Comments on: A new perspective on Porn

By: KT

KT — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:53:12 +0000

True, I think I got on a bit of a tangent. Also maybe I was assuming that if a man ‘objectifies’ women, the only effect this will have on the actual world is in actual relationships he has with women. Which is probably not the case.

By: Nato

Nato — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:52:42 +0000

Interesting, you bring up good points. I’d like to make a bit of a distinction. There is the issue whether a man should be allowed to lust after his partner, and then there is the issue whether a man should be allowed to lust after another partner. It ought to be well accepted that a man should be allowed to lust after his partner, but, in the case of porn, it could be argued that the man is not lusting after his partner, and in a sense being unfaithful.

Of course, as you point out, it wouldn’t be as bad if the partner were aware, and accepting of it. On the other hand, wouldn’t an empathetic and rational individual find it hard to object to anything that’s not damaging to either party?

By: KT

KT — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:24:27 +0000

Ok, a few things: personally I don’t have a problem with guys ‘using’ porn (what is the right verb there? ‘consuming’ sounds wrong lol). Seems to me that rigorous honesty within a relationship ought to be able to deal with any issues that might arise. “How do you feel about me getting off on porn some days?” “Well, I guess I don’t mind in theory, but it does kind of make me worry about whether I measure up.” “Ok. Allow me to explain how you do in fact ‘measure up’, and beyond, and how it’s not really like that in my mind anyway.” etc. Assuming both parties are prepared to alter their behaviour if it’s really damaging to the other. But it does seem to me that women objecting to porn is a knee-jerk reaction that, when rationally examined, may well be surmountable, if a real effort is made to understand.

I actually think…okay, how to explain this without being lynched? I think men shouldn’t be made to feel so guilty about seeing women as sexual objects. As if the (stereotypical) female perspective, of it being ‘all about the relationship’, were somehow the only right perspective. Clearly both are needed, and if women get to squish men into their desired shape by making them learn about emotional intimacy etc, and are allowed to read endless books about how to do it better, and are considered virtuous for doing so… well, you get the idea.

Obviously if a man sees his partner as *only* a sexual object *all the time* that’s a problem, because of course she is more than that. But it’s also a Large problem if a man is made to feel guilty about his desire for his partner *while having sexy times*. Which I believe happens, e.g. in some Christian marriages. He gets loaded up with all this stuff about how he’s not supposed to feel lust, and how he has to see her as a whole person and remain emotionally in-touch, while his body is pulling him in the opposite direction. I think that this is wrong and damaging. In the right context, he should be free to go crazy.

In reality, a woman wants to be desired. She wants him to go crazy for her (even if she doesn’t know that’s what she wants). Ok, I shouldn’t generalise; I speak for myself. And I don’t think that’s such a bad thing either, or something for me to feel guilty about. Bringing things like this out of the realms of ‘naughty little secret’ and into the realms of ‘fact about myself that I should learn to work with rather than be in denial about’ is very liberating. Or has been for me.

There’s a lot more I could say on this subject, but that’s probably enough since I’m 2 months late joining the discussion.

By: Fraser

Fraser — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:56:40 +0000

Their TV ads used to make that association pretty blatantly.

By: Christina

Christina — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 05:01:23 +0000

He he he thanks Ingrid - now when I see Tim tams I’m going to think porn

By: Ingrid

Ingrid — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:43:21 +0000

Porn is like tim tams - hard to have in moderation. It’s easier to have no tim tams than just one. Tim tams and porn are a very slippery slope! … however, i still choose to eat tim tams, you can read into that any way you like

By: Christina

Christina — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:10:54 +0000

Yup, Mills and Boon books are considered female porn (if I remember 2nd year Psych correctly). They’re not visual (which works more for guys), but they are emotional (which works more for girls). And apparently romantic comedies do have a negative effect on relationships:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4843305a19716.html

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:59:00 +0000

Okay, that’s fair. Although I’d argue that rom-coms are not all *that* far removed; maybe not so much for guys, but I have heard romance books and movies referred to as “emotion-porn.” (See also: Mills and Boon.)

But yes, good call on the tapping into deeper drives. That does add much danger.

By: Nato

Nato — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:46:34 +0000

In general yes, but porn also has an arousing effect, and taps into one of the fundamental human drives, and so has a very powerful reinforcing effect. You don’t get this basic level reinforcement with romantic comedies and hero journeys. I haven’t heard of a romantic comedy or hero journey addiction, but I have heard of sex addiction. So porn is escapism combined with a powerful reinforcement, which makes it more dangerous.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:17:56 +0000

Okay, sure. I don’t see how that’s (in the general) different to any other form of escapism which bleeds into reality. eg:

* Porn => unrealistic expectations (”woman are like that”, “women are there to please me.”)
* Romantic Comedies => unrealistic expectations (”I’ll just luck into a relationship that perfect”, “There is one magically special person out there for me.”)
* Hero’s Journeys => unrealistic expectations (”I can be that awesome”, “Life will give me those opportunities.”)

Am I wrong?