well established that most men masturbate regularly and pretty frequently, throughout their adult lives.

Like, at least several times a week. Probably, for at least half of the adult men in the world, it's once a day or more.

Is this "compulsive" behavior? It's pretty friggin' regular, that's for sure. And frequent. But if most men do it, does that mean it's inherently "natural"? "Unnatural"?

And this is irregardless of what they're looking at, while they're doing it.

Where I think people get the "compulsion" thing from is, people doing something habitually and regularly that they would do anyway, are now doing it to porn. Or now it's a stack of magazines under the mattress, so it must be a problem. Or now it's on the internet, so it must be a problem.

Holy shit! Look, he's masturbating every day to porn, compulsively! Okay, so if it wasn't porn, it would be the Sears Bra ads. If it wasn't those, it would be a painting. Or a carved soapstone female fertility figurine. COMPULSION!!



I'm not, personally, "pro or anti" porn for everyone. Some people like porn, some don't. Great. Some people hate the Grateful Dead, I like the Grateful Dead. Choice is a Wonderful thing.

However, it distresses me to see progressive make anti-freedom or anti-first amendment arguments (which your thread is not, Jeff) which is one reason I'm so outspoken on the issue. I'm pretty solidly on the side of the 1st Amendment. And, I'm pretty opposed to the religious right or anyone who wants to take the agency away from consenting adults to make their own decisions. This is why I'm also against the Drug War.


I'll have more to say on this later. Interesting read.

I don't like Larry Flynt very much, and dislike being in a position of defending him, but he's right about freedom of speech - it ESPECIALLY is meant to encompass speech which some many most (pick one) people dislike.

I simply think his business model is... unfortunate.

Masturbation may be regular, frequent, inherent and common. I spent a lot of time working in IT, and never personally known anyone who lost their job over masturbation. Porn, on the other hand...

I'm left to conclude that for some, it's an irresistible temptation. i.e. "compulsion".

For some, it demonstrably causes dysfunction in careers and relationships. I think that it affects *most* of us to varying degrees.

I would take issue, for one, with the analogy between the porn 'industry', such as it is (see below) and the tobacco industry. Whether or not people have lost their jobs from looking at smut during work, the fact remains that very few people have died from having too many hustlers in the closet, unless the box fell on their head. OTOH, my dad died of lung cancer. Tobacco IS addictive, physically, and it WILL kill you if you use it as directed, enthusiastically, for enough years.

I don't think nicotine should be illegal, but I also don't think there's a case to be made that porn, of either the industrial grade larry flynt variety or the mom n pop amateur stuff, delivers anything like the same level of inherent physical damage and addictiveness that nicotine does. A better case, I think, could be made to compare porn to marijuana- something which has been widely demonized despite the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) of measurable harm and even including numerous studies which show slight benefits. And certainly, some people DO have problems with pot; just like some do have problems with sex, or porn, or food, or gambling or any number of behaviors which many if not most people can enjoy recreationally or within certain boundaries, where a minority allows them to get out of control.

Now, onto the porn 'industry' and Larry Flynt; like other creative business models and content producers, the porn industry, such as it is, is experiencing an large internet-based dislocation. Most people don't pay for porn, anymore. And there is a great deal of porn on the internet which is made by people for no other reason than they enjoy fucking in front of a camera (or whatever)... there are enough people, now, with video cameras who happen to be exhibitionists, that there is a tremendous amount of what used to be made-in-van-nuys "porn" which is now put together by regular folks. So talking about the monolithic "porn industry" to encompass everything that's on the internet, is sort of like calling all the videos on youtube part of the "film and television industry".

What this does to Larry Flynt and his unfortunate business model, is still unclear. Nevertheless, the polemics against the monolithic porn industry which was never monolithic to begin with, are becoming increasingly dated and irrelevant.

More specific analysis on the piece you linked to a bit later.

Comparing porn with tobacco is overstated.

I approve of pot more than porn, but I think both should be legal despite the capacity for harm.

The cultural normalization of it. Porn is useful because it is based on fantasy. There is nothing wrong with fantasy, except to the extent that it displaces and distorts the expectations of the more mundane beneficial experiences and pursuits that we can participate in.

On a scale of 1-10, I'm a "5". Why ask the nice "6" lady next door out for dinner when "10" on the video right now and doesn't require dinner or conversation? Besides what would I say to a real person?

It contributes to our social alienation. People don't have bowling clubs, fraternal organizations or other social avenues because we have a torrent of stimuli available to us with a button click.

I dispute the idea that porn is simply a reflection of a healthy sex drive - I think it's more a reflection of a frustrated sex drive that becomes more frustrated the more it is keyed to an unreal set of circumstances. Further, to accept your premise is to accept the idea that all normal people watch it and that if you don't, it's because you're not virile.

"People with a strong sex drive watch porn", is analagous to "People of good character go to church".

I don't think that a leads necessarily to b, AND you can't escape the flipside of that argument.

Although they begin at different starting points, my feelings about porn and my feelings about TV converge into a "kill your TV" bias.

Given the choice between being called virile or the antonyms of the word, (feeble, unmanly, impotent) which would you prefer?

Clinically speaking, diagnosed with a weak sex drive may not have a value judgment attached, but the culture attaches enough value on it that Pfizer sells 45 tons of Viagra each year...

... a phenomenon which can be logically linked to the OP pretty easily.

Hearsay, and these sorts of "i dont actually know its this way, but i imagine it must be" assertions.

For instance: " There is nothing wrong with fantasy, except to the extent that it displaces and distorts the expectations of the more mundane beneficial experiences and pursuits that we can participate in. "

Well, sure. That sounds reasonable. Except, is there really a factual basis for imagining that peoples fantasies are 'displacing and distorting' experiences and expectations? Did reading Tolkein cause problems for millions of people who subsequently discovered there were no orcs to battle in New Jersey? I enjoy science fiction and superhero movies, yet I am still reasonably able to function without a starship or the ability to swing on a web between skyscrapers.

I dont think bowling has suffered markedly because of porn. Masturbation was still mostly a solo activity even before the internet. And again, we get folks all the time opining on how "what is out NOW there is so terrible, it must be having a Negative impact" Gail Dines wants us to understand that internet porn isn't like the dirty magazines of the 70s. Those same dirty magazines were going to unleash a flood of misogyny and sexual violence when Dworkin and MacKinnon were battling them. I'm sure Anthony Comstock felt that the nude pictures, not to mention Margaret Sanger's birth control pamphlets, that he was pulling out of the mail were a final herald of the apocalypse.

Yet what has REALLY happened with the increased availability of erotica, this "torrent of stimuli"? Rape is down. Violent Crime is down. Women are represented in professional life, politics, and college graduation at levels higher than ever before.. And the public is increasingly ever more tolerant and open minded about differing sexual orientations. Correlation is not, of course, causation, but if porn from Larry Flynt onward was having anything like the detrimental societal impact we've been warned, without evidence, that it must, where is the data?

Hearsay? Anecdote? Baseless assertions?

What I have is an opinion.

It is backed by some personal experience. Friends who have lost jobs over a compulsion toward porn combined with the reality that the quality of my interpersonal relationships improved once I began consciously avoiding it.

Still, i would say a seemingly high preponderance of job-related losses in the IT field over porn probably has more to do with the fact that porn sits at the intersection between internet and personal life (and as such, particularly likely to be over-represented as a "problem" in computer related fields) ...

One question- you said the people you know got fired for "porn, not masturbation"... What were they doing with it, then?

There were no videocameras following their movements, but there was a well known policy to review server logs... one was an IT staff himself... and downloaded it anyway.

In fact that person got hired back and did it again. I think that fits the definition of compulsion nicely.

Most people are able to erect barriers between personal and professional life when they know what the boundary is. The two notable exceptions in my experience were online gambling and porn.

One, my point about anecdote and hearsay and the like wasn't just in response to what you said, which is of course relevant as your personal experience; but really more in regards to the linked piece. Anecdote and hearsay on a discussion board, sure- but when they are continually presented in authoriative-sounding public pieces as quasi-scientific justifications for positions; that's when I say, okay, but where's the real-world data.

Like I said; people are sure porn is screwing with the brains of billions of people, and in fact people have been sure it would screw with the brains of people who looked at it when it was primarily on VHS tape instead of the internet, or in magazines instead of VHS tape. This goes back at least as far as when people were sure there would be an outbreak of hairy palms if Dr. Kellogg's corn flakes didn't keep people from masturbation. Nevertheless, the large scale sociological impact we have been warned about, has not shown up- not, at least, in non-anecdotal form.

I'd also say that I'm not interested in criticizing anyone for watching porn, not watching porn, whatever. If your life is better without it, Jeff, I salute you. My life is better now that I use a soniccare toothbrush. It's all good.

I don't even find the topic that interesting, although I seem to get sucked into the debate



every time it comes up



...If everyone's a consenting adult, your business, not mine. Is something a net positive? A net negative? To men? To women? Single People? Married People? To that nebulous ill-defined beast, "society"? I'm not sure, probably some of both, but since we're doing anecdote and personal experience, here, let me share one of mine- and this is not directed back at you, Jeff, more in general:

Once upon a time, back in the day, I had a gig in an indie video store. And like many of those now-extinct anti-blockbuster animals, we had a porn section. So I saw who rented porn, who bought porn. (No, concerned DU citizens, this does not mean I am 'associated with the porn industry', as someone tried to assert when I told this story on DU2. It was a job, and believe me, we rented Navy Seals, too. That guy in Clerks in the Video Store? That was me.) Some of our friendly visitors may not believe it, but lots of married people watch porn. Together. Lots of women like porn, even, as difficult as some apparently find that assertion to believe. (Okay, this was more than a couple decades ago, but anything that happened then can be extrapolated to now, I think, safely) And yes, lots of single dudes like porn.

And there were people- disabled people, for instance, living alone- for whom this was clearly their ONLY sexual outlet. Why the fuck- seriously, why. the. fuck- should anyone presume to tell these people they shouldn't enjoy something that was made by and for consenting adults? Oh, the industry is so shameful- it's shameful only to the people who attach shame to it. Yes, people should be paid a livable wage for ANY job and all workers should get workplace protection.

But to tell someone who makes a good living taking their clothes off in front of a camera, they're doing something wrong? THAT is wrong, I think.

To tell the guy in the wheelchair whose one glimmer of enjoyment in his day is watching "Bubble Butt Vixens", that HE is wrong? THAT is wrong.

People need to live their own lives, and let others live theirs.

off.

Well said.

In the UK, where puritan attitudes regarding sex aren't as prevalent as they are here, the rates of women using porn rivals that of men. So it stands to reason that the only reason why women don't use porn as much as men is because these unhealthy attitudes about sex and sexuality persist.

I do believe that, on average, men are more wired for visual arousal than women.

Phallopression objectification pornification hypersexed harmporn pornharm!

If you look at the McGill and the Northwestern university studies, you'll see that women respond to porn at about the same rates as men.

Besides puritanical issues, women also have adequacy issues to deal with that men don't. In other words, if a guy see's a well built man getting down, he's far less likely to be worried about stacking up than the woman is when she sees a very attractive woman. So again many of the differences go back to cultural attitudes more than wiring. So I don't think there's much question that women have far more cultural issues to deal with than men do when it comes to porn usage.

Let me start with this statement: I don't "do porn". I never have. I think the last time I looked at a Penthouse or similar was probably the only time, when I was like 14 or 15 and some guy in school gave me one. I consider myself a pretty normal hetero male in terms of my libido, expectations, and viewpoints about sex. So my exposure to porn is pretty limited to what I hear, see, and read about it in the media and in pop culture. Personally, I have never found porn "necessary" in any way to have healthy, normal sexual experiences either with or without a partner. But in terms of porn as an industry, what I see I find rather disturbing on several levels.

First off, this question of "does it interfere with normal male functioning and normal relationships"?

I think it's pretty safe to say that, the vast majority of times men are looking at porn, the purpose is masturbation. I'm sure there are times when it is used to enhance intercourse, but I think that is pretty limited overall.

I think that masturbation is pretty "normal" for men of almost any age, and is a pretty healthy thing both psychologically and physiologically, in terms of stress reduction, in terms of maintaining proper hormone balances, and definitely, definitely in terms of reproductive health. For one thing, there is the "use it or lose it" factor to consider. But more importantly, there is a definite benefit in terms of reproductive health and reduced risk of prostate cancer in men who ejactulate frequently by whatever method, be it masturbation or intercourse. I found this in an article printed in the Journal of the American Medical Association:

Ejaculation frequency was examined in relation to risk of total prostate cancer (Table 2). In age- and multivariate-adjusted analyses, most categories of ejaculation frequency were unrelated to risk of total prostate cancer. However, a lower risk was observed in the highest category of ejaculation frequency. The multivariate RR for men reporting 21 or more ejaculations per month compared with men reporting between 4 and 7 ejaculations per month at ages 20 to 29 years was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.73-1.10); 40 to 49 years, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53-0.86); in the prior year, 0.49 (95% CI, 0.27-0.88); and across a lifetime, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.89). When the entire range of ejaculation frequency was analyzed as a continuous variable in the multivariate model, each increment of 3 ejaculations per week across a lifetime was associated with a 15% (95% CI, 4%-24%) decrease in risk of total prostate cancer. However, there was a suggestive decreased risk of total prostate cancer observed among men in the lowest category of ejaculation frequency at ages 40 to 49 years and across a lifetime. The multivariate RR for men reporting 3 or less ejaculations per month compared with men reporting between 4 and 7 ejaculations per month across a lifetime was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.69-1.15).

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=198487

All of that being said, and not having been in this position myself with a partner, so I really can't fully "get it", I wonder why so many partners find it threatening that a man engages in masturbation, with or without porn, while in a committed relationship? Is it just jealousy, or some perceived inadequacy in the eyes of the partner, that somehow they must not "measure up" in the mind of the man and therefore he is masturbating instead of having intercourse with the partner? I suspect that may be a lot of it, mixed in with a touch of the old "masturbation is sin and you'll go to Hell for it" Puritan/Victorian attitudes, which still dominate to some extent this society's views on about sex, about masturbation, and about commitment in relationships. I guess I find it a little sad that many men feel they have to hide this aspect of their sex lives from their partners, and that the partners feel it is something abnormal or even a bit depraved. I also think that education about what is "normal" for both men and women would go a long way towards helping both partners in this kind of situation have a much healthier psychological perspective about the situation.

Also, there is the question of what it does, psychologically and sexually, to men who do become "addicted" to it. I think it's safe to say that, for some men, it can be damaging, making them have those unrealistic standards and diminishing their ability to become aroused by normal, day to day lifetime experiences. I don't know how common this is, could be very common or not at all, it's not something that is really on my personal radar screen, certainly not for myself, and not in terms of the guys I know, either they don't do it or just don't talk about it.

Now, that all being said, I do have misgivings about the pornography industry, for all of the reasons stated in the article posted in the OP. I think for every sex industry/porn worker who feels that it is a liberating lifestyle choice, there are probably a dozen who are victimized, exploited, and psychologically damaged by becoming involved in it. And I do agree with some of the comments that suggest it creates an artificial standard of physical attributes for both women and men. Few of us in the real world look like the typical porn star, either male or female, from what I can tell. Also, from my very limited knowledge of this, I have the perception about porn that the scenarios/scenes are very, very contrived, and not at all "real world" which too may give rise to unrealistic expectations on the part of consumers of porn in terms of what situations they will find sexually satisfying. Face it, it would be great fun, no doubt, to own a Lamborghini or Rolls Royce, but most of us live in the Chevy/Ford/Dodge world, and lusting over something we can never have serves no good or useful purpose IMHO.

OK, finally, I fully support the rights of the people involved as both producers and consumers to do it. I have a belief about illegal drugs that keeping them banned doesn't diminish the supply or demand at all, just drives it underground and creates whole new levels of problems. I think it would be so much better to simply legalize, tax, and regulate them in a responsible manner, much as we try to do with alcohol. I don't do illegal drugs, and I don't drink. Period. For some, those things can be used responsible. For others, they destroy lives, which is sad. But, I don't think we should be in a position to try to regulate either morality or "stupidity" -- if someone wants to kill themselves with cocaine or whatever, as long as it's not affecting society as a whole, well, I say it's their business and their problem, should they want help out of the downward spiral I think all resources should be made available to them. And it's the same with the porn industry or users, if they choose to engage in this, even if it destroys them, it is their choice, whether the rest of us like it or not. Banning it will just drive it underground and ultimately make it worse for all involved. Keeping it legal at least gives our society and government some say in terms of regulation in how the people involved are treated. And I think that is the best we can do.

for you.

Just like people who view sex with more than one person is their lifetime as wrong are correct. That is wrong, for them. Or sex that involves bondage or role playing or . . . if it's not right for you then fine. But it probably is right for someone else.

I don't care for many of his arguments.

1) objectification is boilerplate radfem nonsense, doesn't even deserve mocking.

2) based on his personal opinion. When condemning some sex act as wrong because it's "filthy" all you're accurately describing is your opinion on it, not some objective truth.

3) I guess there are some people who expect sex to be like porn. Mostly teenagers who have never had sex. But I don't think most people feel that way. And besides, isn't that true of a lot of things? When you see a McDonald's ad what they promise you is far from what you actually get. People are aware of that. Rom-coms, women's magazines, and romance novels portray relationships in ways that are beyond ridiculous. However I wouldn't say women need to stop enjoying such entertainment because it creates unrealistic expectations. Most people can tell fantasy from reality. Those that can't likely wouldn't be happy with reality anyway.

4) Couldn't you use the same argument to tell people not to sleep around so much? Too much sex and you won't enjoy it as much.

5) watching people have sex sucks your manly confidence? Unless that's a metaphor I'm not buying it.

If there were concrete problems that could be at least linked somewhat to porn use I'd give it some credence. Like higher rates of spousal abuse linked to porn use, something like that. But all this guy describes is his personal problems with it. I will assume those are true for him. But they don't seem accurate for most other people.

above. I guess I hadn't ever thought of some of this in that way before. My opinion was completely uniformed, which is basically the worst kind of opinion. I hadn't even begun to think of it in terms of what it might mean to handicapped men for example. And that got me thinking about where the "anti" arguments may be coming from, probably the religious right who view so many things through a bigoted prism. So really I guess I do need to take a new view of something I know nothing about. I'm sure it isn't black and white, there must be a continuum from positive to negative in the industry and among users. So probably no one right or wrong. I do think sunshine is the best disinfectant, allowing the industry to go mainstream and be accepted would help cure the problems for workers.

My personal prospective on porn is that I simply have no use for it. At this stage in my life my sexual activity is equal to my desire for sex. So I have no use for masturbation or masturbation aids. However I have a libertarian stance on the subject. Even if you can make the case that porn somehow produces erotoxins that destroys or appropriates 'healthy' brain cells and ruin people's lives, so what? Maybe these people have just decided that life in general sucks and at least such things provide an outlet, albeit short-lived from life's general sufferring. Even if you can make the case that porn is an addiction, or compulsion or whatever, the reality is that it isn't as hard to break such things as some people make it out to be. Even hard physical addictions only require short periods of intervention to break. The reason people return to them is because a certain segment of the population is prone to chronic addiction. If they weren't compelled to porn they could just as easily be alcoholics or drug addicts. That doesn't mean everyone who does these things are going to ruin their life with them, and it doesn't mean that someone who ruins their life with porn wouldn't have ruined it with something else.

The problem I have with anti-pornographers of any stripe is that if I don't speak up for other people's vices, I can't really complain much when nobody stands up for mine. I like to drink whiskey and I like to smoke my pipe and I don't really care much for controlling assholes who try to curb those activities regardless of how good their intentions are. If I can't do what I want with my own bag of meat, regardless of personal consequences, what real freedoms do I really have? If more people were as concerned with making society more pleasurable rather than what someone else is doing with their body, maybe there wouldn't be as much demand for simple pleasures.

The very best you can say is that he makes the same flaw as any other anti-vice argument which is that people are incapable of moderation. The reality is that people can and do. The worst you can say is that he needs to give more thought into minding his own fucking business.

This is very insulting to women and feminists.

that's my guess.

those who are intolerant of other people's cultures and Dutch liberals.

I will put any group's (ANY GROUP'S, you hear me cooking and baking????) just-walked-in-the-door to say some random shit disruptor troll repeat zombie crowd, up against ours. Any day of the week.

Sure, any troll can come in with bullshit blargalumph about Rush Says and Hannity Says and Coulter Says or Obama's Secret Muslim Barf Certificant... or belabor us with tired, cherry picked polls of endlessly concern-causing doom...

but who gets the... not the merely weird, out of sight or deranged? The cream of the strange?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11144380#post30

to compare the IPs of these throwaway troll accounts to those of existing members.

can't argue with you there.

that was personally tombstoned by Skinner - complete with lengthy explanation of why - early this summer still reappears around here from time to time, much like a belch from a bad onion.

Of little wooden shoes