I'm not going to be admitted to the hospital with a mystery ailment, nearly die from multiple misdiagnoses/treatments (and bleeding out of every orifice) before the lead doctor comes up with a last-minute miracle diagnosis (which won't ever, ever be lupus, despite being suggested by other doctors earlier in the ordeal).



> Sorry if I'm not all that excited that hyped up sexual acts that rarely have a glimmer of reality within them are downloaded and watched more today than any other point in history. Sorry if I am willing and do point out that it has already been documented as an issue for both men and women.


No one has remotely suggested that you (or anyone else) "get excited" about *any* genre of entertainment. I also don't expect you to necessarily be excited about the promos that have been released for this fall's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series. I know that I'm certainly not excited about a sixth (really?) Fast and Furious movie, but do you know what my solution to that is? I'm not going to see it. End of story. If enough people agree with me, they'll stop being made, because there will be no audience.

Sorry if I'm willing and do point out that the "issue for both men and women" has everything do do with those men and women, not the genre of entertainment they choose.



> I'm all for freedom of choice so, like I've already stated, wank away as much as you'd like. For every action there are consequences and your life will be impacted by those choices, those you love directly around you will be impacted by those choices, society in total will be impacted by those choices.


Here, I think we can find some agreement. Because, as you so accurately point out, it is choices and actions that make that impact...not entertainment genre.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shoto1984

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I have a confession. I used basketball last night. My ex was a chronic shopping and chocolate user. Sad.


----------



## johnnycomelately

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I think you are confusing the sexual revolution with the wider availability of porn.


No I'm not. You are trying to break the law of cause and effect. You are claiming that porn use prevents sexual fulfillment; _cause_. The widespread use of porn would therefore cause a fall in sexual fulfillment; _effect_. So, you need to show that there has been a widespread reduction in sexual fulfillment or your assertion is proven to be false.



sparkyjim said:


> But I am saying that neither one is necessarily bad, it's just that porn has overtaken the open discussion and acceptance of sexuality because it is the "easier" road - maybe because it can be the solitary road.


So are you saying that there is no discussion of sexuality outside of porn? I don't see that. As a culture we have never discussed sexuality more nor been more accepting. Well, most of us anyway..



sparkyjim said:


> Women process erotic stimuli different. There are studies about this. You should find them on your own. Women can also abuse erotica to their own detriment. However I think it is much less an issue for them.


Is that opinion based on internalised sexism or do you have any evidence that women are immune to the effects you claim porn has on men? You have claimed to have all these studies backing up your assertions, but have not produced a single one.



sparkyjim said:


> Was it you who attacked Gary WIlson's web site? Called it a big money making scam? If not you then someone did.


It was me. I find it really hard to believe that a person in possession of full critical faculties couldn't see the massive holes in his case. He and his wife simply use this issue as a vehicle to promote their books and seminars.



sparkyjim said:


> He's never charged me or anyone I know who has used his site a dollar, that I know of. I am not saying he is not earning some sort of living from it. You can't deny someone earning a living.


If you have a vested financial interest in an issue it calls into question your objectivity. His wife sells books about this issue, even though she is a lawyer and therefore unqualified. Gary Wilson, an anatomy teacher at unnamed schools, charges for speaking engagments. The website makes money by promoting authors, such as Leil Lowndes and other websites.

Would you trust a study sponsored by Philip Morris on the health effects of smoking? Would you be sceptical of a study on the effects of porn published by Evil Angel? Of course you would. So you need to view Gary Wilson's site in the same sceptical way. 



sparkyjim said:


> I'm just saying that he is at the leading edge of the modern study of the cause and effect of porn use. And he has acquired a lot of anecdotal evidence of how porn has effected people and relationships detrimentally.


He fails in every criteria of scientific study. He fails to used controlled experiments, he has done no statistical analysis and he resorts to logical fallacies to make his point. This bunk is niether research nor leading edge.




sparkyjim said:


> No I am not coming at this issue from a moral point of view. I am coming at this as someone who went through the experience. When I see men here make the same *excuses *that I made for why they use porn I am concerned. If they had new and novel reasons then maybe I would not be concerned, but it just sounds like the same broken record that I used.


You say yours is not a moral objection, yet you repeatedly use the word 'excuse'. The definition of excuse is:_To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven._ Why do you keep saying men 'excuse' themselves if you don't see porn use as a fault or offense?


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> And yet the only discernible impact occasional pornographic viewing and use has done to my sex life is help increase my desire to masturbate, which ramps up my libido, which directly leads to me wanting more sex with my wife. Why? Because the way my libido works is the more I feed it, the more it wants.
> 
> When I'm in a period of little to no porn use, such as now, I tend to have less sexual activity all around. I self please less, and I crave sex less.
> 
> So porn indirectly increases sexual activity, and thus bonding time, with my wife.


So when you use porn, it stimulates your libido, which increases your craving for sex _from_ your wife. 

I suspect that a lot of men feel as you have described. But there's a problem: But what if _your wife _isn't thrilled with the increase? 

See, porn doesn't have an "indirect" effect as you describe: It has a *DIRECT* effect. Without the use of porn, your libido wouldn't be increased. And not only does it have a direct effect on YOUR sex drive but the increase will cause you to seek out sex with your wife _more often_...which means that your wife will be having sex more often, as the result of YOUR increased libido. 

But what if SHE doesn't want it more often? What if SHE is perfectly content with the amount of sex that SHE is having? 

Of course, using porn can also have a more negative effect. In the first scenario, your drive may increase and you seek to have more sex with your wife. But many mens' sex drive increasse to the point of where they masturbate more...and their wife 'suffers' as a result. She's not 'gettin' any' because her husband is already 'spent'. 

If your porn use is as you say it is, then it seems that porn is like a Visual Viagra. It's an _artifical_ means of stimulus. But the point is, that a mans' use of porn CAN _DIRECTLY_ effect his wife (or any other partner for that matter). Either you'll want more sex _with her _(which she either MAY or MAY NOT want, because of her own libido...), or you'll be having LESS sex with her, because you'll be satisfying yourself on your own. 

Either way, a mans' porn use CAN have a direct impact on his partner, from what you've written.

Vega


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> So when you use porn, it stimulates your libido, which increases your craving for sex _from_ your wife.
> 
> I suspect that a lot of men feel as you have described. But there's a problem: But what if _your wife _isn't thrilled with the increase?


Let's nip this in the bud right now, before I even continue reading the remainder of your post. I see exactly where you're going but you picked the absolutely wrong person to try and test your argument.

My wife is moderate-to-high drive. She craves sex just as much as I do. We have a mutually satisfying sex life. We also have an open door of "not now" that we BOTH regularly exercise if neither one of us do not want sex. I turn my wife down when I'm not in the mood, and vice versa, with no repercussions from either one of us. Neither one of us "gives" the other sex. That's a vocabulary common to many marriages, but it's not a part of ours.

So like I said from the top, I have sex WITH my wife. I don't get sex FROM my wife. Do not get it twisted.


----------



## Grayson

Vega said:


> So when you use porn, it stimulates your libido, which increases your craving for sex _from_ your wife.
> 
> I suspect that a lot of men feel as you have described. But there's a problem: But what if _your wife _isn't thrilled with the increase?


If I may go out on a limb here....

I imagine that, in such a scenario, she says, "No." and jaquen accepts her declination.



> See, porn doesn't have an "indirect" effect as you describe: It has a *DIRECT* effect. Without the use of porn, your libido wouldn't be increased. And not only does it have a direct effect on YOUR sex drive but the increase will cause you to seek out sex with your wife _more often_...which means that your wife will be having sex more often, as the result of YOUR increased libido.
> 
> But what if SHE doesn't want it more often? What if SHE is perfectly content with the amount of sex that SHE is having?


See above. Why do you assume that desire on the part of one partner immediately leads to capitulation on the part of the other?



> Of course, using porn can also have a more negative effect. In the first scenario, your drive may increase and you seek to have more sex with your wife. But many mens' sex drive increasse to the point of where they masturbate more...and their wife 'suffers' as a result. She's not 'gettin' any' because her husband is already 'spent'.


Also a valid possibility. And one that, like all other effects, has nothing to do with porn and everything to do with the husband's decision to masturbate rather than meet his wife's desires (considering they're both, shall we say, interested).

Or, to put it another way with an example--

Last night, I was sitting in the living room, watching repeats of The Big Bang Theory and reading/posting to this very thread. As I did, I kept putting off fixing myself some dinner. I did so to the point that my blood sugar dropped very low and I had the shakes. A negative consequence, to be sure. So...are TV sitcoms to blame for my loss of blood sugar? Are online forums to blame? Or is it all on me for choosing forms of entertainment over sustenance?



> If your porn use is as you say it is, then it seems that porn is like a Visual Viagra. It's an _artifical_ means of stimulus. But the point is, that a mans' use of porn CAN _DIRECTLY_ effect his wife (or any other partner for that matter). Either you'll want more sex _with her _(which she either MAY or MAY NOT want, because of her own libido...), or you'll be having LESS sex with her, because you'll be satisfying yourself on your own.
> 
> Either way, a mans' porn use CAN have a direct impact on his partner, from what you've written.
> 
> Vega


Once again...all consequences of _how he chooses to act_, not the stimulus.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Dude drinks alcohol, goes home and passes out drunk, leaving all the chores for his wife to do...

So, alcohol then has a direct effect on his wife?

Again we leave out personal choice?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Going back to the original question/observation....

I often...well...use the terms "watch," "view," "use," "utilize" and others pretty much interchangeably, in the context presented here. It's not a matter of ascribing a certain mindset. It's a matter of using a writing technique that maintains a variety of relative synonyms for the purpose of avoiding repetition when an idea is referenced multiple times in a given piece. Simultaneously, it is sometimes necessary to make use of a tool of repetition of the same term for the same of clarity or to make a point. For instance, In the context of this particular thread, I've made a conscious effort to apply the terms "watch" or "view," given the initial premise of the OP.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Some people continue to see men as programmed reactions to things that need to be parented out of their lives... If you need to be his mommy, then it's possible you married the wrong guy, porn, gambling, whatevs.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Lon said:


> I think the difference for you than some others is that for some reason you believe the word "objectification" is automatically a bad thing and much of your stance has to do with defending that position.
> 
> As for me, I don't think objectification of people is inherently bad, I do it all the time, and I acknowledge that others have done so to me, and I don't mean just sexually.


You may be fine with being treated as an object. This is your prerogative.

But the fact of the matter is, and despite the disingenuous comments on this thread, porn stars and sex trade workers for the most part end up thrown on the trash heap of society.

And this is *not* because of feminists or critics of porn or the sex trade (as some have tried to claim here). Sex trade workers have long been relegated to a secondary (even lower?) class of human being even (especially?) by those who utilize their services. The risks they face -- physical, emotional, psychological -- are immense, even when all of the rules and regulations of the industry are being followed, and all too often they are not, or don't even exist. Indeed, one value that feminists and critics bring to this issue is the fight for protection and better conditions for those involved.

The attempt to portray porn star as just another job that empowered and freely choosing humans decide to apply for is a complete whitewash over all of the well-reported and glaring injustices and hazards that exist in that industry.


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

News headline: "Coffee may lead to decreased waking effect and to addiction!"

Oh man, coffee is bad for you... Not buying it anymore... I'm gonna post the studies done on my blog later. How can anyone drink this? It's their freedom to choose, but people who drink coffee are harming themselves. It has effects and consequences and stuff.

One week later, News headline: "Coffee discovered to have positive metabolic effects!"

Oh man, coffee is good for you, I'm gonna drink some every day.

Coffee, a mood changing tyrant controlling humanity's actions! Please, coffee, have mercy on us!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



jaquen said:


> And yet the only discernible impact occasional pornographic viewing and use has done to my sex life is help increase my desire to masturbate, which ramps up my libido, which directly leads to me wanting more sex with my wife. Why? Because the way my libido works is the more I feed it, the more it wants.


Sometimes the personal really is political.

This is the only discernible impact for you, perhaps, but porn reinforces very specific messages about sexuality, what women should look like, how they should dress or groom, how they should be treated, what they expect/desire, and so on. Ditto for men. 

Maybe this does not impact you, and maybe you do not expect things of your wife because of the constant messages from porn (and other media). But many do, and moreso because very young boys and girls are receiving these messages as their de facto sex education.

Similarly, maybe you personally don't have a problem with sugar. But the fact that it is now in extremely high quantities in virtually all processed food, societies around the world are seeing epidemic increases in obesity, diabetes, and other health conditions.

Do individuals bear responsibility for their choices of what they watch or eat? Yes, of course. But public policy also plays a major role.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



always_alone said:


> You may be fine with being treated as an object. This is your prerogative.
> 
> But the fact of the matter is, and despite the disingenuous comments on this thread, porn stars and sex trade workers for the most part end up thrown on the trash heap of society.
> 
> And this is *not* because of feminists or critics of porn or the sex trade (as some have tried to claim here). Sex trade workers have long been relegated to a secondary (even lower?) class of human being even (especially?) by those who utilize their services. The risks they face -- physical, emotional, psychological -- are immense, even when all of the rules and regulations of the industry are being followed, and all too often they are not, or don't even exist. Indeed, one value that feminists and critics bring to this issue is the fight for protection and better conditions for those involved.
> 
> The attempt to portray porn star as just another job that empowered and freely choosing humans decide to apply for is a complete whitewash over all of the well-reported and glaring injustices and hazards that exist in that industry.


The problem is not the objectification of the person on that side of the lens, the problem is those whose entire self worth is based based upon that objectification, and also those whom have been systematically exploited and abused and have no power to get themselves out of the situation they are in. further, that whole issue is not just predominant in porn, it is there in nearly all aspects of life.

It is not the viewer's responsibility to ensure the mental health or self esteem of those who choose to star in porn, nor is it right to presume all women in the industry are their because of exploitation. I know it happens, a lot, but I am tired of hearing the feminist take that the sex industry is all about sexualizing women - it is about sexualizing both the sexes, both the performer and the audience alike. The performers are not the only party being exploited, yet we still all willfully go along because it is the seemingly path of least resistance.


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

"But many do, and moreso because very young boys and girls are receiving these messages as their de facto sex education."


Always Alone....I actually think that the next generation of boys AND girls will ALL be watching porn. So that will be the end of the debate, because once ALL girls are watching porn too, then the generation after THAT will be full of men who don't like their wives watching porn....yet those wives will refuse to "be controlled" and thus...the pendulum keeps swinging.

Young girls are already watching it, by the way. Every woman I know with a tween girl has caught their girl looking stuff up. The moms aren't even that upset about it, either, because many of them are watching it, too.


----------



## richie33

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Football is dangerous. Average career is 3 years. Contracts are not guaranteed. Guys bodies are destroyed. Are you screaming about the exploitation of these young men? I hear the exploitation argument on here a lot. The Teen Mom from MTV made a porn tape, shopped it around for around a million dollars. Is she being exploited?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## richie33

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

A documentary called Aroused was just released featuring 16 of the top female porn stars. It should be watched by the women whose only argument is woman are being exploited, are drug addicts, etc.
And gasp its directed by a woman, Deborah Anderson.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson

always_alone said:


> Sometimes the personal really is political.
> 
> This is the only discernible impact for you, perhaps, but porn reinforces very specific messages about sexuality, what women should look like, how they should dress or groom, how they should be treated, what they expect/desire, and so on. Ditto for men.


More accurately, porn presents a stylized, hyper-realized fictional representation of sexuality. Anyone who looks to it as a guidebook for how human sexuality and appearance is in reality is foolish. And I'd say the same thing about any work of fiction...and often have.



> Maybe this does not impact you, and maybe you do not expect things of your wife because of the constant messages from porn (and other media). But many do, and moreso because very young boys and girls are receiving these messages as their de facto sex education.


So...if we take this as a given, the fact that young people are using fiction to determine how reality works is, somehow the fault and responsibility of the fiction, and not the parents who, apparently aren't teaching those young people? If a young man or woman were using Suits as their sole source of legal training, would that be a problem inherent in legal dramas or in the parenting being done? (See what I did there, since Suits is about a guy with no formal legal education passing himself off as a lawyer in a high-priced firm?)



> Similarly, maybe you personally don't have a problem with sugar. But the fact that it is now in extremely high quantities in virtually all processed food, societies around the world are seeing epidemic increases in obesity, diabetes, and other health conditions.


Although I myself used an example of my sugar dropping too low last night, I think that comparing sugar to any media is an apples/oranges comparison. Sugar is actually ingested into to body, altering or adding to the body's very makeup. Media does not.



> Do individuals bear responsibility for their choices of what they watch or eat? Yes, of course. But public policy also plays a major role.


Please elaborate.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



richie33 said:


> Football is dangerous. Average career is 3 years. Contracts are not guaranteed. Guys bodies are destroyed. Are you screaming about the exploitation of these young men? I hear the exploitation argument on here a lot. The Teen Mom from MTV made a porn tape, shopped it around for around a million dollars. Is she being exploited?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No way James Deen is a great performer  
Could be James Deen's fault though they were blaming him more teenage girls are watching porn not long ago.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



johnnycomelately said:


> No I'm not. You are trying to break the law of cause and effect. You are claiming that porn use prevents sexual fulfillment; _cause_. The widespread use of porn would therefore cause a fall in sexual fulfillment; _effect_. So, you need to show that there has been a widespread reduction in sexual fulfillment or your assertion is proven to be false.


I think that what I said is that porn use can inhibit or effect sexual fulfillment in a negative way.

And no, I do not need to show anything. What I am saying, yet again, is that men assume that porn has no negative affect (how could it ? It's so stimulating ) and so they wade in with no caution.

And I am saying that each man should do his own research on the subject. Educate yourself.



johnnycomelately said:


> Is that opinion based on internalised sexism or do you have any evidence that women are immune to the effects you claim porn has on men? You have claimed to have all these studies backing up your assertions, but have not produced a single one.


I never said immune...again, another study that I found. Try Google...




johnnycomelately said:


> It was me. I find it really hard to believe that a person in possession of full critical faculties couldn't see the massive holes in his case.


I know - you started a thread to argue why you don't agree with him. I wondered why you made that your agenda...



johnnycomelately said:


> He fails in every criteria of scientific study. He fails to used controlled experiments, he has done no statistical analysis and he resorts to logical fallacies to make his point. This bunk is niether research nor leading edge.


This is your opinion - I know many who would disagree with you.




johnnycomelately said:


> You say yours is not a moral objection, yet you repeatedly use the word 'excuse'. The definition of excuse is:_To explain (a fault or an offense) in the hope of being forgiven._ Why do you keep saying men 'excuse' themselves if you don't see porn use as a fault or offense?



I hear the same excuses that I used to make...you do read my posts, right? It's not a moral judgement. I can say that you are weak if you use porn and that is not a moral judgement. I can say that there are dangers in using porn that men do not realize and that is not a moral judgement. I can say that porn is not just harmless entertainment and that is not a moral judgement.

I am not trying to win any arguments here. All I am doing is planting seeds. If porn becomes a problem for you, or if you realize that it already is then you will remember what we talked about here. If you decide to do some research for yourself then you will be educating yourself.

I am just saying that I think every man should be a little more concerned with how he might be stunting his own sexual happiness by his use of porn.


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

My husband is a Sex God, and yet he fully understands that the use of porn has a lifelong impact to a person's overall sexual functioning. To use it rampantly with no regard for what you are putting into your mind (which will remain there for your whole life and which will affect your sexual mind-body connection) is short-sighted. And this is a man who has no "morals" about sex...it is all a free-for-all as far as he's concerned about what anyone ELSE does. He makes the "no rampant porn use" choice for himself, but doesn't care if others are short-sighted about it and just go with it. He considers that a personal choice.

For some, it really isn't about morals. It is about personal sexuality.


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

lol love how you started the post with 'my husband is a Sex God'


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

It's the name of the blog I'm writing, too.


----------



## Grayson

sparkyjim said:


> I think that what I said is that porn use can inhibit or effect sexual fulfillment in a negative way.
> 
> And no, I do not need to show anything. What I am saying, yet again, is that men assume that porn has no negative affect (how could it ? It's so stimulating ) and so they wade in with no caution.


Once more, with feeling.

Porn has no negative effect. Neither does it have a positive effect. *How one chooses to respond to its stimulus* (or, for that matter, the stimulus of _any_ entertainment media), however, is another matter entirely.

To call back to my example from several posts back, are TV sitcoms or online forums responsible for my drop in blood sugar last night, or am I, through my choice to continue with my choices of entertainment rather than prepare dinner to blame?

(Here's a hint...I'm not saying sitcoms or message boards are bad, nor am I holding Jim Parsons, Kaley Cuoco, Trenton nor you to blame.)



> And I am saying that each man should do his own research on the subject. Educate yourself.


...while insinuating that, should their conclusions and experiences not match your own, they're oblivious to an obvious truth.



> I hear the same excuses that I used to make...you do read my posts, right?


Points for honesty, in that you're open enough to freely state you're projecting your own experiences onto the statements of others whose experiences might just be different than your own. Kudos to you for recognizing the undesired impact that your behavior was having in your life and doing something about it. I just have to wonder why you assume that anyone else in a remotely similar situation must inevitably be making the same choices or experiencing the same impact from those choices that you did.



> It's not a moral judgement. I can say that you are weak if you use porn and that is not a moral judgement.


Hmmm...maybe not a "moral" judgment, but a judgment just the same. Your judgment of weakness is predicated upon the assumption mentioned above, that everyone's experience with a particular genre of media will mirror yours.

[Quite]I can say that there are dangers in using porn that men do not realize and that is not a moral judgement.[/quote]

I'd agree with that conclusion. Something else that it also isn't? It isn't a given. The dangers that you refer to as "dangers in using porn" are, as I've said, not dangers that are inherent to the genre, but are intrinsically linked to how the viewer chooses to respond to that media. The dangers are in the person, not the stimulus. Someone who might, for example, divert inordinate amounts of attention from their partner to view porn would, in its absence, find another focus for their diverted attentions. Yep...they'd get that same message from The Monkees.

I can say that porn is not just harmless entertainment and that is not a moral judgement.



> All I am doing is planting seeds. If porn becomes a problem for you, or if you realize that it already is then you will remember what we talked about here.


And, I think you'll find that everyone on this side of the proverbial fence agrees that, if one partner's actions are hindering the relationship, that's an issue that needs to be addressed. This is not, however, something that is inherent or limited to porn.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> ...while insinuating that, should their conclusions and experiences not match your own, they're oblivious to an obvious truth.



Perhaps insinuating - but not demanding...

Just don't go blindly into it. Too many, _in my opinion_, just go blindly...


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



richie33 said:


> A documentary called Aroused was just released featuring 16 of the top female porn stars. It should be watched by the women whose only argument is woman are being exploited, are drug addicts, etc.
> And gasp its directed by a woman, Deborah Anderson.


Oh, please. A glossy and sexually stereotypical spread of 16 top performers is not going to give any insight whatsoever into the industry as a whole.

It even fails to give insight into those 16 performers according to the reviews.


----------



## johnnycomelately

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I think that what I said is that porn use can inhibit or effect sexual fulfillment in a negative way.


But you refuse to back that claim up with any evidence. You can't blame anyone for dismissing it then. 



sparkyjim said:


> And no, I do not need to show anything. What I am saying, yet again, is that men assume that porn has no negative affect (how could it ? It's so stimulating ) and so they wade in with no caution.
> 
> And I am saying that each man should do his own research on the subject. Educate yourself.


What makes you think that no-one else has educated him or herself? Do you believe that because people come to a different conclusion they are not educated? I have read every bit of research, for and against, that I can find.



sparkyjim said:


> I know - you started a thread to argue why you don't agree with him. I wondered why you made that your agenda...


Because I got sick of being vilified as a rapist, sexist, cheat and exploiter of women with erectile dysfunction by anti-porn posters. Many of these posters threw 'Your Brain On Porn' at me so I watched the presentations and read the material. Frankly I was bowled over by how poor it was. 



sparkyjim said:


> I hear the same excuses that I used to make...you do read my posts, right? It's not a moral judgement.


I think I read them more clearly than you do. Again with the word 'excuse' which implies some wrong has been committed. You 'apologised' on behalf of all men for our porn use. What is there to apologise for if no moral wrong has been committed? You are contradicting yourself. 



sparkyjim said:


> If you decide to do some research for yourself then you will be educating yourself.


Again with this bizarre presumption that only you have done any research. 



sparkyjim said:


> I am just saying that I think every man should be a little more concerned with how he might be stunting his own sexual happiness by his use of porn.


I think you should be concerned that you Victorian-style repression of fantasy and masturbation is going to stunt your sexual happiness.


----------



## johnnycomelately

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> Quote:
> _Originally Posted by johnnycomelately
> He fails in every criteria of scientific study. He fails to used controlled experiments, he has done no statistical analysis and he resorts to logical fallacies to make his point. This bunk is niether research nor leading edge_.
> 
> *This is your opinion - I know many who would disagree with you.*


You are free to challenge the points I made in the critique. In fact why don't you write to Gary Wilson and ask him to comment. I would happily debate this with him.


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> Please elaborate.


It's simple really. 

The effects of eating sugar is not just a matter of individual choice. I can, for example, try not to eat any, but the fact is every time I eat processed or restaurant food I will also be eating sugar. On top of that, the industry fights tooth and nail to not have to reduce sugar content in food because they know it increases sales. And so far, legislation sides with them. To add insult to injury, I also do not even have the right to know what's in my food, so I cannot even make informed choices all of the time.

Analogously, the effects of porn watching are not just up to me as an individual. There is a whole social context that operates quite independently of my individual choices, and this context helps to inform views about sexuality, what constitutes normal sexuality, and how people ought to be treated. The porn industry fights tooth and nail to counter existing regulations (e.g. condom laws) and often skirts those few that are in place (e.g. some were caught red-handed forcing their workers to lie about their working conditions), all because they wish to increase sales or protect their image. For the most part, legislation either sides with them or simply looks the other way.


----------



## Grayson

always_alone said:


> It's simple really.
> 
> The effects of eating sugar is not just a matter of individual choice. I can, for example, try not to eat any, but the fact is every time I eat processed or restaurant food I will also be eating sugar. On top of that, the industry fights tooth and nail to not have to reduce sugar content in food because they know it increases sales. And so far, legislation sides with them. To add insult to injury, I also do not even have the right to know what's in my food, so I cannot even make informed choices all of the time.
> 
> Analogously, the effects of porn watching are not just up to me as an individual. There is a whole social context that operates quite independently of my individual choices, and this context helps to inform views about sexuality, what constitutes normal sexuality, and how people ought to be treated.


Thanks for that elaboration.

What you cite here re: porn I must once again return to the simple truths pointed out in the rest of my post that ended with the request for elaboration, that porn is a work of fiction and a genre of entertainment media. Anyone who truly allows their expectations for life to be shaped exclusively by fictional entertainment media is a fool. Are you also equally vocal in insisting that, say, medical dramas are inherently bad because they inevitably make the public think that their every malady will be wiped away with a last-minute miracle diagnosis and treatment? Do you fight tooth and nail to banish crime dramas because they give the impression that the good guys always win and bad guys are brought to justice (sometimes even breaking down and confessing on the witness stand)? Shall we also abolish sitcoms because they teach us that all of life's problems can be solved with a witty rejoinder and 22 minutes of time (wacky neighbor's assistance optional)?

Or, do you assume that the vast majority of the viewing public is capable of determining that what their watching is a fictional story being told for the purposes of entertainment? And for those that aren't capable of separating reality from fiction, is that the fault of what they're watching, or the person who doesn't "get it?"



> The porn industry fights tooth and nail to counter existing regulations (e.g. condom laws) and often skirts those few that are in place (e.g. some were caught red-handed forcing their workers to lie about their working conditions), all because they wish to increase sales or protect their image. For the most part, legislation either sides with them or simply looks the other way.


You do understand that such activity is not limited to porn, right? That bad conditions exist in most every field. This is not a condition that stems from the industry - any industry - in question, and the solution is no to demonize the entire industry (whatever it is) and paint all entities within the industry with the same brush as those bad elements. So, if deplorable conditions existing within part of an industry are enough to label the entire industry and its product as inherently bad and inevitably harmful to anyone who even dares acknowledge its existence, then what, pray tell, types of industries would we have left in the world?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> Thanks for that elaboration.
> 
> What you cite here re: porn I must once again return to the simple truths pointed out in the rest of my post that ended with the request for elaboration, that porn is a work of fiction and a genre of entertainment media.


Sorry, but I just can't accept your simple truths. Yes, some porn stars have managed to clamber up the ladder of success and achieved the status of "actor", albeit D-list, but the fact is they are not actors in harmless entertainment, they are sex workers. There's a difference, IMHO.



Grayson said:


> Or, do you assume that the vast majority of the viewing public is capable of determining that what their watching is a fictional story being told for the purposes of entertainment? And for those that aren't capable of separating reality from fiction, is that the fault of what they're watching, or the person who doesn't "get it?"


Mmm. Yes. People probably know what they are watching is not real, but at the same time, porn is influencing what people expect from sex, how women (and to a lesser extent men) are to present themselves, how they are to act, what they are to like and be like sexually. I do hear the men here saying that they do not in fact expect sex or their wives to be like this, but I've also seen here and elsewhere men wondering why their gfs and wives aren't more like porn stars. 



Grayson said:


> You do understand that such activity is not limited to porn, right? That bad conditions exist in most every field. This is not a condition that stems from the industry - any industry - in question, and the solution is no to demonize the entire industry (whatever it is) and paint all entities within the industry with the same brush as those bad elements. So, if deplorable conditions existing within part of an industry are enough to label the entire industry and its product as inherently bad and inevitably harmful to anyone who even dares acknowledge its existence, then what, pray tell, types of industries would we have left in the world?


Of course I realize that other industries are quite terrible. But instead of saying that I don't care about any of it, I try to care about all of it. If we actually stand up against deplorable conditions instead of throwing our hands up and accepting it all, we might even make some progress towards creating more ethical businesses practices. (Not that I'm holding my breath or anything, but I find it better than sticking my head in the sand and pretending nothing's happening.)

And really, some industries are much worse than others, and the sex trade is most definitely one of the worst.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



johnnycomelately said:


> You 'apologised' on behalf of all men for our porn use.




You could make a living misquoting me.

This is what I said...

"I want to apologize to the ladies for the *way* us "men" sometimes defend this apparent right to watch porn that so many of us appear to think we have." Bolded by me to emphasize that I thought the arguments that the men were using to justify porn use where insensitive and dismissive of women's concerns.





johnnycomelately said:


> I think you should be concerned that your Victorian-style repression ...



Bizarre assumptions? You are the poster child for that.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



johnnycomelately said:


> What makes you think that no-one else has educated him or herself? Do you believe that because people come to a different conclusion they are not educated? I have read every bit of research, for and against, that I can find.



So have I.

I will throw you a bone. You said you read everything that you can find.

Fine, I accept what you say.

Again, so have I. I could say, like you did, that every study that I read is influenced by their bias, and by the funding that they received.

Your latest studies are also using data from 2008. Not so current.

I guess that if we are going to argue whose studies are better then we are going to reach an impasse. Well, you and I already have. I can tell that you are not going to change your mind and I know I used to think like you and have changed my mind and I am not going back to your way of thinking. 

I'm not saying your wrong. I'm just saying that I already know every argument you might present, and I disagree with most of them, so it would be pointless for you to engage me with the idea that I might ever agree with you.

I'll just continue to plant seeds...


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> the simple truths ...
> 
> that porn is ....
> 
> harmless entertainment ( from an earlier post of yours)



This might be a simple truth for you, but I will *never* agree with you that your supposition is true.

On this we part ways...


----------



## Grayson

sparkyjim said:


> This might be a simple truth for you, but I will *never* agree with you that your supposition is true.
> 
> On this we part ways...


Considering you've all but said that you don't agree with the concept of "harmless entertainment" to begin with....

But then, I might disagree with the simple truth that clouds aren't made of cotton candy. That doesn't make it any less true.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> That doesn't make it any less true.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



It's not true because you think it's true.

Again, my opinion and I guess you were already aware of how I felt, so maybe it was needless to post.

Sorry I brought it up. 

I'm just going to accept that you and I like Bill Cosby, don't like Elaine Boosler, and disagree on whether porn is "harmless entertainment."

By the way I liked your story about how EB gave you the evil eye...  Good for you not to laugh...


----------



## Grayson

sparkyjim said:


> It's not true because you think it's true.


My point exactly. It's true because...well...it's true. Entertainment media has no more power over the viewer than the viewer allows it through his or her actions. Some allow it more power than others. I wouldn't even call that a flaw in their character, I'd just say that that's how their mind works. But, that power simply isn't inherent to the media.

As an extreme example, Robert John Bardo allowed it an inordinate amount of control, leading to a string of obsessions with young female celebrities, culminating in the murder of Rebecca Schaeffer, which, in court, he claimed in court was further influenced by the U2 song "Exit." And none of his empowered media was even porn.



> I'm just going to accept that you and I like Bill Cosby, don't like Elaine Boosler, and disagree on whether porn is "harmless entertainment."
> 
> By the way I liked your story about how EB gave you the evil eye...  Good for you not to laugh...


Why would I laugh if I didn't find her material funny? 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## johnnycomelately

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Lesson that hasn't been learned yet: Porn is not all about you and it will impact more than your member or cl!t.


This is true for every activity in life. If you work too hard it impacts your family. If you eat too much it impacts your family. If you drink too much it impacts your family.

The basic assumption that is made by many anti-porn posters is that porn should be put into a special category. I don't see how this assumption can be justified, outside of religious grounds.


----------



## Interlocutor

johnnycomelately said:


> This is true for every activity in life. If you work too hard it impacts your family. If you eat too much it impacts your family. If you drink too much it impacts your family.
> 
> The basic assumption that is made by many anti-porn posters is that porn should be put into a special category. I don't see how this assumption can be justified, outside of religious grounds.


That's another way of putting it, back to individual choice, an idea shared since page 1 but not too popular.

It would force some wives to question their own choice in husband rather than to simply blame porn for "making him bad."

Much like parents, who walked right into the store and with their own credit card bought Call of Duty, later blame video games for the ills of teens... It removes their own choices from the table of blame.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Starstarfish

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I think one potential question is - who gets to define if something is harmless? 

To my knowledge, there's been no official government study to test whether or not pornography over the long-term is harmless - and outside research is dismissed as biased or "obviously making money for the anti-porn lobby." So - if there's no qualified determination for harm or harmlessness, how do you define that label?

So - it might very well be harmless to some posters in this thread, and it fits well into their lives without difficulty to them or their spouse - awesome. But there's some that indicated that it was harmful, directly or indirectly. Does individual choice still play a part in it. Well of course, and it might be the largest factor. 

So, I'm not sure the real question is - is it harmful or harmless, but whether it benefits more people than it harms. But again - how do you conduct that study? And who would conduct it? And what would it mean?


----------



## Grayson

Starstarfish said:


> I think one potential question is - who gets to define if something is harmless?
> 
> To my knowledge, there's been no official government study to test whether or not pornography over the long-term is harmless - and outside research is dismissed as biased or "obviously making money for the anti-porn lobby." So - if there's no qualified determination for harm or harmlessness, how do you define that label?
> 
> So - it might very well be harmless to some posters in this thread, and it fits well into their lives without difficulty to them or their spouse - awesome. But there's some that indicated that it was harmful, directly or indirectly. Does individual choice still play a part in it. Well of course, and it might be the largest factor.
> 
> So, I'm not sure the real question is - is it harmful or harmless, but whether it benefits more people than it harms. But again - how do you conduct that study? And who would conduct it? And what would it mean?


Apparently, so army's the one who gets to make the classification. Because I went back and looked. Starting on page 9, when I entered the conversation, my use of the phrase "harmless entertainment" can be counted on one hand, and always in attempting to get a read on what sparky - the one who introduced the phrase to the discussion - would consider to fit that description. Here's exactly how it was introduced:



> Grayson 05:09 PM 05-28-2013
> Originally Posted by sparkyjim:
> I know you are going to hold onto this idea that it is just a harmless entertainment...
> You're right. Because, at the end of the day, it is no more or less inherently harmful than any other genre of entertainment...medical dramas, soap operas, horror movies, sitcoms, super-hero comics, etc.
> 
> What's harmful is how one responds to it, which is intrinsic to the individual.


So, please take note that my stance has remained consistent...that media and genres of media are neither inherently harm_less_ nor harm_ful_...that the potential for negative outcomes lies within the viewer/listener.

So, as far as I can see, any studies that indicate that *any* form or genre of media entertainment has an inherent, inevitable effect for good or ill is a load if rubbish, and may very well be doctored, massaged or just plain made up (like sparky's cobbled together "quote" of mine from last night). As a comics reader and fan of 30+ years, we're seeing a perfect example of that right now. In the 50's, psychologist Dr. Frederic Wertham published the book Seduction of the Innocent, with his findings that comics held perverse, misogynistic, pedophiliac and/or homosexual subtext (he had a field day with Batman and Robin) and led to juvenile delinquency. The book led to Congressional hearings on comics and ultimately to the comics industry preemptively adopting the Comics Code Authority, possibly the most restrictive censorship organization that US media has seen. Recently, Wertham's original notes have been found...and it's come out that his findings were cobbled together, embellished and outright fabricated in order to reach his desired conclusion.

Yes, too much of anything can harm you. Too much *water* can harm you. That doesn't make water inherently bad.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Always_alone, I'm not ignoring your last post. There's a lot in it, as well as in the thoughts coming to mind to reply, and I think I will be easier for me to keep those thoughts best organized from a computer keyboard than a phone.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I guess I just don't get why the "for porn" people keep debating at all with the "anti-porn" people? If you are for porn, you are entitled to it, you are an adult, you will not be controlled or shamed....then why do you bother to go round and round about it at all with people who you say are trying to shame you? If you are so solid on the ground with your stance, then no one else's opinion should ruffle you in the least.

Like, I like sugar, and I understand it is bad for me and it is ruining the health of the world, but I'm going to eat it at times anyway and I'm not going to debate anyone about it because, it is my body and who cares?

Why isn't it that way with porn, if that is really how you feel?

We all get why the "anti-porn" people would debate the issue...they are hoping to educate the "for porn" people (or as the "for porn" people would say, "shame them"). 

But why do you "for porn" posters even keep talking about it? Why is the topic even worth debating to you? It is simply a personal choice, right? To me, the fact that you "for porn" posters will go on and on about this topic, makes it sound like you ARE ashamed and you feel you have to justify it and demonize anyone who is against it. :scratchhead:


----------



## BjornFree

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Faithful Wife said:


> Like, I like sugar, and I understand it is bad for me and it is ruining the health of the world, but I'm going to eat it at times anyway and I'm not going to debate anyone about it because, it is my body and who cares?


You sure you wouldn't like to be educated further about the bad effects of sugar, I'm quite educated myself.

You shouldn't eat sugar, not good for the body, not good at all. Take it from a diabetic man. Sugar bad, cheese bad, krispy kreme bad. 

Its a shame that you're defending people who eat sugar. You should know better. You're even endorsing sugar? That's a totally shameful attitude to have.


You edumacated enough?


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

See, but you posting that doesn't make me want to defend myself or get all uppity about how using sugar is my choice and none of your business. Instead, I just don't care. 

Why isn't it that way on the porn topic? Why don't the threads just die due to the fact that the "for porn" crowd simply doesn't participate because they don't care?


----------



## Grayson

Faithful Wife said:


> I guess I just don't get why the "for porn" people keep debating at all with the "anti-porn" people? If you are for porn, you are entitled to it, you are an adult, you will not be controlled or shamed....then why do you bother to go round and round about it at all with people who you say are trying to shame you? If you are so solid on the ground with your stance, then no one else's opinion should ruffle you in the least.
> 
> Like, I like sugar, and I understand it is bad for me and it is ruining the health of the world, but I'm going to eat it at times anyway and I'm not going to debate anyone about it because, it is my body and who cares?
> 
> Why isn't it that way with porn, if that is really how you feel?
> 
> We all get why the "anti-porn" people would debate the issue...they are hoping to educate the "for porn" people (or as the "for porn" people would say, "shame them").
> 
> But why do you "for porn" posters even keep talking about it? Why is the topic even worth debating to you? It is simply a personal choice, right? To me, the fact that you "for porn" posters will go on and on about this topic, makes it sound like you ARE ashamed and you feel you have to justify it and demonize anyone who is against it. :scratchhead:


For me, it's primarily because they're choosing to spread misinformation, and some tend to do so in a manner which paints those who disagree with them in an objectively negative light. And, in a forum such as this, in which people who may not have a "side" in the debate come looking for information, remaining silent in the face of such statements is implicit agreement that those statements are inarguably true.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BjornFree

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Faithful Wife said:


> See, but you posting that doesn't make me want to defend myself or get all uppity about how using sugar is my choice and none of your business. Instead, I just don't care.


But I'm only trying to educate you.



> Why isn't it that way on the porn topic? Why don't the threads just die due to the fact that the "for porn" crowd simply doesn't participate because they don't care?


Same as above.


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Faithful Wife said:


> Like, I like sugar, and I understand it is bad for me and it is ruining the health of the world, but I'm going to eat it at times anyway and I'm not going to debate anyone about it because, it is my body and who cares?


Maybe the problem isn't the porn or the sugar, but the lack of regard for how it affects their partner.

You know that sugar is bad for you, yet you eat it anyway. But if you eat too much of it and begin to have health problems because of it, you might call upon your partner to bring you to the hospital and your partner may end up resenting you for DELIBERATELY putting him or her in that position. 

Same thing with alcohol. My ex. h used to drink quite a bit. He had the same attitude that you do; that it's HIS body and he'll do what he wants. One day he drank so much that he passed out while in the bathroom. I was just about to leave for work when I heard that CRASH. I ended up calling into work to care for my husband. Now had he passed out from NOT drinking, I would have had NO PROBLEM taking him to the hospital because he didn't DELIBERATELY do somthing that would eventually bring harm to himself. But for him to have that attitude, and ALSO have the attitude that I "should be happy to care for him because he's my husband", even if he isn't taking care of himself, is just RIDICULOUS! I know that if *I* drank myself into a near coma that my exh would have been P*SSED! 

If my ex used porn for 'stimulation', he would expect ME to 'finish him off'. If he used it to the point of ejaculation, then *I* would miss out on having sex with my husband.

At what point do *I* get a say in any of this? It seems like I'm expected to accept HIS point of view without him even considering MINE!

Vega

Vega


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> Maybe the problem isn't the porn or the sugar, but the lack of regard for how it affects their partner.
> 
> Vega


I agree with that, no one can control/dictate or shame (many try) to someone to not use porn, no one can control/dictate or shame (many try) how someone responds to a partner who uses porn or how they feel about porn.


----------



## Grayson

Vega said:


> Maybe the problem isn't the porn or the sugar, but the lack of regard for how it affects their partner.
> 
> You know that sugar is bad for you, yet you eat it anyway. But if you eat too much of it and begin to have health problems because of it, you might call upon your partner to bring you to the hospital and your partner may end up resenting you for DELIBERATELY putting him or her in that position.
> 
> Same thing with alcohol. My ex. h used to drink quite a bit. He had the same attitude that you do; that it's HIS body and he'll do what he wants. One day he drank so much that he passed out while in the bathroom. I was just about to leave for work when I heard that CRASH. I ended up calling into work to care for my husband. Now had he passed out from NOT drinking, I would have had NO PROBLEM taking him to the hospital because he didn't DELIBERATELY do somthing that would eventually bring harm to himself. But for him to have that attitude, and ALSO have the attitude that I "should be happy to care for him because he's my husband", even if he isn't taking care of himself, is just RIDICULOUS! I know that if *I* drank myself into a near coma that my exh would have been P*SSED!
> 
> If my ex used porn for 'stimulation', he would expect ME to 'finish him off'. If he used it to the point of ejaculation, then *I* would miss out on having sex with my husband.
> 
> At what point do *I* get a say in any of this? It seems like I'm expected to accept HIS point of view without him even considering MINE!
> 
> Vega
> 
> Vega


Sounds like your ex was quite a jerk. You have as much or little say as the two of you agree upon. If there's no meeting of the minds, that's a root of the problem. I think you'll find that most of us on this "side" of the issue would agree that ignoring your partner in favor of any pastime is a problem. Doesn't matter if it's porn, sports, gambling, books, games, what have you.

TMI warning for the example I'm about to give, but it's relevant as it shows a counter-point to yours.
A few weeks ago, my wife went to bed, I wasn't tired, so I stayed up watching TV. While doing so, decided to take a look at some pictures online and began to take care of things. Uncharacteristically for her, she got up a short time later, unable to sleep, and came out to where I was. She decided that she, too, wanted to take care of herself (long story short, since her surgery, intercourse is more often than not, too painful for her comfort). My reaction? Laptop closed, and off I went to join her.

Now, if porn had the magical mind control powers that some ascribe to it, my reaction should have been, "Have fun. I'll be in when I'm done."

Some people are jerks. Some people choose to allow impulse to override reason in all matters. I guess it makes it easier to justify abdicating their personal responsibility to say, "It wasn't me, it was the porn!" But, I like to think that most don't do that. Naturally, though, especially in a forum like TAM, we're more likely to hear about relationships where one partner is being neglectful. That's the nature of the beast of forums like this one. That's not a bad thing, but it is to be expected and taken into consideration before using the stories here as any kind of indicator of the average relationship that includes porn in some measure.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Grayson said: "For me, it's primarily because they're choosing to spread misinformation..."

But, who cares if they do? What does it harm? As if porn is going to be banned anytime soon? What harm can misinformation do, in this case?

Grayson said: "...and some tend to do so in a manner which paints those who disagree with them in an objectively negative light."

But the "for porn" group also paints the "anti-porn" group in a negative light....which wouldn't happen at all if the "for porn" group just didn't respond to these posts.

- - - - - - 

I occasionally use illegal substances. And I'm fine with that for myself. I know the dangers, etc. I know many people would consider this absolutely insane and risky behavior. Not to mention what goes on in the underworld of the illegal substances that I am using and by using them I am continuing the possible suffering of many people who are affected negatively by illegal substance use. And I get that some people would have a moral stance against my choice.

But...as I said, I've weighed the risks and I'm good with my choices.

Now, would I go and join a thread where I felt people were trying to morally shame me into never using an illegal substance again? No way. Why would I? What's in that for me? I get why they think the way they do, and more power to them. Why would I go there to be "shamed" and then complain about being "shamed"?


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Faithful Wife said:


> I guess I just don't get why the "for porn" people keep debating at all with the "anti-porn" people? If you are for porn, you are entitled to it, you are an adult, you will not be controlled or shamed....then why do you bother to go round and round about it at all with people who you say are trying to shame you? If you are so solid on the ground with your stance, then no one else's opinion should ruffle you in the least.
> 
> Like, I like sugar, and I understand it is bad for me and it is ruining the health of the world, but I'm going to eat it at times anyway and I'm not going to debate anyone about it because, it is my body and who cares?
> 
> Why isn't it that way with porn, if that is really how you feel?
> 
> We all get why the "anti-porn" people would debate the issue...they are hoping to educate the "for porn" people (or as the "for porn" people would say, "shame them").
> 
> But why do you "for porn" posters even keep talking about it? Why is the topic even worth debating to you? It is simply a personal choice, right? To me, the fact that you "for porn" posters will go on and on about this topic, makes it sound like you ARE ashamed and you feel you have to justify it and demonize anyone who is against it. :scratchhead:


Nice straw man.

Have you not noticed that very few of the "for porn" people debate, or justify, their own personal usage? The majority of the posts "for porn", an oversimplification if ever there was one, are in objection to the derogatory attitude often lobbed at men in general, and the complete bastardization of the notion of human sexuality. People are debating issues far broader than their own personal sexual habits.

It's as if I came on to TAM and made thread after thread about how evil and selfish women are for enjoying vibrators, that they should only ever get off with their husbands, that any woman who uses a vibrator is an inconsiderate bint, and the women on the board who use vibrators refusing to let that view pass without challenge.

Would that mean that those women "ARE ashamed and they feel they have to justify it and demonize anyone who is against it." ?


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Jaquen said: "It's as if I came on to TAM and made thread after thread about how evil and self women are for enjoying vibrators, and the women on the board who use vibrators refusing to let that view pass without challenge."

But I really think they would let it pass. Or at least, there wouldn't be 25 pages a day about it. They would just think "yah, go ahead thinking that".

Jaquen said: "Would that mean that those women "ARE ashamed and they feel they have to justify it and demonize anyone who is against it." ?"

Actually, in the unlikely event that dozens of women came out to post against that message, yes I WOULD think they sounded like they felt ashamed!


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> If my ex used porn for 'stimulation', he would expect ME to 'finish him off'. If he used it to the point of ejaculation, then *I* would miss out on having sex with my husband.
> 
> At what point do *I* get a say in any of this? It seems like I'm expected to accept HIS point of view without him even considering MINE!
> 
> Vega
> 
> Vega


So basically you had a horrible relationship with an selfish, alcoholic butthole and are just using these threads to project your issues up, down, and sideways?

Because the horrendous situation you were in with that man isn't typical and it isn't the norm. Exceptions should never be used to define the rule.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Faithful Wife said:


> Jaquen said: "It's as if I came on to TAM and made thread after thread about how evil and self women are for enjoying vibrators, and the women on the board who use vibrators refusing to let that view pass without challenge."
> 
> But I really think they would let it pass. Or at least, there wouldn't be 25 pages a day about it. They would just think "yah, go ahead thinking that".
> 
> Jaquen said: "Would that mean that those women "ARE ashamed and they feel they have to justify it and demonize anyone who is against it." ?"
> 
> Actually, in the unlikely event that dozens of women came out to post against that message, yes I WOULD think they sounded like they felt ashamed!


So right now, all over the internet, all over the world, there are literally hundreds of thousands of debates going on about all manner of topics.

So each of those people locked into each of those debates have a personal investment and are secretly doing so out of a place of personal shame, or a need to justify?


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

No Jaquen....just this type of debate, where the title is literally saying "hey stop trying to shame me!"

That's my point.

Why join the debate if you feel you are being shamed. Just to shame back?


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Faithful Wife said:


> No Jaquen....just this type of debate, where the title is literally saying "hey stop trying to shame me!"
> 
> That's my point.
> 
> Why join the debate if you feel you are being shamed. Just to shame back?


The original topic of this thread wasn't "hey stop trying to shame me!". The topic was an OP questioning the language of shame.

Note that I personally have no issue with the word "use". I see where the OP is coming from, but I didn't come into this thread feeling like the phrase "I use porn" had an automatic negative connotation. I stayed to debate because I am passionate about certain topics being discussed here, and I like to talk/debate about them.

So where exactly is the hidden shame in being passionate about a topic and interested in debate?


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Ok my bad. It wasn't "hey stop trying to shame me!" it was (copied from the first post) "Stop using verbs that don't portray the way it is. It's disingenuous, seriously."

And then of course, the title again...which if you think it doesn't scream "stop trying to shame me", then ok, we just disagree on that.

Interested in your thoughts (jaquen) on my illegal substances comparsion? I mean, ok, I accept some people do like a good debate. I myself, would not, in that case.


----------



## Grayson

Faithful Wife said:


> Grayson said: "For me, it's primarily because they're choosing to spread misinformation..."
> 
> But, who cares if they do? What does it harm? As if porn is going to be banned anytime soon? What harm can misinformation do, in this case?


The harm, to borrow your term, comes who don't have a "side," and aren't sure of what, specifically, is going on in their own situation come to a site like TAM looking for advice and information, then (unknowingly) find themselves presented with incomplete or just plain wrong information.

If I might borrow your sugar analogy, imagine the following post:

"I don't know what to do! I was at my husband's computer desk, opened the drawer and found a box of Girl Scout cookies. THIN MINTS! I've never seen him eat sugary treats before. Please help!"

And, the only responses received are akin to, "That's horrible! Sugar will cause all manner of diseases, resulting in the loss of limbs. The fact that he has cookies and is hiding them from you means that he is comparing your cooking to the Thin Mints. Also, the cookie manufacturing industry is rife with corruption. I'm surprised that these things are even allowed to exist. Don't even get me started on how Thin Mints are distributed...young, innocent girls forced to go door-to-door peddling them and never seeing a dime of the money for themselves. Speaking of, the fact that they're Girl Scout cookies means that your husband is attracted to children. You should get him away from your own children as quickly as you can. Hopefully, it's not too late. I'm sorry that you have to go through this, but better you learn that your husband is a soulless monster who kicks puppies and eats babies now rather than years down the line when more damage is done."

Would you say that such responses allow for the person seeking advice to make a truly informed decision as to how to proceed?



> Grayson said: "...and some tend to do so in a manner which paints those who disagree with them in an objectively negative light."
> 
> But the "for porn" group also paints the "anti-porn" group in a negative light....which wouldn't happen at all if the "for porn" group just didn't respond to these posts.


Some on both sides behave that way, sure. I don't think I ever claimed or suggested otherwise. Likewise, I never claimed that ALL do. Here, I could make another example, but it would read a lot like the one I made above, so I won't.



> I occasionally use illegal substances. And I'm fine with that for myself. I know the dangers, etc. I know many people would consider this absolutely insane and risky behavior. Not to mention what goes on in the underworld of the illegal substances that I am using and by using them I am continuing the possible suffering of many people who are affected negatively by illegal substance use. And I get that some people would have moral stance against my choice.
> 
> But...as I said, I've weighed the risks and I'm good with my choices.
> 
> Now, would I go and join a thread where I felt people were trying to morally shame me into never using an illegal substance again? No way. Why would I? What's in that for me? I get why they think the way they do, and more power to them. Why would I go there to be "shamed" and then complain about being "shamed"?


Well, in the case of this thread, it was started in opposition to the supposed "shaming" rather than in support of it. As with any thread that anyone looks at, the title intrigued me, and my first post was more of an aside. As with most online discussions, the participation of all involved went from there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Faithful Wife said:


> Interested in your thoughts (jaquen) on my illegal substances comparsion? I mean, ok, I accept some people do like a good debate. I myself, would not, in that case.


I accept that you enjoy some illegal substances, and feel no need to justify or debate that. Whatever works for you.

However if you did I would never subscribe to the assumption that you have a secret shame. I've got quite a few friends who are avid marijuana lovers, and are passionate about debating the notion that they feel it's healthy, natural, and should not be illegal. Doesn't mean they all are secretly ashamed of smoking pot. 


I am a Christian. I love Jesus Christ, and have a very intimate, personal relationship with my savior. Some people have a problem with that, and want to debate it. Some people consider themselves Christians and want to debate how they think I, a Christian, should be living. I however do not feel the need to debate my spiritual realities, and so I almost never get involved in debates about religion and spirituality, with Christians and non Christians alike.

However many of my brothers and sisters feel otherwise. I respect that (even if I don't necessarily respect every single approach taken). But why would I jump to the conclusion that all Christians who debate their religious/spiritual choices are actually secretly struggling with disbelief and are arguing out of a desire to convince themselves that they are believers?

Does that cover some people? Absolutely. But who am I to suggest that covers all, or even most, just because I personally chose to abstain from that debate?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Recent article in psychology today that those reading this thread might be interested in:

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201305/porn-is-not-the-problem-you-are


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

jaquen said: "But why would I jump to the conclusion that all Christians who debate their religious/spiritual choices are actually secretly struggling with disbelief and are arguing out of a desire to convince themselves that they are believers?"

This is your own straw man and isn't the same as the question I was asking you. 

However, I accept your answer that some people just like to join a debate. In the case of the topic of porn, it just appears that 90% of the "for porn" debaters are also saying some version of "stop shaming me" and that is confusing to me, even if they DO like the debate. I mean, how can I intelligently debate a topic with someone who thinks they have moral high ground over me? I just wouldn't bother, but I guess some of you do. (not you specifically)


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I have been in debates about sugar. I was obese for much of my childhood and chunks of my adulthood largely from over sugar consumption. 

My mother had T2 diabetes while she was living. Her doctor told her when she was diagnosed that she'd be virtually cured of her disease if she got her weight under control and cut down on the sugar. She didn't and she eventually lost her kidneys and watched her overall health decline drastically.

My grandfather died from diabetic complications.

Much of the current obesity epidemic, and it's related diseases, root back to people choosing to eat far too much sugar and highly processed carbohydrates. 

I keep a tight lid on my sugar and carbohydrate ingestion by living a lower carb lifestyle. I actually do not believe, and can quote many studies, that tell us that above low levels of carbohydrate consumption is actually not particularly essential for the human body to run optimally.

Now there are people who feel carbohydrates are too villainized. There are people who feel that sugar isn't a big deal, or people who feel that carbs are absolutely imperative for basic health, nevermind optimal health.

Now even though I disagree, why on God's beautiful green Earth would I assume that those people who chose to debate in favor of higher carbohydrate consumption are all secretly just ashamed sugar addicts who want to justify getting their fix?


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

If they kept posting over and over and over "stop thinking you have the right to shame me over sugar, you aren't my mother or my moral keeper!" then you WOULD assume they might be secretly ashamed sugar addicts. That's my point.

Your straw man doesn't work unless you add in the "stop shaming me" posts, which are the ones I am questioning. The dozens and hundreds of them we see on this topic from the "for porn" group, over and over and over.


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Faithful Wife said:


> However, I accept your answer that some people just like to join a debate. In the case of the topic of porn, it just appears that 90% of the "for porn" debaters are also saying some version of "stop shaming me" and that is confusing to me, even if they DO like the debate.


:iagree:
Personally I think it's quite easy to see which people genuinely like a debate and which people are on the defensive.
There are a few that dislike the shaming of porn while doing the exact same thing to the 'anti porn crusaders' (but that's ok because their right lol).


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Faithful Wife said:


> If they kept posting over and over and over "stop thinking you have the right to shame me over sugar, you aren't my mother or my moral keeper!" then you WOULD assume they might be secretly ashamed sugar addicts. That's my point.
> 
> Your straw man doesn't work unless you add in the "stop shaming me" posts, which are the ones I am questioning. The dozens and hundreds of them we see on this topic from the "for porn" group, over and over and over.


Except, no, this is an untruth. In your original post, the one that diverted the conversation off into this odd tangent, you addressed ALL "for porn people".

You did not address your post only specifically to those who declared that they would not be made to feel shame.

You made a sweeping generalization and are only now trying to narrow down a specific subset of this particular side after being called on it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Then that was my bad, jaquen. I was only talking about the "stop shaming me" posters....not the "hey, to each their own posters" (such as yourself)....but the "stop shaming me's" outnumber the "hey, to each their own" by about 10 to 1.


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

And no...I'm not just narrowing this down because "you called me on it". Really? You think you have that kind of power. Puh-leese.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Faithful Wife said:


> And no...I'm not just narrowing this down because "you called me on it". Really? You think you have that kind of power. Puh-leese.


I probably have about as much power over you as you think you have over others in this debate.

Which, I surmise, is none.


----------



## Grayson

Faithful Wife said:


> If they kept posting over and over and over "stop thinking you have the right to shame me over sugar, you aren't my mother or my moral keeper!" then you WOULD assume they might be secretly ashamed sugar addicts. That's my point.
> 
> Your straw man doesn't work unless you add in the "stop shaming me" posts, which are the ones I am questioning. The dozens and hundreds of them we see on this topic from the "for porn" group, over and over and over.


I think we might need to get a clearer idea of what makes a "stop shaming me" post in your eyes. If someone disagrees with the conclusions and application of same that the other side is making, and has also somehow shown to be one that those perceived false conclusions are being applied to, is saying, "Your conclusion is incorrect as it applies to me (and others)" a "stop shaming me" post?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Jaquen, sometimes I think you just like to go back and forth without ever really putting any effort into the debate.


I can live with that, easily. No offense Trenton, but I really do not care what you think about my efforts in this debate. I am not here for you.



Trenton said:


> Let's work to really get to the bottom of it. Give me some hardcore facts!


Hardcore facts about what? In case you haven't noticed none of the studies on either side mean a lick to me. My objections have nothing whatsoever to do with how harmful, or harmless, pornography is.

I have stated, ad nauseum in these threads, that I am well aware of the potential harmfulness of porn. What "hard evidence" would you like me to present when I already believe porn has both positive and negative aspects, and likely more of the latter?



Trenton said:


> You're just a self declared righteous being but I'm not buying it.


See the first quoted section of this post.



Trenton said:


> I'd even gather to say you don't care very much one way or the other in regards to porn. Would I be correct?


That is correct. My issue has never been to defend "porn". My issue is, and always has been, the common misinformation spread about human sexuality, particularly male sexuality. That's my stake in it. I grow weary of watching men villainized on this board, particularly when female erotica, and sex toy use, which is extremely popular, doesn't face a fraction of the backlash here. That is my stake. If you want to go back and forth with studies about the effects of porn, have at it. I've read many of the studies, I am well aware of the conditions within the industry, but that's not primary my interest.



Trenton said:


> You see, I care very much because that industry along with several others has a huge impact on children, child abuse, prostitution, trafficking, human rights, etc.


Which has nothing to do with me. What you feel drawn to passionately debate, and why you debate it, is neither my business nor my concern.


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

jaquen...I have never assumed any power whatsoever. That one's on you. You straight up said that I changed my tune because YOU "called me on it". You're the one who claimed some kind of Super Website Debate Calling You Out Power, not me. 

I only asked a question and was hoping for an answer. Of course, it can be and will likely be immediately deflected by some who will claim that my agenda is to shame them. (not you, but I'm sure others will chime in soon) And the irony of that will escape them.

I started a whole thread once about shaming, and why people actually think others have any power to shame them at all. If you don't feel ashamed by something, why would you defend against shaming at all? There IS in fact a "can a woman want a sex toy over her husband?" thread in the SIM section right now. Are there dozens of women rushing in to defend the wife? Nope. Why would they?


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Faithful Wife said:


> jaquen...I have never assumed any power whatsoever. That one's on you. You straight up said that I changed my tune because YOU "called me on it". You're the one who claimed some kind of Super Website Debate Calling You Out Power, not me.


You're right. I apologize.


----------



## Faithful Wife

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

No problem, I love a good debate! Shame on me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Faithful Wife said:


> jaquen said: "But why would I jump to the conclusion that all Christians who debate their religious/spiritual choices are actually secretly struggling with disbelief and are arguing out of a desire to convince themselves that they are believers?"
> 
> This is your own straw man and isn't the same as the question I was asking you.
> 
> However, I accept your answer that some people just like to join a debate. In the case of the topic of porn, it just appears that 90% of the "for porn" debaters are also saying some version of "stop shaming me" and that is confusing to me, even if they DO like the debate. I mean, how can I intelligently debate a topic with someone who thinks they have moral high ground over me? I just wouldn't bother, but I guess some of you do. (not you specifically)


I don't understand where you're going with this.

You're on a forum. People bring up opposing ideas. In the case of porn, it usually begins with someone's anti-porn attitude... this is the *attack*. If an atheist goes to a forum and make incendiary statements like "God doesn't exist and those who believe in him are idiots, belief is the driver for this atrocity and that atrocity..." etc and make this big case against belief, a whole host of people will feel an obligation to stand up to them in defense of their decisions and lifestyle.

Saying "use" porn, is the equivalent of the atheist saying "your god" (subtle jabs such as the little "g"; and contextually implying the possibility of many gods with just as much reason justifying their existence as the belief under attack - its meant to twist the knife). Its purposefully antagonistic.

Its absurd to me that anyone should think that someone being criticized shouldn't attack back.

The "anti-porn brigade" as they often get called around here (these opposing groups mock each other - this one meant to demonstrate just how rabid and militant this group is) does in fact attempt to shame men. Your confused by why men would object to such shaming? Would women object to someone coming to this forum and saying that women who sleep around before marriage are ****ty and used up? -or any other shaming of women for being very sexual? Of course you would - hence when I once used the word "easy" to describe a particular woman, a half-dozen women here jumped all over me. Porn use is often hidden by some men in the same manner that some women are discreet about their sexual history.

Why shouldn't someone object to it? Why wouldn't someone argue in defense of their lifestyle choices when criticized? The lack of response to extremism, only allows that extremism to flourish. At some point some anti-porn extremist read some pop-psychology "porn is addictive" nonsense and related it to drug use... so now instead of watching porn, they saying "using" porn. The implication being that those who watch porn are drug users - associate it with destructive drug addiction. What? You don't want to stop watching porn? See! You're an addict!! You don't want to stop!

I watch porn because it arouses me. I watch a mainstream movie because it entertains me. Yet, we wouldn't say someone goes to the theater to use a movie for entertainment. They go to watch a movie. The framing is entirely offensive imo. 

OPs point is a valid one. One of the best ways to win an argument is to control the framing - which is what saying "to use" is an attempt to do.


----------



## Grayson

Faithful Wife said:


> jaquen...I have never assumed any power whatsoever. That one's on you. You straight up said that I changed my tune because YOU "called me on it". You're the one who claimed some kind of Super Website Debate Calling You Out Power, not me.
> 
> I only asked a question and was hoping for an answer. Of course, it can be and will likely be immediately deflected by some who will claim that my agenda is to shame them. (not you, but I'm sure others will chime in soon) And the irony of that will escape them.
> 
> I started a whole thread once about shaming, and why people actually think others have any power to shame them at all. If you don't feel ashamed by something, why would you defend against shaming at all? There IS in fact a "can a woman want a sex toy over her husband?" thread in the SIM section right now. Are there dozens of women rushing in to defend the wife? Nope. Why would they?


By George, I think we're getting back somewhat to the thread's original topic! ;-)

I think we have to look at the concept of "shaming" in both microcosm and macrocosm.

In microcosm, such as in a contained environment such as a board like TAM, that idea of "shaming" is personal...or, as personal as the pseudonym behind ideas posted online can be, anyway. On such a personal level, it can be seen as a sort of power play, of jockeying one's status and, by extension, ideas ahead of those of others. It's a means to devalue another's ideas and, by extension their "worth" (for want of a better term) to the community.

In macro, it marginalizes (at best) an aspect of society and life. In the case of porn, it continues the ghettoization of the genre, which feeds into several vicious circles--hiding use/discovery/argument, or by being not only socially unacceptable but actively disapproved of, that allows the negative aspects of some production to remain, as there's not a loud enough chorus willing to speak up against it...they just go about their business and (ideally) try to keep their consumption to the above-board product; that chorus won't speak up because of the negative connotations associated with the genre.

I'd also say that there's a range of responses, as well. Some may be defensive, sure. Still others may be...I can't think of the perfect word; pointing out that the "shaming" activity is detrimental to the flow of ideas, not applicable to all, and...maybe...just plain incorrect.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Saying "use" porn, is the equivalent of the atheist saying "your god" (subtle jabs such as the little "g"; and contextually implying the possibility of many gods with just as much reason justifying their existence as the belief under attack - its meant to twist the knife). Its purposefully antagonistic.


Precisely why I try to use the word "deity" and avoid referencing to any by name or title in such discussions. Use of that lower-case "g," while not intentionally antagonistic (more an acknowledgement that different religions have different deities) makes some crazy.

That said, I do sometimes use the lower-case "g" on the word "god" where appropriate. Likewise, I sometimes use the word "use" in reference to viewing porn. As mentioned earlier, it's a writing style I was taught long ago...using similar or synonymous terms where appropriate to avoid repetition.

ETA: While I'm sure some consciously use the term "use" to imply a negative connotation, I'm equally sure others don't.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> I think that will always remain a glaring difference between you and I then.* I do care.* No offense ever taken but the futility of it all is frustrating.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No, you care to _debate _it.

I do not care to debate it. 

This isn't an issue of personal caring. This is an issue of what we chose to focus on in discussions here on TAM. There is a world of difference. 

In the real world? I have sent both links to porn I enjoy to my boys AND some of the same studies I've seen you quote. Just as I am able to enjoy most of the goods and services being an American affords me, but still be aware, and deeply bothered by, the fact that being a privileged American comes at the expense of living off the low-to-no paid backs of hundreds of millions of people around the world. Life if full of contradictions. Humans are beings of contradictions.



Trenton said:


> futility of it all is frustrating.


It certainly can be.


----------



## Grayson

Trenton said:


> When talking about incidence of child abuse, specifically pedophilia, the incidence of mainstream abuses may have fallen but the instances of other crimes in regards to pedophilia and sex trafficking has risen.
> 
> If men or women who are now using porn instead of actual individuals to fulfill their fantasies of children or teens (hence cutting the crime rate of child sex abuse), where does law enforcement think the children in the images/videos these people are watching come from?


Just as a couple of possibilities...

From outside their jurisdiction, preventing them from doing something about it.

Adults playing the roles of minors.

The former is, of course, infuriating. But, if it's where a particular law-enforcement agency can't reach, I'm not sure what we expect that agency to do. If someone in, say, Florida, is looking at child porn originating from Lower Sleazistan, I don't expect Florida police to be able to rescue the child. They can do something about the viewer, and as much as they can to locate the source of the material; if its Lower Sleazistan, then notify the appropriate authorities. But Florida police can't mount an armed assault on a foreign nation.

The latter may be unappealing, but...it's legal and who's to say someone isn't allowed to prefer the look that is labeled as "teen" in porn (young, smallish breasts, often with a "girl next door" look)? I think most viewers are aware that "teens" in porn are often in their 20's. I can think of a few who, based on when I first saw them and that they're still generating new content, have supposedly been in their "late teens" for a decade or more. Shall we then say that women who look you get than they are are not permitted to be openly sexual people?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Starstarfish

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Damn guys, I go to the gym this morning and there's four more pages. Now I'll have to start choosing about going and working out and trying to look like a porn star, or arguing about porn. Choices ... choices. 

And yes, too much water can harm you. Which is why at beaches, pools, or other areas where there's a lot of water there's signs either - listing rules about how to interact properly and/or listing the consequences of not doing so. (Hey, if you try a dive in three feet you may hit your head and die - you've been warned.)

It's not that water is in and of itself harmful, but that experience has taught us that without a reminder of the potential dangers, some people won't exercise caution and might injure themselves to the point up to and including death. The sign isn't there to protect people who know better from themselves, its to serve as a some last bastion of hope against those who lack common sense. It's as a friend of mine once put it "the last ditch idiot filter." 

Some forms of entertainment now include things like this. Like - video games. Many now include timers to show you how long you've been playing without needing to exit to the desktop, some will provide reminders to take a break and stand up and walk around every once in a while, and some will give you the option of pre-setting when the game will shut down after X amount of time played. Some will give a warning when you start up the game about who to call if you've developed a video game compulsion 

Are these neccessary for the average player, likely not. Does the average person recognize that you probably shouldn't sit in one spot not eating for 2 days straight so you can finally frag that guy you've been after on Halo. Yeah. But are there some people who don't - yeah. Like the kids you hear about who go on game benders for days at a time and then throw themselves an embolism and die. 

In the end - are video games or visual porn more likely to cause someone to get over-invested than say - Seinfeld, probably. Whether that's simply because they are more interesting (no offense Jerry), or cause "brain changes", or just simply because they appeal to some more innate need which triggers a negative response in some people who have the emotional/mental/biological leanings towards a compulsory behavior issue. I'm not a biologist or a psychologist, so - I can't make that determination on a professional or scientific basis and back it up with empirical data. 

But if like video games we accept that basic idea that whether or not the entertainment itself is innately negative or positive, it can cause problems for some people - maybe porn should adopt some similiar "idiot filters." Such measures might even give couples who make agreements about porn viewing to set such rules about timing, frequency, duration, etc. (Those who feel that their spouse shouldn't be able to request any such rules non-withstanding, that's a whole separate kettle of fish.) 

Does that remove personal responsibility, not at all. But it's a tool by which those people who might be helped by such a thing can utilize. It is an option. But getting to that option requires the acceptance that while most people won't drown at the beach, and most won't die playing video games, and most won't develop a porn compulsion, some will, and measures to help those folks put breaks on themselves is for the general welfare.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Interesting points, Starstarfish.

I feel compelled to mention (since I freely agree that I wasn't clear on this) my reference to water wasn't about immersion, but rather consumption. 

Personally, given the type of media, I'd liken porn more closely to TV or movies (which is why I keep using them as an example), because the vast majority is not interactive in the same way that a game is. Even at that, porn has the same sort of "idiot filter" that TV and movies do...a rating or similar labeling on the packaging to indicate the type of content you're going to see, as well as the running time. I don't expect to see a notice pop up halfway through The Avengers that says, "Hey...you've been watching this 2+ hour movie for over an hour. Why don'tcha turn it off and go outside for a bit?" so I don't expect similar in porn, either. In the case of online porn, well, the online community as a whole could probably use a more obvious "idiot filter," because I can't begin to tell you the number of times I've lost track of time caught up in an IMDb or Wiki cyclone...or, for that matter, posting here (like I did the other night). ;-)

I've lost myself in reading and, yes, games. I've lost myself in goofing around in Photoshop making custom DVD covers. I still maintain that getting caught up in any form of media isn't inherent to the media, but to the consumer. It's not the media's job to police your consumption of it. If you know you lose track of time playing games, set a timer for yourself. My work schedule used to have me going in in early afternoon. I'd take the kiddo to school, go back home and watch TV, play a game, play some Mafia Wars on Facebook, look at some porn, listen to the radio, read...whatever. But, I knew I might lose track of time, so I set an alarm for myself. Only times I was late were when I made the choice to push it...one more chapter, one more song...whatever. I don't claim to hav always made the best choices in my response to media, but I don't blame the media for me making those choices, either.

Media's neutral. It's what we choose to do with it that might be harmful.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Starstarfish

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

But it doesn't need to route back to blaming the media. Not everything has to be about whose fault it is. Acknowledgement isn't the same as condemnation. 

But - would as a consumer you be more likely to set (and thus potentially obey) that timer if it was more inherent in what you were looking at (your web browser, or the Netflix app, or your Kindle, whatever that happens to be) than needing to use a secondary device (your phone, an alarm clock, etc) to do so. Potentially. 

Maybe it needs a study.


----------



## johnnycomelately

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Starstarfish I tried to link you to studies from unbiased sources.
> 
> Watch the below:
> The Great Porn Experiment: Gary Wilson at TEDxGlasgow - YouTube
> 
> I don't think Gary Wilson is a biased source of information and he has done studies and research on the topic of porn.
> http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/gary-wilson


Gary Wilson is as biased as they come. He and his wife make a tidy fortune out of selling books on this subject. The content of his site and the presentations are full of holes. The 'research' he has done lacks any sort of scientific rigour and the studies he quotes do not reach the same conclusions he does or on entirely unrelated topics. The study on sexual dysfunction in Japan which he used is a clear example.


----------



## Grayson

Starstarfish said:


> But it doesn't need to route back to blaming the media. Not everything has to be about whose fault it is. Acknowledgement isn't the same as condemnation.
> 
> But - would as a consumer you be more likely to set (and thus potentially obey) that timer if it was more inherent in what you were looking at (your web browser, or the Netflix app, or your Kindle, whatever that happens to be) than needing to use a secondary device (your phone, an alarm clock, etc) to do so. Potentially.
> 
> Maybe it needs a study.


I think it goes without saying that the answer to this depends on what's most convenient for the user. For me, I'd probably still continue to use the alarm on my phone. Since its easily portable (by design), I can take it with me. So, if I need to get ready at a certain time, I can start off upstairs at the computer, but I change my mind and decide to head down to the couch and read, and possibly a third or fourth option after that, I don't have to set a new alarm.

Someone else might find the portability to be TOO convenient, and prefer to use an alarm source that requires them to get up from what they're doing to turn it off.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Dad&Hubby

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> None taken - in fact no one has offered any evidence to either side. We are all just giving opinions.


Wow, what a thread. I think the only topic more popular on this site is some of the gripping CWI threads.

This whole issue comes down to opinions.

Porn is like anything else. for some it's fine, some its good, some it's bad. And noone is wrong. it's a personal choice.

Some people can watch porn in their marriage and it not negatively affect their marriage. Some it will negatively affect and others it will actually enhance.

I think the debate over the verb is completely idiotic. It's not the choice of the verb, it's the context of the person. I can easily say. 
"Oh you use porn. Cool, what's your favorite?" And you'd never think I was looking at it negatively.

Or I could say 
"Oh you use porn." with a condescending tone and obviously that's bad.


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Dad&Hubby said:


> "Oh you use porn. Cool, what's your favorite?"


What if the answer is: "I like "Babes in Toyland"(fictional title). It's with well-developed girls between the ages of 12-15, who use different kinds of toys..." 

Would THAT be o.k. too? Should the men who use that also not be "shamed"?

I'm certain that even some regular porn users would find that highly offensive. But in countries where 'kiddy porn' isn't regulated, it just might be the 'norm'...

Vega


----------



## Grayson

Vega said:


> What if the answer is: "I like "Babes in Toyland"(fictional title). It's with well-developed girls between the ages of 12-15, who use different kinds of toys..."
> 
> Would THAT be o.k. too? Should the men who use that also not be "shamed"?
> 
> I'm certain that even some regular porn users would find that highly offensive. But in countries where 'kiddy porn' isn't regulated, it just might be the 'norm'...
> 
> Vega


Well, we've gone through a few shifts in premise over the course of the thread, so what's one more, I guess.

Assuming, of course, that we're talking about someone where the material is illegal, I'd be less concerned with "shaming" him than reporting him to the authorities.

I do find it interesting that, in order to justify "shaming," someone for their choice of entertainment, we must now shift the focus from legal material to patently illegal material.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> Well, we've gone through a few shifts in premise over the course of the thread, so what's one more, I guess.
> 
> Assuming, of course, that we're talking about someone where the material is illegal, I'd be less concerned with "shaming" him than reporting him to the authorities.
> 
> I do find it interesting that, in order to justify "shaming," someone for their choice of entertainment, we must now shift the focus from legal material to patently illegal material.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Lest we forget that the distribution of 'normal' porn in the US and other countries was also once ILLEGAL... In fact, in SOME countries, it's STILL illegal.


----------



## Grayson

Vega said:


> Lest we forget that the distribution of 'normal' porn in the US and other countries was also once ILLEGAL... In fact, in SOME countrie, it's STILL illegal.


But it's currently not illegal in the US. The discussion, thus far, has not been about days gone by, but the here and now.

My response still stands...I'd be less concerned with "shaming" him than reporting him to the authorities. And, shifting the focus that way - "Wouldn't you want to shame him for doing something like that?" - is disingenuous. If the answer is "Yes," you can respond, "Aha! So you think there are occasions where it IS appropriate to shame someone for looking at porn!" If the answer is "No," you can reply with, "That's disgusting! So, you support kiddie porn! Monster!"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Never understood why its perfectly acceptable for a couple to park their butts in front of the tv for a movie marathon with little to no interaction (some even call this quality time!), but all hell breaks loose if every now and then a guy watches porn for 30 minutes after wifey went to bed.

::scratches head::


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> What if the answer is: "I like "Babes in Toyland"(fictional title). It's with well-developed girls between the ages of 12-15, who use different kinds of toys..."


The key difference here is that porn is mutually consenting adults, not children. Pornography is not the shaming element here.

Its the equivalent of shaming someone for drinking alcohol vs shaming someone for getting minors to drink alcohol. The legality of it is irrelevant to its being right or wrong. The moral impetus is to protect the undeveloped mind from abuse. So you're really talking about shaming someone over abuse of power - rightfully shameful.

If I encourage another adult to come have a drink with me, I have no responsibility for his actions, he is responsible for himself. Alcohol, porn, or whatever other activity restricted to adults on the basis of the need to make responsible decisions, isn't the issue. Though many feel it, there is rightfully no shame inherent in these activities but that which some in society wish to push... as some attempt to do by saying "porn users". Engaging in these activities does not mean one is making poor decisions about them.

Personally, I don't use porn. I use my hand while watching porn.


----------



## jaquen

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> What if the answer is: "I like "Babes in Toyland"(fictional title). It's with well-developed girls between the ages of 12-15, who use different kinds of toys..."
> 
> Would THAT be o.k. too? Should the men who use that also not be "shamed"?
> 
> I'm certain that even some regular porn users would find that highly offensive. But in countries where 'kiddy porn' isn't regulated, it just might be the 'norm'...
> 
> Vega


Oh look, when all else fails let's now draw "subtle" correlations between men who enjoy adult, legal porngraphy with actors who are there by choice and pedophiles who consume illegal material featuring children who have no legal right to consent.

And with that, I am finished with this thread. It happens so rarely on TAM, but I am officially disgusted.


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> I'm certain that even some regular porn users would find that highly offensive. But in countries where 'kiddy porn' isn't regulated, it just might be the 'norm'...
> 
> Vega



Kind of confused, do you mean what would be normal for one (and seen as 'normal' even in society) will not be normal for another?


----------



## Grayson

TiggyBlue said:


> Kind of confused, do you mean what would be normal for one (and seen as 'normal' even in society) will not be normal for another?


I think it's even simpler than that...I think jaquen and I might have nailed it: a scenario posed as a yes/no question with either answer being "shocking," while simultaneously making a mental connection between legal and illegal content.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Quite unfair.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Okay... Porn is poison.

Even if you're not aware of all its researched effects, everyone knows it's not giving you a daily dose of any vitamin...

Is my spouse my parent? 

My watching, if it negatively affects my spouse, is not the problem? It's porn?

Is what the anti-porn people worried about the idea that a watcher/user might not be aware of it being simple-minded entertainment with little scholastic value and with much correlation to addiction? Really? If somehow they don't, they could look any of this up...

Just like any parent, if they cared, could look up that Grand Theft Auto Five shouldn't be the next purchase for their ten-year old child... The game is not the problem. I might want to play it.

Porn IS NOT the problem... I might want to watch it. 

Husbands being *******s is the problem... They make their own beds. They're big boys... And if they're not, why did you marry that one? It's on you.

Is the point from many of you that some men might not know that porn can be harmful?

We got that a while ago, but the conclusion, logically, is that porn, in the hands of JUST THOSE people who can't handle it, is wrong... So it's not porn... It's the handling of porn by certain people.

Grayson and Jaquen understand, I'm sure, the research on porn...

I have tried to say, and they have tried to say, "So what?"

And if you buy a PS3 game for your child without researching it (I didn't know there was so much violence in Call of Duty???), it's on the parent not the game manufacturer.

If you watch porn without ever caring what it might do to some people or research it, it's on you not porn.

If I went to watch Great Gatsby, and I find myself incredibly disappointed by the lack of car chases and explosions and time travel, it's on me for not researching the movie, not the producers.

Then we get the MAJOR red herrings about the industry and regulations from other countries, as if that augments or alters any of porns effects on the viewer... Too many side discussions happening simultaneously...

Jaquen, I don't blame you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Interlocutor said:


> Then we get the MAJOR red herrings about the industry and regulations from other countries, as if that augments or alters any of porns effects on the viewer... Too many side discussions happening simultaneously...


:iagree:


----------



## Grayson

Interlocutor said:


> And if you buy a PS3 game for your child without researching it (I didn't know there was so much violence in Call of Duty???), it's on the parent not the game manufacturer.
> 
> If you watch porn without ever caring what it might do to some people or research it, it's on you not porn.
> 
> If I went to watch Great Gatsby, and I find myself incredibly disappointed by the lack of car chases and explosions and time travel, it's on me for not researching the movie, not the producers.


A couple of weeks ago, I attended a comics convention. Afterwards, on the convention's message boards, someone complained that the Kick A$$ 2 trailer was "too violent" for their kids.

Really? It's surprising that the movie adaptation of a hyper-violent comic, which is also a sequel to a hyper-violent movie based on a hyper-violent comic, called "Kick A$$" is violent?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Starstarfish

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

There's no explosions in the Great Gatsby?

I knew I remember hating that book in high school for a reason.


----------



## Grayson

Starstarfish said:


> There's no explosions in the Great Gatsby?
> 
> I knew I remember hating that book in high school for a reason.


Well, not in the book.

From the looks of the movie, they've tried to make it a bit of an action movie to draw in DiCrapio's fans.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Trenton, you're in and out of a lot ideas at once...

Some guys are jerks who don't care about others... No doubt.

Of course it should be researched... No doubt.


The sex industry is wretched and chock full of exploitation that destroys families... Honestly though, if America took a righteous stance with the ethics of our consumer choices, we wouldn't be able to eat, watch TV, wear jewelry, and more... There are conflict free diamonds... There is conflict free porn... But the conflict free supports the conflicted, and there is nearly no moral justification for much at these high standards... If we're going to be upset at the support of immoral industries, especially those sourced off of our soil, we're going to have to really give it up all in a technological and anarchistic revolution to clear the canvass...

But that's not what this thread is about... It's about a dude enjoying some coffee, some alcohol, or some porn without thinking of any of these things because he's not ready to join the People's Liberation Resistance and burn his TV, iPhone, and plant and hunt all his food while drafting plans to repel US military... I think you're mad at the world, and there is a lot to be mad at in this world full of horrible people, especially in your case... Keep this in mind when having a friendly debate with your fellow TAM'ers about something we're obviously not as invested in... Like a parent who lost a child to drunk driving joining a discussion where others are talking about drinking, some who enjoy it and handle it fine... Each will have to show a bit of patience.

You've got too much on your mind maybe for us... Sorry for your children... My deepest sympathies.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



johnnycomelately said:


> Gary Wilson is as biased as they come. He and his wife make a tidy fortune out of selling books on this subject. The content of his site and the presentations are full of holes. The 'research' he has done lacks any sort of scientific rigour and the studies he quotes do not reach the same conclusions he does or on entirely unrelated topics. The study on sexual dysfunction in Japan which he used is a clear example.


Sure, but the guy that Dvlsavc8 quoted is as pure as the new fallen snow...

He is a clinical psychologist, and has written a book about how he thinks sex addiction is a myth.

I'm sure that he works pro bono, and that his article has nothing to so with the fact that he has a book to sell.


Anyway he did cite a study, which he then skewed to fit his particular point of view.

I'm not trying to shame you for your point of view about Gary Wilson. I am simply pointing out that if you are against him for the reasons that you cited then I suppose that you are against this guy too? It's a rhetorical question...


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Trenton,

OK... Rereading your post, it sounds like they were your daughters... Ugh! Horrible what I was thinking! My sympathies anyway... In my profession, I get to know 210 sons and daughters EVERY year... MANY will definitely undergo tragedy, and there are a lot of things I am just about sick of.

I'm pretty sure this thread is about an individual man's choice to watch porn and the language levied on him, going by the thread's title... The greater implications about the industry are not to be diminished OF COURSE. I didn't say they shouldn't be discussed at all. Why not open a thread in the Politics sections about trafficking and Industry Evils in porn and abroad other products/media? I bet some people not even here with great information will jump on that one. 

Disagreeing is at the heart of discussion, but I feel that there are nicer ways of doing that without posters explicitly reminding each other how little our opinions matter to each other.

I don't think anyone has justified the industry... I believe people are aware of the industry, but an industry can only survive on the market that creates it. I don't want to accept that a child laborer worked on my son's party favors, but that's all they offered us at Chuck E. Cheese for his birthday party with the plastic favors made in China... The hard stance you want us all to look at is a drastic one that covers more than just porn if you really want us to take it. It requires a baptism by fire that might require us to give up the computers you and I are using right now, decisions more weighty than just buying all organic.

You don't think this thread might be more focused talking about when porn can be good in a marriage, when it can be bad in a marriage, and how to refer to its viewing or use without offending people? Talk about the world, or talk about marriage?


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Promote complete sexual glorification, objectification and gratification with your wife, your girlfriend, your willing neighbor. I got no issues. Begin justifying an industry that is seeping like what we're talking about and I'm not going to nod my head in agreement.



This... ^^

I am not trying to shame anyone... (except maybe johnnycomelately..... just KIDDING... )

I am saying, probably for the last time, that I believe that most men do not realize how porn affects their real sex life in a negative way...

I am not trying to shame anyone, I am planting seeds, and if they grow in someone, well, I won't know will I? Unless they tell me.

My point is just to talk about my experience, share how I have changed how I think about porn, and inspire someone out there to investigate it for themselves.

I see little bits and pieces in different posts about how some of you are not completely fulfilled in your real sex lives and are looking to porn to fulfill that. Again, not an effort to shame, just a chance to say there is a better way.

But you need to find it for yourself. It might be painful at first.

If there is one thing I know it is that if you want something better you have to make room for it in your life, and sometimes that means giving up something else that is blocking you from receiving what is good.

We can all find studies to support what we believe, and it is not at all possible to find a study that is not biased. 

I'm not going to argue about porn anymore. 

Well, I am going to argue for real and better sex, and I am going to continue to posit that I think porn affects most men negatively, and that it is my opinion that most men are not aware of how it is affecting them negatively. If that means that I mention my views about porn, well that is just part of the problem, in my opinion.


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Sparkyjim,

You would not be willing to rewrite the following:

"I am saying, probably for the last time, that I believe that most men do not realize how porn affects their real sex life in a negative way..."

to:

"I am saying, probably for the last time, that I believe that most men MIGHT not realize how porn affects SOME men's sex lives in a negative way..."?

Are you completely unwilling to accept that some men handle their porn just fine, or, even as Trenton, in what has to be a wrenching flexing of her beliefs vis a vis her personal experiences, will admit that sometimes porn is used sometimes by married couples to bond just fine?


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Interlocutor said:


> It would force some wives to question their own choice in husband rather than to simply blame porn for "making him bad."
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Wait a sec...

What if some _husbands_ question their choice in a wife? If they want a wife who is o.k. their husband's viewing porn, AND they understand that not all women are o.k. with it, then perhaps the man should bring this up as an honest discussion BEFORE the couple becomes too heavily 'involved'. 

Woudn't that make sense?

Vega


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Vega,

My position does not exclude your query...

A woman unhappy with a man watching porn should have brought it up beforehand with him in the case that she didn't.


AND

A man with a woman unhappy at his porn-watching should have brought up his hobbies more clearly with her beforehand in the case that he didn't... I have been blaming this kind of man since page 1.


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Trenton, 

sex aside,

you're are scratching the surface of messages such as the ones in Disney's Wall-E and its influences by writers such as Bradbury who have tried to warn us concerning the misuses of future technology, warnings which they would feel bittersweet to see were justified as time progresses. People will avoid their friend's phone call but chat with them on Facebook with the virtual audience, etc... Human interaction is becoming very artificial and proxy-simulation based... Homer and Virgil had no idea what they were starting... Catharsis meant someone else's pain could substitute your own to avoid your own, happiness the same, comedy, tragedy, books, plays, TV, interactive games, and so on... The fire spreads...

Wait until avatars become commonplace... Android wives, clones, etc.

Google

Here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2045_Initiative

http://2045.com/


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Interlocutor said:


> Vega,
> 
> My position does not exclude your query...
> 
> A woman unhappy with a man watching porn should have brought it up beforehand with him in the case that she didn't.
> 
> 
> AND
> 
> A man with a woman unhappy at his porn-watching should have brought up his hobbies more clearly with her beforehand in the case that he didn't... I have been blaming this kind of man since page 1.


Unfortunately, the kind of man you've been blaming is the kind of man that I have MOSTLY been 'involved' with since I was 19 years old. Despite my efforts to ask the right CLEAR questions, I STILL get lied to...and of course, I'm a 'prude' for not wanting a relationship with someone who uses--er...I mean--VIEWS it. 

Trenton--Define "unthinkable". Have I TRIED something like 'role playing'? Yes. Once. We even agreed on a 'code-word' that I could use if things became too 'intense'. 

I used the word.

He didn't stop...

That's ONE example. 

Vega


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Interlocutor said:


> Sparkyjim,
> 
> You would not be willing to rewrite the following:
> 
> "I am saying, probably for the last time, that I believe that most men do not realize how porn affects their real sex life in a negative way..."
> 
> to:
> 
> "I am saying, probably for the last time, that I believe that most men MIGHT not realize how porn affects SOME men's sex lives in a negative way..."?
> 
> Are you completely unwilling to accept that some men handle their porn just fine, or, even as Trenton, in what has to be a wrenching flexing of her beliefs vis a vis her personal experiences, will admit that sometimes porn is used sometimes by married couples to bond just fine?



I misspoke. What I meant to say was...

"I am saying, probably for the last time, _*in this thread*_, that I believe that most men do not realize how porn affects their real sex life in a negative way..." 

I'm not close minded. The fact that I am open minded is part of the reason why I believe what I believe.

I do agree with you on this...



Interlocutor said:


> ... sometimes porn is used sometimes by married couples to bond just fine?


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Trenton? What?

I am ADDING validity to your message... As I contended before, the issues you strongly desire to discuss are very large in scope, which does not equal less valid, just less related... I'm trying to tell you this movement of simulated emotion started in an Ancient Greek amphitheater and covers a lot more than just porn... We'd have to re-write a lot of history and destroy a lot technology, some of which you use, to make it "right."

Told you so? Told me what? You're proving my point of your lofty scope with your mention of technology.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Interlocutor said:


> you're are scratching the surface of messages such as the ones in Disney's Wall-E and its influences by writers such as Bradbury who have tried to warn us concerning the misuses of future technology...




Allow me to quote ...wait for it... Calvin and Hobbes (Bill Watterson)


“Calvin:"It says here that 'religion is the opiate of the masses.'...what do you suppose that means?"
Television: "...it means that Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet”


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> We're misunderstanding one another. I didn't mean you, I meant in general.
> 
> Here, in context, my point will simply be that porn is rarely the answer a man or woman thinks it is and that is despite any other points I made.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Trenton, sorry, you're all over the place and it's hard to follow... Maybe, just maybe, it's not me... Nor was it Jaquen.

Funny, we all really agree and I can see it so easily.

Your last sentence here made me smile at least.


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Are you divorced? You should be, unless he's deaf or couldn't hear you. But don't place this stigma on all men! There are so many great ones.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


LOL!! No,no, he heard me. LOUD AND CLEAR. And yes, we are now divorced. 

I'm TRYING not to place the stigma on all men, but I did realize that in ALL of my relationships with men, that they LIED to me within the first month of getting together. Stupidly, I forgave them. I had no idea that they were seeing me as 'weak' for doing so. 

Vega


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> I misspoke. What I meant to say was...
> 
> "I am saying, probably for the last time, _*in this thread*_, that I believe that most men do not realize how porn affects their real sex life in a negative way..."
> 
> I'm not close minded. The fact that I am open minded is part of the reason why I believe what I believe.
> 
> I do agree with you on this...


I already knew you agreed, but I'm just trying to show you how your posts seem a bit baited.

I know we agree, trust me.

No, no one should ignore the possible effects of anything... Open mind, liberal education, no taboo, no superstition, etc... Well, that almost leaves no room now for religion.


----------



## Interlocutor

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> Unfortunately, the kind of man you've been blaming is the kind of man that I have MOSTLY been 'involved' with since I was 19 years old. Despite my efforts to ask the right CLEAR questions, I STILL get lied to...and of course, I'm a 'prude' for not wanting a relationship with someone who uses--er...I mean--VIEWS it.


So it's his fault not yours... I can't say I feel sorry for him for blowing it with you... His loss, trust me.


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> We're misunderstanding one another. I didn't mean you, I meant in general.
> 
> Here, in context, my point will simply be that *porn is rarely the answer a man or woman thinks it is* and that is despite any other points I made.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Wouldn't that depend, though, on what the question is?


----------



## Vega

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> We get the love we think we deserve. Crazy, right?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Probably why I've started a "zero tolerance policy" for both lying and porn. Seems like if I 'give' and inch, they WANT a mile. 

And to top everything off, the REASON I'm here at TAM is because...*drum roll* my exb/f had an EA and broke up with me to be with her. He said it wasn't anything that *I* did 'wrong'; he just found someone 'better'. 




> So it's his fault not yours... I can't say I feel sorry for him for blowing it with you... His loss, trust me.


Interlocutor -- Believe me, he was out 'looking' for sex only a few weeks after I left. He's not hurting, lol! And I'm CERTAIN that he doesn't feel my leaving as any great 'loss'. 

So, as you may see from revealing some of my experiences, I see how the "shaming" can work both ways: Women can 'shame' men for using it. But men can also 'shame' women for NOT wanting it in their lives. They can be shamed as 'prudes' even though they may give numerous bj's, tolerate anal sex, role play, etc. Heck, I've even known a woman who resisted going out with a certain man for MONTHS. She FINALLY gave in, and while he was getting dressed, he started to criticize her for having sex with him! 

Un. Friggin. Believable.

Vega


----------



## Grayson

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> So, as you may see from revealing some of my experiences, I see how the "shaming" can work both ways: Women can 'shame' men for using it. But men can also 'shame' women for NOT wanting it in their lives. They can be shamed as 'prudes' even though they may give numerous bj's, tolerate anal sex, role play, etc. Heck, I've even known a woman who resisted going out with a certain man for MONTHS. She FINALLY gave in, and while he was getting dressed, he started to criticize her for having sex with him!
> 
> Un. Friggin. Believable.
> 
> Vega


Interestingly enough...I haven't seen any of us on "this" side of the issue here say or suggest that such behavior would be acceptable, either.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> What if the answer is: "I like "Babes in Toyland"(fictional title). It's with well-developed girls between the ages of 12-15, who use different kinds of toys..."
> 
> Would THAT be o.k. too? Should the men who use that also not be "shamed"?
> 
> I'm certain that even some regular porn users would find that highly offensive. But in countries where 'kiddy porn' isn't regulated, it just might be the 'norm'...
> 
> Vega


Okay so you're latching onto one VERY minute part of my entire comment and missing the overall message. Classic argument technique being utilized to keep feeding your agenda.

It's the comments that come from the extremes that both fuel these threads but also leave the majority of reasonable, open minded people :scratchhead:.

If I WAS actually having the conversation I stated (which by the way I've never had) and someone responded with your answer....I'd call the cops. That's disturbing and disgusting and that person needs to be put away for a LONG time. But how many people do you think are REALLY into that kind of thing? Of course there are some whackos out there and on both sides of the argument no less. You're using the extreme ends of the bell curve to establish your platform which is both disingenuous and a real head slapper to the majority.

PS I've been on both ends of this argument. I USED porn every night with my ex wife because I lived in a one sided sexless marriage (she was getting sex but I wasnt LOL). I've never had to USE porn with my current wife. She gets all of my sexual energy. So yes, I understand and have been BOTH people in this argument. That's why I won't judge either side as being wrong. My wife and I tried to watch it together and it just didn't do anything for us. We ended up turning it off 5 minutes in and just go back to focusing on each other.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Trenton said:


> Conflict free diamonds. This made me giggle, as if diamonds are even worth any conflict to begin with, right?
> 
> They're not my children specifically, they're kids growing up made vulnerable by abuse. I happen to have the honor of knowing a small handful of them.
> 
> And you're wrong. This thread is not just about a dude enjoying some porn. It's about much more. We want to diminish all the issues you cite for our own comfort and all I'm suggesting is that is wrong. I will agree with you on all other counts that you suggested. *It doesn't make it any less wrong for me.*
> 
> I know I come across so f'ing heady when I go here but it is really hard not to. I know we have to pick and choose our causes wisely or completely risk fusing out. I get it.
> 
> Promote complete sexual glorification, objectification and gratification with your wife, your girlfriend, your willing neighbor. I got no issues. Begin justifying an industry that is seeping like what we're talking about and I'm not going to nod my head in agreement.


I really appreciate your post Trenton, your focus on is YOU and that's the key to this issue for me. It's about the individual's (consumer) choices and rights.

But in regards to your last paragraph, this turns into a "Where do we draw the line?" type of situation. If we're going to say porn is bad and we should get rid of it, do we also get rid of ALL nudity in movies? Should we eliminate movies like Caligula, The Brown Bunny (where Chloe Sevigny performs REAL fellatio to the point of completion on camera). What about movies like Magic Mike or The Sessions. Or how about any nudity including Titanic? 

This is a HUGE grey area with some clearly defined borders. For me those borders are any non-consenting adults involved in it and the people responsible for it need to be locked away.

If a consenting adult ALLOWS themselves to be exploited, that's on them frankly. I'm not here to "rescue" strippers, porn stars or even the bus people at the local restaurant who have their tips taken by ownership. If the person doesn't mind what they're doing, or even enjoys it, and they're okay with everything else that goes on...is it really exploitation?


----------



## Dad&Hubby

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Vega said:


> Probably why I've started a "zero tolerance policy" for both lying and porn. Seems like if I 'give' and inch, they WANT a mile.
> 
> And to top everything off, the REASON I'm here at TAM is because...*drum roll* my exb/f had an EA and broke up with me to be with her. He said it wasn't anything that *I* did 'wrong'; he just found someone 'better'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interlocutor -- Believe me, he was out 'looking' for sex only a few weeks after I left. He's not hurting, lol! And I'm CERTAIN that he doesn't feel my leaving as any great 'loss'.
> 
> So, as you may see from revealing some of my experiences, I see how the "shaming" can work both ways: Women can 'shame' men for using it. But men can also 'shame' women for NOT wanting it in their lives. They can be shamed as 'prudes' even though they may give numerous bj's, tolerate anal sex, role play, etc. Heck, I've even known a woman who resisted going out with a certain man for MONTHS. She FINALLY gave in, and while he was getting dressed, he started to criticize her for having sex with him!
> 
> Un. Friggin. Believable.
> 
> Vega


After reading some of your experience Vega, I do truly feel for you. I'm a fan of TOTAL honesty and I don't "need" porn. 

I wish people came with a handbook that states who they are and what they believe, it'd make dating so much easier. 

Or even a T-shirt that states they're feelings on some key issues LOL.

The worst part of it all is I'm sure if you found a man who was totally honest and didn't need to watch porn, you'd be an AMAZING partner. There are men out there who share your views as well, they're just not common.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



sparkyjim said:


> Allow me to quote ...wait for it... Calvin and Hobbes (Bill Watterson)
> 
> 
> “Calvin:"It says here that 'religion is the opiate of the masses.'...what do you suppose that means?"
> Television: "...it means that Karl Marx hadn't seen anything yet”


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Dad&Hubby said:


> This is a HUGE grey area with some clearly defined borders. For me those borders are any non-consenting adults involved in it and the people responsible for it need to be locked away.


:iagree:

I think it's as simple as that.

The facts are that each relationship has its own set of dynamics, and human beings have their personal rights and privileges, legally.

Some couples allow porn viewing to different degrees in their relationship. They view it together and it enhances their sexual experience.
I think its their fundamental right to view what they please in the confines of their home, so long as its legal.

Some women have no problem with their husbands viewing it during their solo sessions , and they may even set a boundary as to what's acceptable. Again, that too, is their fundamental right , so long as its legal.

Some women view porn that was produced with women in mind.
That's their fundamental right, so long as its legal,and within their own private space.

And yes, there are people who overdo at the expense of their relationship. Sadly , that too is their right so long as it is legal and within their own private space.

To each his own.


----------



## john_lord_b3

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I think it's as simple as that.
> 
> The facts are that each relationship has its own set of dynamics, and human beings have their personal rights and privileges, legally.
> 
> Some couples allow porn viewing to different degrees in their relationship. They view it together and it enhances their sexual experience.
> I think its their fundamental right to view what they please in the confines of their home, so long as its legal.
> 
> Some women have no problem with their husbands viewing it during their solo sessions , and they may even set a boundary as to what's acceptable. Again, that too, is their fundamental right , so long as its legal.
> 
> Some women view porn that was produced with women in mind.
> That's their fundamental right, so long as its legal,and within their own private space.
> 
> And yes, there are people who overdo at the expense of their relationship. Sadly , that too is their right so long as it is legal and within their own private space.
> 
> To each his own.


:smthumbup::iagree:

by the goats of Abraham, there are no end to your wisdom! I wish all the legislators in my country would endorse your views.


----------



## sparkyjim

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


>


Stupendous Man Rules....!!


----------



## Starstarfish

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

If we are going to work on cutting out nude/sex scenes in movies, I whole-heartedly suggest that we start with that scene in the second Matrix where Keanu Reeves gets his freak on. I think it was one of the few times I actually felt less sexy for having seen something like that in a movie. It put negative points in my "sex tank."

But on a more serious note - yes, as noted ultimately, it is up to any couple to determine the boundaries of their relationship in regards to many aspects. And those boundaries are most easily set when people are honest and forthcoming about their needs, feelings, and expectations. Either side being dishonest leads to problems even if it takes them a while to surface. 

However, part of being honest is the ability to be vulnerable with a spouse without feeling like you'll just be shunned. And in that regards, sometimes I do understand the view point of some posters who indicate that the "shame train" runs in both directions, albeit in different ways. I've had conversations like that (about religion rather than porn) wherein before the conversation even really begins, your thoughts are dismissed because they are endemically labeled as falling under the "wrong" type of thinking - whether that be Catholic, old-fashioned, prude, or whatever the label is. 

However, when you are discussing a serious and potentially emotionally charged topic with a spouse, dismissing their feelings is likely even more agitating than the discussion at hand. As then the issue becomes about more than the original topic, but a general feeling of disrespect and dismissive attitude. It's not just about the porn, but about the feeling they don't even really care what you have to say about it. 

It feels like you are trying to have a conversation with a teenager who labels everything you say as "lame" or "boring." At a certain point, just stop bothering to even try, because you already know the answer.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Starstarfish said:


> If we are going to work on cutting out nude/sex scenes in movies, I whole-heartedly suggest that we start with that scene in the second Matrix where Keanu Reeves gets his freak on. I think it was one of the few times I actually felt less sexy for having seen something like that in a movie. It put negative points in my "sex tank."
> 
> But on a more serious note - yes, as noted ultimately, it is up to any couple to determine the boundaries of their relationship in regards to many aspects. And those boundaries are most easily set when people are honest and forthcoming about their needs, feelings, and expectations. Either side being dishonest leads to problems even if it takes them a while to surface.
> 
> However, part of being honest is the ability to be vulnerable with a spouse without feeling like you'll just be shunned. And in that regards, sometimes I do understand the view point of some posters who indicate that the "shame train" runs in both directions, albeit in different ways. I've had conversations like that (about religion rather than porn) wherein before the conversation even really begins, your thoughts are dismissed because they are endemically labeled as falling under the "wrong" type of thinking - whether that be Catholic, old-fashioned, prude, or whatever the label is.
> 
> However, when you are discussing a serious and potentially emotionally charged topic with a spouse, dismissing their feelings is likely even more agitating than the discussion at hand. As then the issue becomes about more than the original topic, but a general feeling of disrespect and dismissive attitude. It's not just about the porn, but about the feeling they don't even really care what you have to say about it.
> 
> It feels like you are trying to have a conversation with a teenager who labels everything you say as "lame" or "boring." At a certain point, just stop bothering to even try, because you already know the answer.


I agree with quite a lot of what you said in this post.
But however there is another aspect to it that sometimes further complicates the issue unnecessarily.
That is, many times porn is blamed for everything that goes wrong in a relationship, whereas , most times its misuse and abuse is just a way of coping with the problems ,or the dysfunction in the relationship.
Also it must be noted, that even in healthy relationships , moderate porn use may be a part of it.
Striking a decent balance takes a great level of maturity amongst couples who have to deal with the issue.
There are many sides to this issue.


----------



## Interlocutor

Caribbean Man said:


> I agree with quite a lot of what you said in this post.
> But however there is another aspect to it that sometimes further complicates the issue unnecessarily.
> That is, many times porn is blamed for everything that goes wrong in a relationship, whereas , most times its misuse and abuse is just a way of coping with the problems ,or the dysfunction in the relationship.
> Also it must be noted, that even in healthy relationships , moderate porn use may be a part of it.b
> Striking a decent balance takes a great level of maturity amongst couples who have to deal with the issue.
> There are many sides to this issue.


Caribbean, the other end of the spectrum, viz. being a prude/inhibited/religious, is also blamed for ending marriages too, which I wouldn't detract. I'd never be stuck with a "lights off only" prude!

AND, it also becomes the coping mechanism... The abused women, the ones that were cheated on, the ones with the crazy ex-boyfriend... They sometimes, from reading here, become super-inhibited/prudish and scared to open up again...

So even as a reaction, being very conservative is blamed two-fold...

There's just so much used to shame men and women... It's almost like a genetic-level fitness test, a by-product of the selection of which genes/memes a civilization should yield and carry over.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Interlocutor said:


> *AND, it also becomes the coping mechanism... The abused women, the ones that were cheated on, the ones with the crazy ex-boyfriend... They sometimes, from reading here, become super-inhibited/prudish and scared to open up again...*


:iagree:

This^^^is exactly what I meant to say.


----------



## anony2

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I don't know why some men shame other men when they use porn instead of 'using' their wives, after all, it is that mans RIGHT to masturbate to porn instead of having sex *with* his wife and why would any woman want to be used by her husband?



If my husband USED porn instead of USING me, I would be totally happy because I am not a masturbatory aid. I cannot and will not be replaced by porn because I do not allow ANYONE to objectify me. I AM WOMAN!


----------



## olwhatsisname

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



aribabe said:


> Porn is most certainly used.
> What is the purpose of watching it if you're not going to use it?
> 
> Do you just turn some porn on and grab a tub of popcorn so you can watch it?
> Or do you grab some lube and "use it" to help you get off?
> 
> I'm not even against porn, and I use it myself.
> 
> But the claim that millions of men are merely watching porn, and not using it, is silly.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


==what do u use Gone With the wind or the Ten Commandments for.


----------



## olwhatsisname

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

Fri. 8/23/2013== NEWS FLASH a female porn star/w tats has aids, and the INDUSTRY is shut down.


----------



## Wiserforit

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I'm going to use some eggs and bacon this morning.

All of the deaths from type II diabetes, high cholesterol, etc. can't stop my food addiction. I'm objectifying chickens and pigs. Going to leave my wife here looking through Craigslist alone when I could be holding her. 

and I am ashamed.

... and now we are going to use bowling. We'll use our friends that live in town after that. There's a great place to use the ducks and geese that are flying south for the winter. We'll take the camera so we can use some pictures of them. 

So I am done using here now.


----------



## JCD

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

This was dead!

Why, WHY did you dig it up again?


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



JCD said:


> This was dead!
> 
> Why, WHY did you dig it up again?


LOL!^^^:rofl:


----------



## ladybird

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



unbelievable said:


> I think getting married to someone who feels it's their role in life to modify or dictate your life is just bad practice, anyway. *I suspect that many of those women who have a problem with their man "using" porn would have a problem with most other diversions he might choose. They'd be griping about his motorcycle, his golf, his sports, or anything else that may put a temporary grin on his face that didn't involve the wife. Sometimes I believe my wife has nightmares in which I appear relaxed, well-fed, well-sexed, and content.*


 And you would be wrong!


----------



## olwhatsisname

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

new blood all the time.problem unsolved. I would like to know your take,and reasoning. there is no good reason to hurt your mate.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

It's all in how you "use" it. Do you watch it for many hours at a time and hope no one finds out? If so, that's using it. If you drank alone for hours and hoped no one found out, that would be "using" alcohol. Same thing.


----------



## Jung_admirer

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

I have no problem with the statement, "There are men that use porn as a masturbatory aid".

As long as you include the other side of the equation, "There are women that use romance novels and "Fifty Shades of Grey" to titillate their senses.


----------



## olwhatsisname

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Grayson said:


> Thanks for making my point: that an actor's job is to convince the audience that their make-believe is real in the moment. When Nathan Fillion and Stana Katic "pretend to be in love" every week on Castle, do their kisses stop short of contact? Or, do they appear to kiss passionately? Without a doubt, actors in porn are performing non-simulated sex acts, and you may not want to watch that, which is perfectly within your rights. Why, though, do you determine that no one else should, either? And, as has been pointed out, actors outside of porn have performed non-simulated sex acts on camera as part of the storytelling process. It's all about what the storytellers - writers, directors, actors - choose to show the audience.
> 
> 
> 
> In the strictest of senses, you're right, because *all* of our experiences ultimately change us. But it's those experiences, how we choose to respond to those stimuli, that make the changes, not the stimuli themselves. (Please note that I also make a distinction between media stimuli and genuine controlled substances such as alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, etc that directly introduce foreign materials into the body.) Or, would you be one who believes that, for example, the U2 song "Exit" really did influence Robert John Bardo to murder actress Rebecca Schaeffer?
> 
> To pretend people have no responsibility for how they react to media and to empower it with inherent controlling properties is not only living in denial, it's dangerously irresponsible.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


________the Passion of Christ moved everyone I know. don't compare apples to oranges.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Jung_admirer said:


> I have no problem with the statement, "There are men that use porn as a masturbatory aid".
> 
> As long as you include the other side of the equation, "There are women that use romance novels and "Fifty Shades of Grey" to titillate their senses.


If we're going to say that, then we should also say "I'm going to use a movie/tv for entertainment." But that's not how anyone communicates. This is the big clue that the OP is correct: "People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn in order to shame men. Its very clearly derived from the debatable idea of porn addiction and thus using words associated with drug addicts.


----------



## Jung_admirer

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If we're going to say that, then we should also say "I'm going to use a movie/tv for entertainment." But that's not how anyone communicates. This is the big clue that the OP is correct: "People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn in order to shame men. Its very clearly derived from the debatable idea of porn addiction and thus using words associated with drug addicts.


I was waiting for someone to make that leap. Thanks! 
Do people "use" coffee or cigarettes? No, they use caffeine or nicotine. Notice how easy it is to shift from "use" to "abuse". Once "use" comes into common parlance, "abuse" will shortly follow. It's most definitely an attempt to control behavior via shame. The really big question, "Do the individuals that compose a society benefit from shaming unwanted behaviors?"

There is significant academic debate on this issue: 
In Defense of Shame: The Faces of an Emotion // Reviews // Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews // University of Notre Dame

I favor the idea that self-shame may indeed be helpful in setting personal boundaries. Imposed shame, especially for the purpose of humiliation, is soul killing.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

sigh.... this whole conversation is sad. If you feel ashamed about doing something, then feel ashamed. If you don't, then don't! If you feel ashamed because someone says the word "use" instead of the word "watch" then you are giving someone else control over how you feel.

Having said that, my H watched porn for hours straight. If that isn't using it, I don't know what is! If you play video games for hours straight, or smoke or drink nonstop for hours, then you are using those things.

Lastly, it's really a matter of whether your girlfriend or wife is ok with it. Everyone has their own view and level of what is ok/appropriate.


----------



## ocotillo

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Jung_admirer said:


> I have no problem with the statement, "There are men that use porn as a masturbatory aid".
> 
> As long as you include the other side of the equation, "There are women that use romance novels and "Fifty Shades of Grey" to titillate their senses.


Given that the word, 'πορνογραφος' was coined long before the invention of the camera to describe a sexually explicit story and that this idea is still the primary definition of, 'pornography' in all English dictionaries, I don't know why there would be a difference between the two anyway.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



ebp123 said:


> sigh.... this whole conversation is sad. If you feel ashamed about doing something, then feel ashamed. If you don't, then don't! If you feel ashamed because someone says the word "use" instead of the word "watch" then you are giving someone else control over how you feel.
> 
> Having said that, my H watched porn for hours straight. If that isn't using it, I don't know what is! If you play video games for hours straight, or smoke or drink nonstop for hours, then you are using those things.
> 
> Lastly, it's really a matter of whether your girlfriend or wife is ok with it. Everyone has their own view and level of what is ok/appropriate.


There is a huge difference between feeling ashamed and being shamed. I don't feel ashamed of watching porn. It does however piss me off when anyone tries to shame me. When someone goes shaking a finger in my face, I'm probably gonna stick a finger back in theirs.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



ocotillo said:


> Given that the word, 'πορνογραφος' was coined long before the invention of the camera to describe a sexually explicit story and that this idea is still the primary definition of, 'pornography' in all English dictionaries, I don't know why there would be a difference between the two anyway.


:iagree:
A lot of people are not familiar with the history of porn.
It always existed. The Greek word was " pornografía." 
The term applies to the _depiction of the act_ and not the act itself.
Hence , books , magazines, photos , postcards ,sculpture, paintings, recordings ,film , video etc, can be considered porn if it depicts sexual intercourse for the purpose of quick arousal.

Another aspect of the discussion that is hardly ever touched is cultural relativity / sensitivities .


----------



## ocotillo

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> A lot of people are not familiar with the history of porn.
> It always existed. The Greek word was " pornografía."
> The term applies to the _depiction of the act_ and not the act itself.
> Hence , books , magazines, photos , postcards ,sculpture, paintings, recordings ,film , video etc, can be considered porn if it depicts sexual intercourse for the purpose of quick arousal.
> 
> Another aspect of the discussion that is hardly ever touched is cultural relativity / sensitivities .


Exactly. 'Pornographia' is the modern, first declension form of the word. The ancient form (Attic & Koine) was second declension. No matter though. The meaning is the same.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

This discussion of porn is all greek to me.


----------



## that_girl

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*

lol I think I'll sit down and watch a porn. We can talk about the acting skills.

Right.

It's a sex toy. Like any other sex toy.

I use my dildo. I dont' watch it.


----------



## that_girl

*Re: People use the verb "to use" in place of "to watch" porn to shame men.*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There is a huge difference between feeling ashamed and being shamed. I don't feel ashamed of watching porn. It does however piss me off when anyone tries to shame me. When someone goes shaking a finger in my face, I'm probably gonna stick a finger back in theirs.


lol All that finger sticking. Dirty.


----------

