Whenever I see articles like this, I see the Nanny state rearing its head, and the rights and freedoms of some individuals being removed to prevent someone else from being "hurt", or "offended".

The realities of life are that men and women are wired differently, porn like prostitution has existed for millennia, and the difference now is that with the internet and broadband it is far more available, so much so that to "do" anything about it would require draconian measures and a level of censorship as yet unseen, and probably impossible.

Secondly the rights of the men who are single and not "offending" anyone, to access legal material is difficult to remove. Womens' rights can be achieved without removing others' rights.

"Anti-porn activist and researcher, Gail Dines similarly observes"
Sorry, citing research done by an "Anti-porn activist" doesn't help your case as that data is most likely biased, Like getting research done by a slave owner and researcher reporting how great slavery is for slaves.

If 'sexual fidelity' is to be defined as not viewing porn, then why not go a little further and define it as not thinking about other partners? In fact why not prevent men in a relationship from masturbating at all? That way all our relationships would end, we would all die out, and nobody would have to worry about porn any more.

Seriously, anti-porn campaigners like this show a distressing inability to distinguish between real life and fiction. Porn is pictures, words and video: relationships are with people.

I “intuitively” agree with Petra Bueskens, that it’s difficult to rationalise the porn epidemic as anything but detrimental to families and society in the long term. Though one has to balance that concern with the perennial reality that family and social mores have never been more than a façade concealing the “deviant” appetites and practices that run rife within, whether repressed or realised. It could even be that the porn industry is facilitating a mass catharsis not only of pent-up sexual energy, but of the general hypocrisy and pretence that structure our lives at every level. At bottom the article betokens a shocked and conservative sensibility, in denial of the “perverse” carnal drives that all the evidence suggests are “normal”, and bent on preserving the bog-standard institution of marriage. Incongruously, she depicts the institution she wants to preserve as a one-sided affair wherein the male uses, abuses and bludges on the female, domestically, while evincing no real capacity for “love”, sensitivity, empathy or fidelity, being incapable of empathising with her needs. Women can fake orgasms but men fake whole relationships, as the joke goes. I’d argue that they’re both fakes and throw out the challenge to the author that perhaps it’s time she gave up on the institution of marriage. She makes a compelling case that it is and has always been a dysfunctional, unequal, vulnerable and abusive arrangement, tortuously riven-through and tied together, I’d add, by imperious, passive-manipulative and feeble (children) power-plays respectively.
Families are cooperative ventures and I suspect healthy marriages and families are rare and constraint-based on mutual respect and consideration, rather than domination, authority and rebellion. The trouble is, the successful nuclear family subsists in an increasingly hostile society—presided over more and more by indifferent market forces rather than state regulation—devoted to cultivating and catering to individual appetite and general prodigality (salubriously promoted as “freedom”, self-discovery and self-expression), rather than cohesive, modest and conservative family units. Even “healthy” families are bound to succumb in a society devoted to peeling away the ideological layers in order to tap the (im)pure, incoherent desire within. Porn’s “freedom”.

Basically porn would not exist if there was not a market for it.

The market is created because there is a mismatch between supply and demand.

Ummm, here's a thought, Ms Bueskens.

"Porn hurts women, so say the partners of users"

How about the partners explain this to their men. You know, talk about it? I know, it is a horribly old-fashioned idea, that people should take some responsibility upon themselves instead of expecting "the gumment" to do something about their grievances. But heck, it's worth a shot, isn't it? Maybe both of them would learn something.

And I found this an interesting statistic.

"The porn industry is gigantic – its profits are larger than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, and Apple combined (yes, that's right, combined), with worldwide profits currently posited at US 100 billion dollars."

I didn't see a reference for this. Probably just an oversight. It would be fascinating to see those numbers explained - it might give a clue as to what is considered "porn". And if the profits are $100 billion, the mind boggles at the revenue involved...

'In fact why not prevent men in a relationship from masturbating at all?'

Well, that's really the main game isn't it. Sure porn isn't necessary, but neither are women's sex aids, which one could say reduce men to just a penis. No arguments about women feeling 'entitled' to a penis because they happen to use a phallic object to get off. I wager that if it was found that men in relationships felt threatened by vibes and dildos the feminist reaction would be 'oh the poor dears really need to grow up', and 'stop controlling women's sexuality!'.

Lets face it, the whole debate IS all about control. The feminist line is about 'entitlement' to women's bodies, but I see it more as about 'entitlement' of men to express their own sexuality, engage in sexual fantasy independent of their partner, or to have a sexual outlet not controlled by their partner.

'When this changes the baseline of expectation for what women (should) look like and do'

Yet there is no concern about the romantic expectations on men based on women's fiction and movies?

'intractable (though important) questions such as: "Will it turn him into a rapist?"'

Nice!

'men who are running from sex – sex that is conducted in the context of respectful, egalitarian relationships with women who know what they want, and enjoy intimacy and orgasm'

If anything I would say there is a desire from men for more sexually assertive and adventurous women, and porn provides this fantasy. Men like watching women get off.

Perhaps it is intimacy of a respectful partner the men are missing, but they value the vows they made and wont cheat. My point is why is it assumed that generally we have a respectful, egalitarian women capable and interested in intimacy in the first place. It is assumed the women are ready and capable to engage in this 'healthy' (ie. fulfilling all female romantic needs) relationship, but the men are lacking (feeling 'entitled' to having some of their relationship needs met).

finally a bit truth spoken. Thanks Petra. Sexual abuse of kids is also a price paid so that people have be self gratified by being perverts. No doubt there will be many in denial.

Hi Runner
I think you are right and a lot of those in denial have already posted. They seem to have no idea about what the article was about. It is interesting this desire to dominate and objectify women by men afraid of losing their "entitlement" to be heartless gits - oops "real men." I've always noted the weakness of macho men. Living in Portugal in the 70's made me realise this. They are afraid of being themselves and have to ruthlessly destroy any semblance of "softness" as it is feminine and therefore weak. Instead I find the really attractive men are not obsessed with themselves and their "rights" but are people who are funny, brave, caring, strong, compassionate and great to share life with. I think the porn culture is really detrimental to men and women. Both men and women enjoy sex and it should not be about men's fear of themselves and the other turning into cruelty and harshness. The increasing global use of women and children to satisfy men's appetites shows how parasitic and disgusting these so called red blooded men are.

Humans are deviant, lustful creatures at the best of times. Porn fills their minds with more temptation, more titillation, more evil.

The effect on the fragile, male-female relationship called marriage is disastrous. Porn gives us new horizons, ones that will eventually destroy us.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

If it is true that the porn industry generates billions of dollars in annual profit, could the author please indicate how much of that income comes from women watching porn?

' Porn gives us new horizons'

So if there was no porn, people wouldn't fantasise about anything other than making love missionary by candle light.

Human sexuality is diverse, and fantasy is fantasy, and most people are happy for their fantasies to remain just that.

This whole business of 'objectifying' is bunkum. When people look at an image, they are looking at a representation of a woman. An object. The author concedes this when she talks about 'real women', and 'real life' women. You cant objectify a representation of a person, it is already an object. It has zip to do with men's relations with actual women they encounter in their lives.

Similarly porn actors aren't objectified any more than other actors. They are playing a character in fantasy.

The whole porn argument here is misandric in that it assumes men incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality, but assumes women are capable of deciphering that romantic fiction and romantic movies are not like real life. Any guy who takes his lady friend to a romantic movie will know how women respond in the bedroom that night. If she's thinking of Brad Pitt sometimes does it really matter?

I'm not a particularly macho man, no interest in cars for a start, and haven't done a hard days physical work in my life. I have no desire to 'dominate' or 'objectify' anyone. But I like porn. What's not to like? Who doesn't want to see beautiful women naked and engaged in sexual activity? My partner enjoys it too. In the end its just sex, what's so bad about the depiction of sexual activity?

We live in the most voyeuristic society where fat people have mental breakdowns on TV every night, people stick cameras in front of distraught mother's who've just lost their child, we televise funerals, but filming two people enjoying sex is somehow Bad Voyeurism?

Every discussion on porn equates all porn with rape fantasy (entirely valid, and a recurrent or dominant sexual fantasy for many *women*) or aggression or violence. Sure it exists, but it's like demonising food because some people like McDonalds.

'Even “healthy” families are bound to succumb'

Please yourself squeersy but I really have more faith in love. You're a romantic you are.

'Incongruously, she depicts the institution she wants to preserve as a one-sided affair wherein the male uses, abuses and bludges on the female, domestically, while evincing no real capacity for “love”, sensitivity, empathy or fidelity, being incapable of empathising with her needs.'

Yep, the standard picture painted of men in relationships from any feminist worth her salt. Like I said, she assumes the women in the relationships with these porn loving men are bastions of virtue.

Could it be that feminists cant comprehend men categorising and compartmentalising different aspects of their lives. I think there is an element of women incorrectly thinking that for men to ever separate lust and desire from love, they must be inhuman, and this state of separation is a permanent feature of their sexuality and being.

Sometimes men want to quickly get one off watching porn, other times they want tantric sex with their wives, sometimes they have some kind of maddonna complex with their wives on a pedestal and the wife really wants a good aggressive f&ck but the guy's worried she'll say he's objectifying her and being disrespectful. That's how I imagine relationships with feminist women would go..

I suspect even for lillian though, no matter how much she is in denial, when it all boils down to it animal attraction will out win over a feminist SNAG.

Every relationship where the woman is upset about porn I'd bet it's highly likely the relationship died long ago. It's the path of least resistance;Her happy she doesn't have to have sex with a guy she doesn't really like much anyway, and him happy to have a sexual outlet without cheating on her and both probably just staying around for the kids.

>>men's widespread patronage of the sex-industry, including porn, and increasingly "teen porn" and, more disturbingly, "kiddy porn" (what is in fact the filmed sexual assault of children) is itself a form of rape<<

Well if all these men are guilty of rape then it is Ms. Bueskens' civic duty to report them to the police. It would put a LOT of pressure of the prison system: any charges laid would probably result in a conviction because there is so much video evidence to support any prosecutions. But that wouldn't be a for a while: I imagine the police would spend a long time sifting through that video evidence :).

Of course that's only if the police and the courts share Ms. Bueskens' peculiar conviction that porn is rape. I bet Judges watch porn too - and if it's trial by jury the case is doomed.

Child pornography is an entirely different matter: Ms. Bueskens' rather desperate attempt to conflate it with regular porn consumption isn't going to do her any favours. Men's patronage of "kiddy porn" is not widespread: pedophiles are a rare aberration and nobody likes them. Even in maximum security prisons full of thugs and creeps and sickos the pedophiles are the guys that everybody hates. Comparing them to guys that whack off over porn is clutching at straws.

Cheers,

Tony

"Every relationship where the woman is upset about porn I'd bet it's highly likely the relationship died long ago."

Well, that's the answer, folks. The previous commenter has straightened us all out. Porn = good! Anti-porn = bad.

Humans are such pathetic creatures.

Well apart from the feminists who just hate men, the real problem is opposite sexes are looking at, but just not seeing each other.

When couples get together he is shacking up with a lover, she is making home with a meal ticket & father to be. The pair are at such cross purposes that it is a wonder any pairing ever lasts.

A case history. As a young bloke I was a member of a car club, based on an obscure English sports car. We did the Sunday & weekend drive thing, & a bit of motor sport, but also went skying, water skying sailing & such like together.

Barry was a young bloke, previously much the single, turned up one day with a girl. They were all over each other like a rash, couldn't keep their hands off each other. She was great girl, a bit overawed by the group at first but she quickly became one of the girls, & a regular on our trips. She even started competing in some low level motor sport.

A couple of years later, after they were married we saw less & less of them. Quite a few years later Barry reappeared, single, & into everything. He turned up at my place one might, looking for a shoulder to cry on, the divorce was painful.

Continued.

Continued

It all came out. She was his first real girlfriend, & the attraction, & the sex were wonderful, with her the instigator as often as he. Somehow, after a couple of years of marriage she had changed. Having bought a house, money was short, & most time was spent at home, but she was distant & disinterested in sharing.

Another couple of years & unless he put in hours of seduction, as if on a first date, any sex was grudgingly provided, & intimacy no longer existed. She no longer ever instigated any intimacy.

Deciding this was all too much trouble, he withdrew, to see if she would ever come to him. She didn't. A little later she shot through with another bloke. One of the grounds in her divorce application was that there had been no intimacy in the relationship for some years.

Is it any wonder that some men turn to porn, & how many women chase their men off to it.

Jon J and Shadow Minister,

Pornography use ouside of a committed relationship does harm. It harms by supporting an industry that demeans and abuses women, inside and outside of the industry. Female sex workers have paltry opportunities and are often the victims of early sexual abuse. And I don't beleive you would advocate pornography as a carreer for your mothers, wives or daughters. The images that you "enjoy" as a single guy linger like toxic sludge when you finally find a woman you love and want to be with.

Pornography depicts sexual scenerios that simply are not real, yet it creates an expectation that reality should comply with these outrageous scenes. Nearly 97 percent of pornographic videos portray anal sex, yet in polls of random samplings of women, less than 3 percent desire it. There is no magical disconnect between what you see in pornography and what you expect with actual partners. Pornography tells you "how to do it", just like McDonald's tells you what to eat. It doesn't make it right, or healthy.

To equate the anti-pornography stance with the mind policing of personal fantasy (thinking of other women) is sophomoric. When you are using your own brain power to think erotically you are using your nuerological energy in creative and uniquely personal ways. When you sit like a pig in front of a screen and have "sex" served up for you in HD, with NO room for your imagination, you are following the pied piper of pornography like a moron.

Please explain to me how you are going to relate to an actual woman after having poisened your nueropathways with material that was created for profit by a billion dollar industry. Where in pornography does it teach you the interpersonal nuance of responding to the touch of another human being in a way that is unique to that moment and to that woman.

And yes, erotic images have always been around, but they were limited representations of sexual activity not technicolor close ups of altered physiology at rapid speed with infinite varieties of otherwise not imagined images.

Houellebecq,
When I said < Even “healthy” families are bound to succumb in a society devoted to peeling away the ideological layers in order to tap the (im)pure, incoherent desire within> I used inverted commas to indicate the “dubious” nature of “healthy” families—that is that their uprightness illustrates their credulous subscription to mores that are pure mythology. No family evolves its own morality, it partakes of “social” norms and morality, generally whether it complies or transgresses. Morality isn’t based on universals, but on cooperation and mutual benefits dressed-up as universals. Most of us don’t think this through because compliance is maintained and propagated much more effectively by fostering norms and taboos as God-givens—couching them in terms of “God’s law” and shrouding them in ritual. We don’t think them through, not because we can’t, but from force of habit, and because we dare not, more from existential than reverential fear, though we all suspend disbelief more or less. Earnest compliance is a marker of the subject’s naïve enthralment with all this, but it can’t be maintained, the personal battle between good and evil, if the family’s dissolute. Neither can Brady Bunch type families maintain the pretence if society’s dissolute, and this is what I meant, though I don’t use terms like dissolute and evil credulously. Libertarians will flatter themselves that porn is “freedom”, but the danger is that society requires ideology, not just for the sake of cooperation, but to maintain illusions of innocence, love, purpose etc.
As for the ladies the author here seeks to defend, with their laced-up moralities, inhibitions and sheer credulousness, they can’t possibly compete with porn-stars for the attentions of their men, who use sex as an outlet from stifling social convention. To this extent I agree that porn’s freedom, but really it’s just another order of compliance, commodified freedom based on exploitation.

Tony Lavis,
I don't believe paedophiles are a rare aberration; disturbingly, I think like rape it's potential in all men, it just wants the right circumstances and "freedom".

Mychoice,

Perhaps we could improve society further by getting rid of more legal, but unhealthy choices.

Ban
All alchohol, incl wine, beer etc,
non decaffeinated Coffee,
Fatty foods,
mobile phones,
Gambling.
Ban all the above from TV programs and only screen "uplifting programs"

Make prostitution, one night stands, and extra marital affairs illegal.
close all establishments after 10pm as lack of sleep is distressing.

I am not pro pornography, I AM against interfering busybodies trying to micro manage every aspect of human behaviour. There are lots of things that we do that are not ideal, but provide, entertainment, etc.

Live with it.

'disturbingly, I think like rape it's potential in all men, it just wants the right circumstances and "freedom".'

That's pretty creepy squeers. Speaking for myself I have absolutely no attraction to sexually immature females, and I can think of no circumstances where I could.

'credulous subscription to mores that are pure mythology.'

I don't subscribe to any mythology, I'm not even married, I just love my partner, and have decided I want. You can say what I want is influenced by conditioning, but it's basically just an intelligent cause and effect observation. I just value the relationship with my partner over lustful desires with other people. I value not seeing her hurt. She stacks up pretty well against most of the which helps I suppose.

In summary it's nothing to do with morality, just me knowing what's in my best interests. I also indulge in romancing my partner as I enjoy the dance. Not everything is mandated by some kind of morality. Humans enjoy intimate connections.

'they can’t possibly compete with porn-stars for the attentions of their men, who use sex as an outlet from stifling social convention.'

I agree to some extent some are escaping, as women escape into romance novels. Whether they're escaping some enforced morality I would argue against. Probably escaping their own emotional vulnerability more like it.

Anyway it's not always so complicated. Men like to see beautiful naked woman. Simple story really.

David G what page are you on man. 'Porn = good! Anti-porn = bad'. How did you go in comprehension at school?

'Humans are such pathetic creatures.'

Are you human? Self deprecating much?

Tony,

'Ms. Bueskens' rather desperate attempt to conflate it with regular porn consumption'

It's par for the course in feminist discourse. See they hate the stereotyping but all feminists deep down are with squeers and think all men are rapists.

mychoice,

'Pornography depicts sexual scenerios that simply are not real'

That's what I've been arguing. It's fantasy.

'yet it creates an expectation that reality should comply with these outrageous scenes.'

Like Wuthering Heights?

I believe there's not too much wrong with porn; always providing it reflects real life and educates, on how to please a partner. Speaking as an adult mature male; let me say that sex with the woman of your dreams and the love of your life is a truly beautiful delightful experience, magnified a million fold, when you know that it includes a mind-blowing orgasm in and for your partner.
This is always made more probable, when the woman is on top and taking the active role. WOW!
Tired and overstressed partners usually just want to go to bed and sleep; and this is so, even when a man is turned on, standing to attention and ready.
If you men folk would like to see less frustration and more "physical" activity, greet your partner with a really nice meal you have personally prepared with your own hands. Run a nice warm bath for her replete with bath oils, a nice gentle neck massage and perhaps a glass of bubbly. You might even be very pleasantly surprised where that leads?
Make sure you are shaved and showered and smell nice; rather than say reeking of BO, alcohol or tobacco. Women are all too often entirely turned off by foul language, which empathises and underlines disrespect and for the most part is simply learned behaviour, which can just as easily be unlearned.
Nothing is too good for that special love of your life!
Finally let me add; there is something wrong with men who masturbate, when a normal heterosexual relationship is possible. And the divorce rates would be a lot lower, if we just concentrated on acts of kindness, instead of the usual bellyaching or endless control freak criticality.
Finally, and this is aimed at you single men, who are all alone without a real woman to hold in your arms. Sob!
There is nothing really wrong with pornography as a how to education tool.
I just wish they'd reintroduce the pussy, put back the pubes and much more natural representation of normal arousal and climaxing. Rhrosty.

Squeers,

I was just thinking about how it wasn't a rare aberration for women to sink to any lengths of depravity in order to exercise power over men. I was thinking that while men have a natural sense of justice and are unwilling to cross some lines in the pursuit of power, women don't enjoy the same natural restraints. For women, there is nothing sacred, they go in for the kill, they want to destroy to very soul. Then I read your post:

"I don't believe paedophiles are a rare aberration; disturbingly, I think like rape it's potential in all men, it just wants the right circumstances and "freedom"."

It just shows what a mistake it was for men to assume that women could be equal to men. Like children, they don't know when to stop - when to draw the line. As for you, what a wretched and pathetic creature you are.

There's also the issue of people becoming mesmerised by Pornography and online activity generally, it's the same effect that poker machines have on some people, they'll sit for hours unable to move from the screen, a lot of depressed people spend much of their lives online.
I don't have any experience with people who've become obsessed with porn to that extent , but a few people I know have become addicted to gambling, Facebook or online games and the behaviour is usually a manifestation of depresssion or anxiety, the "zoning out" keeps the real world and it's pain away.
I don't really know where this article is going if it fails to include this perspective on the use of pornography, presumably it's over use by men is seen as the real problem and I'd argue that the high rates of depression among men would be the most significant factor at play here.
The pursuit of ever harder and more degrading content is as far as I understand it usually a matter of "how low can I go", how much can I validate my feelings of worthlessness and self hatred through plumbing the depths of depravity.
This is one explanation of the rise in females (and I suspect many males) being caught with child exploitation material, it's a downward spiral caused by chronic mental problems and lowered inhibitions due to the drug and alchohol abuse which all too often accompanies depression, not so much related to sexuality at a basic level.

And while I'm on the pathetic and wretched meme, let me add the author to that list too. What unadulterated rubbish.

A psychoanalyst and a lecturer in sociology AND feminist studies. Does it get any worse? Let's hope that when Abbott wins the next election he absolutely guts university Arts' faculties. Surely, no article could better prove what a complete waste of time sociology and feminism is.

<That's pretty creepy squeers. Speaking for myself I have absolutely no attraction to sexually immature females, and I can think of no circumstances where I could.>
Have I said I have such desires?

In the context of my post, Houellebecq, I was saying that social morality is what prevents many men from over-stepping the mark, ergo that if morality is sufficiently compromised anything goes. That’s surely why during war and upheaval, rape and gratuitous violence, perpetrated against civilians, is the norm (we cover it in heroics and patriotism)—though driven as much by peer-pressure as individual viciousness. A gang of teenagers is capable of nearly anything, while its individuals might be otherwise harmless. That’s not to say that non-subscription to social mores is sufficient in itself to make an indiscriminate rapist—as I said, subscription is generally based on the suspension of disbelief rather than conviction. There are other factors involved, none of which, I’m afraid, redound to men’s credit, or their chivalrous “ideas” about themselves. The other factors include the imagination—and the incoherent desire I mentioned that drives it—opportunity and immunity. These are the factors that unite when institutionalised abuses take place, such as for instance within the church, the very seat of morality. Within family’s too, one in four children is victim to sexual abuse, no doubt an improvement on the incidence of it in days gone by, when the master of the house enjoyed virtual immunity. These factors all line up with internet porn; imagination, desire, opportunity, immunity. Add to this that what token morality still obtains can be rationalised since the sex is vicarious. But internet porn is like any other commodity, it’s competitive. Just as food manufactures perpetually add more sugar and salt or another layer of chocolate, porn producers are constantly in search of the ultimate novelty. But there is no ultimate novelty for “incoherent desire”, it’s an empty place that can be endlessly plied.
Anyway, I could just as easily boast my manly credentials, or talk sh!t like dane, but I prefer digging beneath the bullsh!t and challenging complacency.

>>I don't believe paedophiles are a rare aberration; disturbingly, I think like rape it's potential in all men, it just wants the right circumstances and "freedom".<<

That's a novel hypothesis Squeers. I'm afraid that's the best I can say about it. Do you have any evidence to support such a claim or is it just a random supposition?

>>See they hate the stereotyping but all feminists deep down are with squeers and think all men are rapists.<<

I doubt that's the case. I'm always suspicious of sweeping generalisations and there are lot of women who call themselves feminists: they can't all be crazy people. There are probably feminists who love porn.

>>Pornography depicts sexual scenerios that simply are not real, yet it creates an expectation that reality should comply with these outrageous scenes.<<

Just like non-pornographic movies and television depict an abundance of scenarios that are simply are not real, yet create an expectation that reality should comply with these outrageous scenes. If rational and well adjusted adults sit down to watch Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull they will develop the unshakable belief that a man can survive a nuclear blast by taking shelter in a refrigerator even though the feat is in complete defiance of the laws of physics. All of them. Without fail. No matter how intelligent or educated they are.

Or maybe not. Maybe they retain their critical faculties during non-pornographic movies but those faculties mysteriously and inexplicably switch off when watching porn. That must be it.

TBC

>>Pornography tells you "how to do it", just like McDonald's tells you what to eat. It doesn't make it right, or healthy.<<

Just because McDonald's tells you what to eat do you obey? If Starbucks told you to jump off a cliff would you do it? People are not mindless drones. They make their own choices. McDonald's might tell me that their new improved gourmet McWagyu burger is going to taste fantastic but experience tells me that it well be just as greasy and unpalatable as the rest of their crap and I'll give it a miss.

Watching porn doesn't automatically want to make people emulate what they see on the screen. I've watched my fair share and it's common for men to shave their pubic hair. Porn watching gentlemen: how many of you have ever felt the desire to wave around a razor blade in close proximity to your old fella?

>>Where in pornography does it teach you the interpersonal nuance of responding to the touch of another human being in a way that is unique to that moment and to that woman.<<

Is that actually something that can be taught? In any fashion?

Cheers,

Tony

What are we actually talking about.

As I understand it, much of what is called porn is actually home made video footage made by couples indulging in sex. Is this the subject matter, or is it something more professionally produced & marketed.

It would make some difference to the effect it would have in the participants.

Hasbeen,
There are sites for every type of special interest or sexual taste imaginable.
I wonder if the author believes a site featuring photos of women's feet or women dressed in a particular style of blouse dangerous just because some people find it exciting and possibly masturbate while viewing it?
Some guys like to fantasise over Lingerie catalogs or women's fashion magazines, some guys just use their imagination, as a lad I kept a modest collection of "Pin ups" under my mattress, everyone has an individual set of preferences.

squeers,

'manly' I can't believe you use the word. You are nothing but a pathetic patsy.

If you have paedophilic urges or feel concerned about your potential to rape, you can go and get psychoanalysed by your equally pathetic feminist academic friends. It will just confirm their prejudices anyway. But don't tar all men with your own insecurities.

I'll say one thing for you mad lefties - at least you had it right with re-education camps. I'd like to take you and your trendy psyochbabble man-hater and sentence you both to 10 year hard labour in a mine with no chance of parole (or a latte) for 10 years. Surely that would knock some sense into your febrile brains.

Dane,
Under Brezhnev they also used psychiatry as a tool of repression, they'd commit anyone they didn't like to a mental hospital, drug them, torture and kill them, oh how the Lefties love psychiatry.

dane,

Regarding your odious excuse for a post above: from where I'm standing, your brand of right-wing macho slander is probably the reason feminism got going in the first place.

Groteseque!

I'd be disturbed too, Squeers,if I thought that way.

>>I don't believe paedophiles are a rare aberration; disturbingly, I think like rape it's potential in all men, it just wants the right circumstances and "freedom".<<

Have you thought about therapy?

Incidentally, I'd still appreciate some further justification for these numbers claimed by the author:

"The porn industry is gigantic – its profits are larger than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, and Apple combined (yes, that's right, combined), with worldwide profits currently posited at US 100 billion dollars."

Or are they simply plucked from the air, as so many of the depictions of the "typical male" seem to be?

Actually, it's interesting to see a few "blokes" here rounding on Squeers because he has the temerity to suggest that man is primarily a carnal being - and that when social systems fail (such as in war) then man's carnal desires are more likely to overtake his social conditioning.

I get the impression that you guys are seeking to sublimate that proposition by using Squeers as a scapegoat - it's fairly obvious, in fact.

A psychologist would probably have a field day - more with you guys than with Squeers.

Whilst we await the author's reply to the question Pericles raised, I was curious enough to try some internet research…

There seemed to be broad consensus that global annual revenues are in the region of $100 billion.

This article by Dr Elliott Morss seemed to be considered and detailed enough to be insightful – including links to source data – http://www.morssglobalfinance.com/the-economics-of-the-global-entertainment-industry/

Whatever the comings and goings of the charge that 'porn hurts women' – the estimate that global annual revenues from prostitution are four times that of porn at $400 billion seems to me to say much more about both genders.

Caveat vendor?

A glass of wine a few times is not harmful, but 2 bottles a night is. The question is whether the harm suffered by the minority requires complete abstinence by everyone.

Porn is the same. What we have is the strait laced moral crusaders trying to enforce a total ban as they did with prohibition in the 20's. Given the internet's many loopholes, this ban is likely to meet with even less success if attempted.

Poirot I suspect that a big part of the response to Squeers comments is driven by being utterly over the standard feminist portrayal of male as selfish undisciplined brute who must be contained and controlled, woman as wise selfless nurturing goddess who must be released from the shackels of the masculine world which she has played no part in shaping (or if she did it was by way of cooperating with her oppressor). Themes which seem to form the underlying context for this article.

I don't like those responses to Squeers but share the 'so over it' feeling of how my gender is all to often portrayed.

I've got no idea how likely most men are to have a sexual interest in children or forced sex if raised outside a social context where those things are taboo's. Clearly history shows that there have been cases where rape during war has been common but soldier in historical war situations have not been men going about day to day lives of lives with family etc, they are generally men who've been heavily conditioned by their circumstances through some very harsh conditions.

Extrapolating from extremes has some big dangers.

R0bert

RObert,

From a female perspective, I find it perplexing (though enlightening) to read the "reactions" to Squeers' posts. It seems that the stock-standard unthinking and defensive response is to allude to the possibility of Squeers' as being deviant - simply because some men are "so over it".

I suggest that the responses are not only hitting below the belt, but also indicative of a lack of self-reflexive examination by men who wish to avoid rumination on the intersection between carnality and social intelligence.

I would prefer to look up to you guys, but what I'm witnessing would be more at home in a school playground.

Tony Lavis,
I said, <I don't believe paedophiles are a rare aberration; disturbingly, I think like rape it's potential in all men, it just wants the right circumstances and "freedom".>

"Context"! I meant that beneath the civilised and genteel persona we all try to construct there are more primal impulses, governed by the cultural/moral sophistications we adopt and impose upon them. A wanton rapist or paedophile is one who has rejected the constraints incumbent upon him as a social being in a nihilistic effort to pursue the ultimate satisfaction of incoherent-desire (the behaviour can also of course be the product of trauma and mental disorder). This was the motivation behind the Marquis de Sade's debauches, and the predicate of his pornographic fiction. It was also Wilde's central lesson, learned from his decadent aestheticism.
So when Houellebecq naively says <Speaking for myself I have absolutely no attraction to sexually immature females, and I can think of no circumstances where I could>. He's speaking from a self-secure position within the civilised/ethical (bourgeois) raiment he's manufactured for himself, the emperor's clothes we all wear. At bottom, though, we're all animals and capable of animalistic behaviour; indeed everything else (though not quite, imo) is ideological layering/self-censorship.
Thus in my first post I suggested the danger of, "a society devoted to peeling away the ideological layers". This is the logical doctrine/anarchism inherent in neo-liberalism, not because it's adherents believe in or could handle this kind of "freedom" (turpitude), but in order to secure the market and maximally profit in a morally deregulated/disenfranchised world. It's not a political agenda, but an economic one.
I expect there are already liberal-minded proponents of porn who argue it should be uncensored and unregulated, since it's "only virtual". Even child-pornography could be rationalised further by replacing the real victims with animated verisimilitude. It's only social-morality that currently objects; meanwhile, social norms have never before been subjected to such fundamental scepticism.
There are a great many voyeurs out there much less morally-upstanding than Houellebecq, and it's surely a concern that their primal drives are being cultivated and liberated in this way?

Come now Poirot, read the original quote.

' don't believe paedophiles are a rare aberration; disturbingly, I think like rape it's potential in *all* men, it just wants the right circumstances and "freedom".'

I think it's fair enough for people to be offended by squeers opining it's just a few laws and morals stopping ALL men from becoming kiddie fiddlers. Which is why I stated, 'speaking for myself'.

He later softened to...

'I was saying that social morality is what prevents *many* men from over-stepping the mark, ergo that if morality is sufficiently compromised anything goes.'

I accept the retraction and give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Even squeers can go all ACA on us sometimes.

Regardless, rape is one thing, being attracted to children is another. Though I understand in todays vernacular paedophilia now seems to include sexually mature 'children' under 18. It's not the original meaning of the word.

Anyway, my point is 'man's carnal desires are more likely to overtake his social conditioning.'

Sure, I agree. But there has to be a carnal desire, and I don't believe a desire exists for most men for undeveloped children.

Tony,

' there are lot of women who call themselves feminists: they can't all be crazy people'

Well, generally when I say feminists, I'm talking about feminist social commentators. Most of your general female population are quite sane and pragmatic and reasonable (They don't have to create outrage for advertising revenue and peer kudos I suppose) , with the exception of the odd gender studies student. Glad you got the irony of my fighting stereotypes with stereotypes. They are all nuts though.

I agree, as do most men, with the simple tenets of equal pay, equal rights etc, it's when they go off on one assigning motivations to men's behaviour, and denouncing any responsibility of women ever in any social situation it gets amusing.

WmTrevor,

Only stupid people pay for porn. There is just so much free stuff around.

Jay,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13565#234581

Fantastic post. For problem users it's just a drug of flashing lights and not even about sex

An interesting question for squeers is whether this social conditioning applies for women. Does he believe women would rape men given the right conditions?

Poirot,

'It seems that the stock-standard unthinking and defensive response is to allude to the possibility of Squeers' as being deviant'

Not at all. He said all men, so he is including himself, and he has decided on that view based on an extrapolation of his own identified possible attraction to children. It's an understandable conclusion that a desire must be there, and it's an exercise in transference by squeers.

It's like a racist saying, 'but everyone deep down hates wogs'.

If there was no attraction, why would he consider such a thing. Relax squeers, it's merely the principle of the thing, you did call me bourgeois, but as I said, I think you have been seduced by hyperbowl.

See, if squeers said if there was no laws or morals, we would release our carnal desires on Derryn Hinch or Amanda Vandstone, then I would also retort with the same argument. ie. Speak for yourself squeers.

Hasbeen, your two comments about Barry are pure gold. They should be read carefully by every bloke on this thread.

That women are fickle is well-known. That she who refused Barry intimacy then accused him of failing to engage in it demonstrates that where conscience is concerned, women, in the main, have none!

Thanks for the 'Barry' story. Caveat Emptor.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

Come now, Houellie,

Note the word "potential"...not "certainty" or inevitability".

Nup - what took place here was a bunch of men getting indignant. And, in order to ease their offended sensibilities, they chose to tar and feather the author of their discomfort with ignominy.

I thought this sort of behaviour was the province of teenage girls. It would have been just as easy to argue in opposition to Squeers' views without casting personal aspersions his way.

Squeers, so people should be locked up for looking at pictures of sex, is that what you're saying? But if not, doesn't that mean you're in favour of the dreaded bougeois neoliberal freedom to choose?

Thanks for doing the legwork, WmTrevor.

>>There seemed to be broad consensus that global annual revenues are in the region of $100 billion.<<

I simply couldn't find any number that was not merely repeating a figure they had heard somewhere. There was one site that had the $100 billion revenue figure (which itself is a very long way from the $100 billion profit that Ms. Bueskins invited us to entertain), together with a category breakdown, but regrettably it did not disclose any sources either. The categories selected were themselves quite interesting - "Exotic Dance Clubs" are included, but once again, no insight into whether the dollar amounts included drinks, meals etc. as well as "services".

http://www.familysafemedia.com/pornography_statistics.html

I guess we'll never know.

One note of interest is the breakdown by country, with 72% of these revenues estimated to be derived from only three nations - China, Korea and Japan. Per capita, the winner was Korea at $527 per annum - so next time you see statistics on the population of South Korea broken down by age and sex, you will understand the reason.

For those that way inclined, the site provides much detail of where to get hold of pornography, who produces it, and how many 8 -16 year olds go looking for it online (90%!!), "most while doing homework".

It doesn't say whether this was research in order to complete the homework, or whether the kids were just goofing off. More significantly, of course, it illustrates that looking for online porn between the ages of eight and sixteen is most certainly not an exclusively male activity... even if the male contingent was 100%, it still means that 80% of girls between those ages do the same stuff.

Altogether, though, a most unconvincing set of figures. I wonder if the author genuinely does have access to some real numbers. If not, she shows a cavalier disregard for the value of actual facts, an attitude that - one can opine - necessarily infects the rest of her homily.

Poirot,

We will have to agree to disagree.

'Note the word "potential"...not "certainty" or inevitability".'

My comprehension, such as it is, reads that the 'potential' is the potential to act, and the 'carnal desire' for children is the certainty. Therefore, the paedophilia is innate, and there is just a barrier in the way.

As I said, I agree about the potential to act out 'carnal desires', but there has to be a desire for children there in the first place. Squeers has the desire for children as a given, and I cant agree.

'what took place here was a bunch of men getting indignant.'

Too rite when someone calls you a paedophile. You try being a man in this world with young girls.

'I thought this sort of behaviour was the province of teenage girls.'
How sexist.

'It would have been just as easy to argue in opposition to Squeers' views without casting personal aspersions his way.'

I didn't cast aspersions at all, and when he clarified to many from all, I immediately gave him benefit of the doubt. I said speaking for my self, and that I was creeped out by his suggestion of the innate paedophilia of men.

But you keep with your psychoanalysis, trying to pour more scorn and insinuation on men who dare to feel indignant about it being suggested they are paedophiles by nature, with a thin veil of laws and morals holding them back from acting on their desires.

Houellebecq,
apologies for talking past you, above, rather than to you. I'd written an apology but had to delete it to keep within the word-count.

<He later softened to...

'I was saying that social morality is what prevents *many* men from over-stepping the mark, ergo that if morality is sufficiently compromised anything goes.'>

The "many" implication was that some men are "not" prevented by morality, a given, but I don't resile from the second clause, that no morality means anything goes--which hardly equates to, "quick, we can all grab a kiddie!", but that there's nothing to prevent whatever happens to be the penchant. "Potential" was my qualifier (thanks Poirot), and not the only one.
A state of anarchy would be bad enough, though in all likelihood the depths of depravity would not be plumbed because we'd all be busy trying to survive. The kind of "idle" amorality, however, that the evolving, market-driven, porn industry facilitates, is much more dangerous in terms of breeding that kind of potential. Porn addiction is a growing phenomenon and presumably the users are not content to watch tired old reruns, or one channel.

Apropos your "interesting question"; my brother claimed to have been raped once, but was more upset about having his navy uniform torn and soiled. I can't speak for the ladies, but I doubt their carnal drives are as incoherent as men's. As I indicated in my first post, I think many women are "too" constrained by morality, or as I said, "straight-laced to compete with porn stars". I suggested the marriage covenant be abandoned; the dilemma for me is I want our society to change radically, not merely slide into the gutter.
Anyway, I understand that my plain speaking touches raw nerves and men are tired of being the villain. Ideology is insubstantial but credulous representation is still mostly what we are as social beings.
Sorry for calling you "bourgeois" (imagine what Col would say!), but it was the word's very definition!

I'm hoping to hear from Briar Rose! This is her area and she must be able to counter my contentions?

Thanks squeers for the potential apology.

You're not bourgeois? How do you know enough about me to be so sure I am?

This is just a game of predictions, and you have no more basis for your pesimistic view of human nature, than my optimistic view of human goodness and laziness, and indifference. Sure you use bigger words, and I'm short on pop-culture references lately, but your prognosis is way too assertive. You see a bunch of wild lions, I see a few lions and a whole bunch of sheep.

' I don't resile from the second clause, that no morality means anything goes'

I do. People form bonds and morality only forms part of the code of behaviour. There is such a thing as commonality of purpose, desired company, asthetics, mood, and I maintain empathy is independant of morality. If the natural state was every man for himself we wouldn't have gotten this far in the first place.

By the legal definition of rape, many men have been raped. If a woman has sex with an intoxicated man, she has raped him, as he is incapable of consent.

' tired of being the villain'

You can say that again. I often ponder what it would be like being part of the virtuous gender. You know, born without original sin, unclouded by the weight of gender guilt and without responsibility for Donald Trump, and without having your innocent desire considered predatory. It must be a peaceful feeling when you are always the victim, nothing is your fault, and 'The Patriarchy' is to blame for everything. Having a better work life balance than men, more reproductive rights than men, yet claiming you're fighting for equality on those very issues. And in relationships, as expressed here, your needs inside the relationship are the definition of 'healthy' and any needs your partner has are an expression of illegitimate entitlement and misogyny. Well so the feminist story goes; In short, men should be more like women, the virtuous gender, yet contrarily we resent being god's police.

Houellebecq,

I understand your pining for feminine 'virtue'. Who wouldn't. But at what cost? I often think of the Orsen Welles quote from The Third Man where he compares Italy and Switzerland,

"under the Borgias, Italy had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but also Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. The Swiss, on the other hand, had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and all they had produced was the cuckoo clock."

You can see where I am heading: Switzerland embodies the feminine virtues of co-operation and peace, while Italy embodies the masculine. So, of course, women may be virtuous but it's not hard being virtuous when you don't actually do anything.

One commenter at The Atlantic put it thus when responding to an article disparaging males and testosterone:

Testosterone is why we don’t live in caves. Next time you’re driving a machine that runs on explosions across a thousand tons of concrete arching gracefully through the sky, and you miraculously don’t die–that’s testosterone.

Women have been outperforming men at university in the US since 1981. in that time the technology revolution has transformed the world. Yet how many women, with all the odds in their favour, have managed to start a successful IT company? When we get the inevitable 'celebration' of the handful of female entrepreneurs, it's always in either: women's clothing, bras, underwear, cosmetics or baby goods.

All women like poirot and the nutty psyochoanalyst have left is venom. Venom and left wing patsies who want to ingratiate themselves with other like minded morons.

So I think the bit about 'tired of being the villain' is correct.

Houellebecq,

back to your witty best I see. But you still haven't substantiated any of your misreadings of moi.
I don't know you from Adam, I only said the word bourgeois was "the very definition", i.e. of "civilised/ethical"--though we're all petit bourgeois here! Actually I was amused and making fun of your need to profess it--so stereotypical!
As for my "pesimistic view of human nature"; as I've been saying, human nature is little more than incoherent desire, the rest is cultivated, ideology. If I'm right, then why should I expect the human animal to be any more diffident than a wild animal? I certainly make the concession that some animals are capable of altruism and empathy, but they're also capable of cruelty and indifference. You're the romantic. Percy Shelley believed human beings could live sublimely in a state of anarchy, and that it was only institutionalised life that twisted human nature. But then he believed we partook of the very being of God. Human history is replete with evidence of male viciousness. What did Gibbon say about Man's inhumanity to Man?
Your human virtues are nearly all ideological, but none the less worthy for that. We're ideological/idealistic beings.

I agree wholeheartedly with your riff on the virtuous gender--what do the ladies think?--and I can empathise with your resenting being the villain. I resent being labelled leftist by witless chauvinists and misogynists when I've tried to shine a light in the darkness. But what're you gonna do eh!

Pericles,
I wouldn't mind trying therapy. I'm told being psychoanalysed is the ultimate indulgence--do you think it's covered by medicare?

Great Dane,
I think you owe Poirot an apology, she tries to be fare-minded and often takes the man's side in these sorts of debates.

What happened to the right to free expression?

"I don't agree with you, but I will fight for your right to say it"?

Now it is "I don't agree with you and I refuse to let you speak".

God Save us from the Blue rinse brigade.

I assume Petra is okay with gay male porn, no women there ?

That aside, I am going to have a hard time stopping my girlfriend watching porn, she loves it (as do I) and I think we're the better for it.

Valley guy,
Oh yeah, if the author wants to be really outraged over pornography Gay porn is the way to go, you want degrading treatment, people hurting each other,depictions of abusive power relationships and violence it's got it all...and that's the tamer "mainstream" stuff.
Years ago my wife and I house sat for a Gay friend and his also Gay flatmate and in the course of the stay went through their pornographic video collection, "just for a look", pretty nasty stuff on the whole and unlike the hetero stuff we've watched together on occassion it didn't look much like acting to me, it all looked pretty real.

sqeers,

poirot struggles for anything intelligent to say and so resorts to belittling men,

'I would prefer to look up to you guys, but what I'm witnessing would be more at home in a school playground.'

and this gem of female logic:

'I thought this sort of behaviour was the province of teenage girls. It would have been just as easy to argue in opposition to Squeers' views without casting personal aspersions his way'

First belittle men by insinuating they are teenage girls and then in the very next sentence claim there is no need to get personal. Only a female could in all seriousness put those two sentences together.

I know belittling men is de regueur in most Left wing circles but I think many men are getting a bit tired of it. The teenage girl stuff is most galling. If you think of the lyrics to the One Direction song that has teenage girls falling all over them,

'You're insecure
Don't know what for
You're turning heads when you walk through the door
Don't need make up
To cover up
Being the way that you are is enough

Everyone else in the room can see it
Everyone else but you'

At the end of the day, if One Direction want to manipulate teenage egos and make their millions then fine, but to suggest that men are somehow this vain is a bit much.

I'm sure it made you feel good to come riding to poirot's aid like a knight in shining armour, but women don't need it. They have government, schools, universities, countless women's centres, anti discrimination boards and endless other officers and bureaucrats looking after them. Speak to any man who has been through the family court system and see if he thinks women need men riding to their aid.

I certainly think it's time men do 'man up' and confront this sort of rubbish. If you look on the MRM sites you'll see more men are waking up to the nightmare feminism has foisted on our society every day.

Leaving aside the themes male is bad, female is good aspect of the article for a bit I'd like to highlight another aspect. The apparent view that people should be able to control a partners sexuality (as opposed to choices made out of mutual respect and love).

To simplify I'll stick with the stereotype male porn user, female opposed situation while acknowledging the existance of other situations. Likewise the override that in a healthy loving relationship a lot of this stuff does not apply.

Some of the anti-porn view points seem to suggest that women should be able to force abstenance from all sexual activity on a partner. That viewpoint should be as widely rejected as rape in marriage is rejected. Profoundly different views on sexuality may be reason to move on but not reason for badgering, bullying, threats, retaliatiin or an expectatiin of compliance.

His body his choice.

For those who insist that their marriage implies monogamy in all ways then I'd suggest that monogamy implies sexual availability to a partner as well. Many seem to get the first bit, not the second.

As for other points made by the author, some have been well travelled previously. I suggest that womens magazines do a far greater harm to relationships than porn usage. A lot more people seemed to be taken in by the body image, latest died, home makeover (or upgrade), holiday destination material in those magazines than by the idea that three naked 18 year old girls are ever so keen for a foursome.

Poor body image is probably driven far more by images in womens mags than by the porn a partner watches in private. Probably easier to argue that some porn usage is driven by women covering up due to poor body image than that porn usage drives poor body image.

If women want men less involved in work and achievement and more ivolved in quality time then rather than attacking men for not getting the balance right target the campaign on the behaviours women reward.

R0bert

OT, I'm afraid, but I couldn't let this note of dane's to pass without comment.

>>"The Swiss, on the other hand, had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and all they had produced was the cuckoo clock." You can see where I am heading: Switzerland embodies the feminine virtues of co-operation and peace...<<

You forget the major role of the Swiss in the twentieth century, which was to hide the ill-gotten billions of tyrants across the world - African warlords and dictators, Nazi gold-looters etc. - in cosy, anonymous bank accounts. Nice work if you can get it, of course, so long as you have no sense of smell.

dane,

My initial criticism wasn't aimed at your gender. It was in response to your post. If you don't wish to be offended, then you might try reining in you own offensive rhetoric.

And what sort of "rubbish" do you guys have to "man up" for from me? You seem to be rallying the troops as if I'm some sort of "typical feminist". There is nothing typical about me - and I'm more likely to jump on a thread to defend men against a gung-ho feminist than I am to join her in spitting venom.

I initially responded to a particularly malevolent post of yours - and to behaviour that seemed unfair and below the belt. Is there any other allusion one man can make to another that is more toxic and insulting than the one you and others were directing toward Squeers? Being compared to teenage girls pales in comparison. You guys were engaging in the "belittling". I'm the one who threw a spoke in the wheels.

I'm one of the few women who post here regularly and often. Guess what? It's because I enjoy talking to men. I could just as easily engage with women and feminists on the myriad sites available, yet that holds no attraction for me. For the most part, OLO's men demonstrate intelligence, depth and maturity - that's what keeps me coming back.

Houellie,

Just in response to your last post to me (and my last word on the subject.)

You said: "Too rite when someone calls you a paedophile..."

But he didn't call you a paedophile.

There is a world of difference between making a general observation on anthropological, social and psychological grounds, and seeking to fire off squalid personal innuendo at the author of the observation.

If, for instance, Squeers had merely stated that men had the potential during war to rape and indiscriminate slaughter, would any of the men here have advised him to seek therapy as a potential rapist and murderer? No, they would have accepted his statement for what it was - a general observation on the potentialities of the male of the species in times of social mayhem.

Instead, some men here internalised and personalised his comment as an affront to their sensibilities and decided to fire back at him in the most personal and vexatious manner available.

I agree with this article but I think a key point has been missed. Two types of male users of porn are described; those who use porn openly in agreement with their partners, and those who use porn in secret without their partners knowledge. From my experience there is a third type; men who use porn openly without their partner's agreement, in spite of her distress and even because of it. In my experience (both personal and professional as DV survivor and DV worker) this often goes hand in hand with domestic violence and the man's sense of entitlement and coercive controlling tactics that serve to control the woman, destroy her sense of self and keep her in fear. I suspect this third type is more common than we think.

Porn dangerous?

Perhaps to a small minority, who would probably be sick or harmful to partners in any case, even without the existence of porn.

Poirot,

I perhaps should have distanced myself from dane's support but I felt confident I wouldn't be perceived as returning support in kind by my silence. Though I have to give him kudos for quoting One Direction, it's irony far superior to my general standard.

I hate the posting police, but maybe this time we guys should have denounced dane to reassure anyone that he isn't speaking for our non-virtuous gender. You know Poirot, with women, it's the things you don't say as much as the things you do.

'Is there any other allusion one man can make to another that is more toxic and insulting...'

As I said, my honest comprehension of all that was 'he dun it first'. Perhaps others comprehended in the same way.

'There is a world of difference'
I've been over that before, that word 'potential' to me applied to *acting* on the 'certainty' of ALL men having paedophilc desire. The rape analogy is false as it is assumed most men have heterosexual desire. It's an abuse of power acting on a natural desire vs an abuse of power acting on a perversion.

Perhaps squeers' 'incredulous' dense vernacular, or, generously, the themes within, aren't appreciated by us Homers here.

Something like, 'I dunno what he's talking about, but I think that guy just called me a paedophile!'

R0bert,

I appreciate your broader point, but porn isn't mandatory for self relief. Though porn isn't the main game, as the objections really stretch to the fact that men dare to be gratified without permission (Waves MTR). Kind of like 'Objectification: how dare you be turned on by me independent from my attraction or any relationship to you!', or 'how dare you get to see the naked female body unless I'm allowing it'. It is all about control.

DV Diary,

I don't know anyone like that! I'm bourgeois man.

' use porn openly without their partner's agreement, in spite of her distress'
So if my partner watches rom-coms in front of me ignoring my objections that's DV? Fancy her sense of entitlement to watch what she wants! ;-)R0bert

< Though porn isn't the main game, as the objections really stretch to the fact that men dare to be gratified without permission (Waves MTR). Kind of like 'Objectification: how dare you be turned on by me independent from my attraction or any relationship to you!', or 'how dare you get to see the naked female body unless I'm allowing it'. It is all about control.>

Psychologist Toby Green wrote
(I really cant remember exactly how it went)

She wrote about how some women see themselves as to being the source of male desire, and do not see men as having sexual desire independant of them.

In fact they feel repulsed when their partner attempts to initiate.

poirot,

It's hard to debate with someone who lacks the faculty of reason.

First you belittle men by comparing them to school kids and teenage girls then you try to tell me you're more likely to defend them. I knew things had got bad in Left wing circles but I guess I didn't realise how bad. It now appears calling men teenage girls is a compliment.

Then you call my comments more toxic and insulting than squeers. Yet it was squeers who insisted all men had the potential to rape. So when I called him on something he accused all men of, you blame me!

How scatty can you get?

Houelle,

Grown up men don't need the approval of women for their opinion (especially illogical ones). If poirot thinks calling men teenage girls is helping them then its help we don't need.

We also don't need the help of men who can't put 2 and 2 together and get 4. You bought the 'is there any allusion more toxic or insulting' slight of hand hook, line and sinker. Your 'there is a world of dfference' comment is worse. Saying that all men are potential rapists because all men have penises is about as unthinking and crass as it gets. But I guess that passes for intellectual rigor in feminist circles.

In any case, it was sqeers back peddling at an astonishing rate.

I am much more inclined to JamesH's view on power and sex in relationships, which is of course, women want it all. Women have done everything in their power to control, restrain, and increasingly outlaw male sexual behaviour. They see anything over which they don't have complete control as a threat. So squeer's comment about rape and paedophilia betrayed his deep feminist views that the male sex drive is something to fear and control. A view I obviously don't share.

"It's hard to debate with someone who lacks the faculty of reason."

Perhaps the reason some of us didn't bother to comment on your posts.
Being silly even commenting on that but your extreme anti-female stance and the nature of your attacks on those who disagree with you is as toxic as the anti-male stance that drives the thinking behind the article.

Both extremes are as toxic as each other.

R0bert

Oh Dane an adult doesn't look firstly to gender or for some kind of white knight phenomena in every interaction. Is every bloke who ever agrees with the enemy (ie women) looking for some kind of validation. Next you'll be telling me I'm a victim of witchcraft.

I'm not afraid of admitting Chivalry, but lets just say I've got such massive gonads that I can handle a quip about teenage girls. (sexist as it is AGAINST Women)

Who wouldn't want to clarify that they weren't associated with all that angry incoherent stuff about One Direction. Would you feel less betrayed if I blew you a kiss?

It's like when someone takes what you say, adds a 2nd 3rd and 4th dimension and says they are just expanding to their logical conclusion of your post and it's not what you're saying at all.

'Saying that all men are potential rapists' Where did I say that? I said at least it's in the realms of possibility as at least most men desire women, as opposed to paedophilia which I don't believe is so common. I also queried whether all women were potential rapists. You have to imagine absolutely no civilisation, which is fine, and men are stronger, but I cant see them using their strength to shag people they don't even have a desire for.

'Women have done everything in their power to control, restrain, and increasingly outlaw male sexual behaviour.'
Which ones and how? This is all just a bit of propaganda, which does influence PC thought, which has real influence, but compared to historical control of women (part of my original sin of course)....meh. It's the hypocrisy that gets me the most. Feminists aggressively trying to control men in the same way all the while STILL deciding men are the aggressors.

Men are being aggressively women hating by being themselves and not letting women dictate what they can look at when they have a wank. How dare they deny women's rights to define what should turn men on!

RObert,

I meant my response to be toxic. Anyone who claims that all men are potential rapists or paedophiles deserves to be treated with contempt. The response was proportional to the claim.

If you are willing to tolerate that sort of smear by feminists and their minions then fine. There is no shortage of spineless people in the world.

Houelle,

You use an embedded clause ('which') which itself has an embedded clause ('which') and then coordindate another clause with a 'but' all in the one sentence. Then you call me incoherent. Gee.

At least you've got chivalry.

You're insecure... Dane
Don't know what for... Dane

Being the way that you are is enough.

Since we've descended into knocking punctuation, always a true sign of nothing left in the cupboard, I liked your de regueur ragout!

It's perfectly valid to write in the vernacular, it got me through English in High School that excuse. All you have to do is convince them it's an artistic decision to switch into my own highly culturally significant vernacular for effect.

It's your line of reasoning that is incoherent. What's the Swiss and One Direction got to do with some perceived slight about vanity and how many knights in shining armour can you identify in one thread.

I think you confirm every derogatory MRA comment I've seen on OLO.

RObert and Houellie,

You know, I have much respect for you guys, and that goes for "most" of the men on OLO (even the one's with whom I tend to clash).

Thanks for reaffirming my view that this is a worthwhile forum. None of this is cut and dried. Men and women are two sides of the same coin in our experience of life on planet Earth.

I just wanted to add on the subject of social system's failure, that it's usually the men who step up in times of disaster to lead the way. It's extraordinary how the genders revert to type at such times - the women providing nurture and succour at a base - and the men out there attempting to reassert their limited mastery over nature. Cyclones and earthquakes are a case in point.

It's only in the rarefied atmosphere of system and stability (especially in the modern industrial world) that we somehow lose sight of the ties that bind us - the cord that connects us in our common humanity.

Responses to Petra Bueskens political analysis of industrial porn and its harmful effects on women and children brings into clear focus a partial, though potent narrative of heterosexuality, whereby women are held responsible for men's consumption of cybersex fantasy and its historical reenactment. It is an ideology that can only be changed by women and men articulating narratives more consonant with their differentiated embodied sexual experiences, for instance the orgasmic experience that breastfeeding and birthing their infants is for many women, including me. I consider the time is well past where charges of “nanny state” politics can silence debate so central to the ability to articulate who we are in our political and sexual diversity and what that might mean culturally.

Athene,

That's interesting - I don't recall either of my birthing experiences being "orgasmic" (half yer luck :).
I wasn't conscious for the actual birth of my second, and the first could best be described as excruciating and somewhat shocking. (I've always envied women who can glide through the birthing process).

I breast-fed for yonks both times, but there again, no orgasmic experience. Instead, a sense of satisfaction, peace and grounding, and a feeling that it was good for me and the babies.

But you're getting a little too obscure for me.

Poirot maybe that orgasmic experience is pretty common. Could explain why so many men find that a lack of sex has more to do with the arrival of children than a lack of doing housework. Some women are apparently getting their jollies elsewhere.

R0bert

' the orgasmic experience that breastfeeding and birthing their infants is for many women'

Now when you say many, is it many as in a handful, or many as in the majority of women. It's a very loose term.

I'll have a poll on the weekend of 15 mothers, and I'm pretty confident not 1 will relate even an enjoyment of birth in any way, and you're already down to about half who tried and tried to breast feed through pain and mastitis, which doesn't sound very sensual to me.

Good for you if that's your experience, but I just wonder about the many, and where that would really be relevant in the context of the general sexuality of women. Is the many a big enough many to be considered a normalised experience. Or are we back in potential land.

I see it as a romanticisization of the feminine. From my experience the kind of women who professes such experience always seems to be the same kind of woman who talks in a smug celebratory tone about her female-ness in the first place. Perhaps it's the power of the mind.

But if you try to convince me this is some kind of natural and correct experience of breast feeding and childbirth, and women have been prevented by the patriarchy from experiencing the true magic of these experiences I'll barf.

'whereby women are held responsible for men's consumption of cybersex fantasy and its historical reenactment.'

held responsible? By who and in what context?

Poirot it's only the misogynist male patriarchy forcing women to be the lowly tea makers and bandager-uppers, while the men take the glory of fighting fires and rebuilding stuff.

R0bert you sound so resentful about all that. I can kind of see why I suppose. There was a post earlier from some self professed lothario that sounded more like some kind of martyr-slave, outlining the extravagant efforts that should be performed in order to get women in the mood. Sure once in a while, but sex should be about giving from both people, not some grand one-sided performance.

So much for gender equality Athene… I've heard males use the expression giving birth to a brick and their descriptions of appeals to God and Jesus Christ whilst doing so didn't make it seem orgasmic.

All I'm left with now is performance anxiety… Oh well I'll just have to take myself in hand and get over it.

As Poirot said 'half yer luck'.

Houelle,

I enjoyed your pun on One Nature. If it wasn't so deluded, it would almost qualify as witty (in an undergrad type way).

Maybe you're not as dumb as I thought...

You are certainly an expert when it comes to coherence. How could I argue with this gem of English syntax:

"It's perfectly valid to write in the vernacular, it got me through English in High School that excuse. All you have to do is convince them it's an artistic decision to switch into my own highlyculturally significant vernacular for effect."

I humbly apologise. I sometimes wonder how us men managed so long without you brilliant women telling us what to do. Remarkable.

It is worrying that my assertion “many women” experience sex differently than is considered culturally normative, be interpreted as some prescription for a normative, correct sexuality. To be clear: sexuality for women includes our capacity for reproducing our species and understanding its often confounding cultural complexity and in particular, making sense of modern obstetrics/gynaecology narratives mired in the cultural delusion that mothers’ embodied experiences are not sexual. Accepting Petra Buesken’s argument that industrial porn’s representation of heterosexuality harms women and children, I seek to broaden debate about feminine sexual experience that, although confronting to a heterosexual ideology about womens’ sameness, allows space for many dissonant views in a narrative more consonant with how women and men live their lives

That is intended to be "clear", Athene?

>>To be clear: sexuality for women includes our capacity for reproducing our species and understanding its often confounding cultural complexity and in particular, making sense of modern obstetrics/gynaecology narratives mired in the cultural delusion that mothers’ embodied experiences are not sexual.<<

I think my brain switched off at "narratives".

Something it does quite frequently, I find.

"Accepting Petra Buesken’s argument that industrial porn’s representation of heterosexuality harms women and children"

There's your problem right there.

Perhaps that generalisation could give way for a viewpoint which "allows space for many dissonant views in a narrative more consonant with how women and men live their lives"

Maybe the inclusion of the word "industrial" is a recognition that there is more diversity than some seem willing to acknowledge but Petra's argument seem fundametally flawed in the first place and does not appear to give much space for alternative views.

It does not in my view honestly address a myriad of factors which feminists otherwise seem very keen on such as autonomy over your own sexuality, rather seeming presupposing that a women has some kind of right to control over her partners sexual choices.

As I've pointed out I think a lot of the arguments enter a different space when it comes to a healthy loving relationship but then some issues which feminists have fought hard for such recognition of rape in marriage or reproductive choice are not necessarily founded on healthy loving relationship's.

Houellebecq has done a great job of addressing a lot of the issues.

Athene if you are serious perhaps you could try engaging with some of the points which have already been made by posters. Leave aside the extreme views unless you are primarily interested in point scoring and run with less inflammatory but relevant points and see if a worthwhile discussion develops.

R0bert

Interesting stats:

This article has accrued a total of 74 ‘Likes’.

Comparing this ‘Likes’ number to the other articles in the ‘Most Discussed’ panel:

‘Eclipsing the Religious Right’ (in support of gay marriage) – 141
‘Without oil, modern civilisation does not work’ – 29
‘42 a poor alternative to Jesus’ – 1
‘When freedom of religion becomes bullying’ – 7

A glance through most of the other articles over the last week or so, the number of ‘Likes’ ranges between 1 and 5.

So, on the basis of these figures, this article has an extremely HIGH approval rating among those who have read it. Yet the commentary section - made up of all the usual, almost exclusively male, commenters who frequent the OLO gender threads – there is hardly a decent word to be said about it. Virtually all the comments denigrate the author’s credibility and/or or validate some universal male right to enjoy porn, regardless of how women feel about it.

So what’s going on here? It seems as if the comments here are at odds with the general consensus among the article’s readers. Perhaps the men commenting here need to learn to be quiet and listen for a change instead of lecturing those concerned about pornography’s negative effect on women about just how wrong we are.

Or perhaps those who know they don't have arguments which are consistant with feminist stances on other issues but at the same time support their belief that they have a right to control male sexuality find it easier to like than to put their case.

R0bert

The other possibility, Killarney, which R0bert also alludes to, is that your method of measurement is itself faulty.

>>It seems as if the comments here are at odds with the general consensus among the article’s readers.<<

I have been reading OLO articles for over five years, and have yet to touch the "like" icon. On the other hand, I have been relatively free with my postings here, whether I have agreed with, or disagreed with, the opinion in question.

Admittedly, a sample of one proves nothing. But it can point to a fatal flaw in your assumption that the act of making one click of the mouse is somehow the equivalent of thinking a position through, and committing those thoughts to the forum.

Personally, I agree with R0bert, that the converse might be more accurate, and that hitting "like" means less than nothing in this context. After all, it is entirely possible to click without even reading the article in question.

I've yet to hit the "like" botton too. Actually, I wouldn't hit it on principle.

>Perhaps the men commenting here need to learn to be quiet and listen for a change instead of lecturing those concerned about pornography’s negative effect on women about just how wrong we are<

Perhaps the author and those concerned about pornography's negative effects shouldn't express themselves on public opinion threads if they don't want it critiqued.
Presumably the author here would rather her article had been ignored?

I feel a little embarrassed that Squeers has received rather a lot of attention and may have even derailed the thread, or at least side-tracked it, despite Robert's and other's attempts to change the subject. I only picked on a certain angle but I think there's a great deal more that could have been said pro and con about the article--though it has to be said that it's decidedly light weight, making assertions without in the least backing them up.

But perhaps you're right and we should "learn to be quiet and listen for a change".

I for one am listening, please feel free to expound. I would value your own thoughts on the matter.

Nice try, Pericles and R0bert.

What you are desperately trying not to face up to is that this article received overwhelming support from those who read it, but total rejection from those who commented on it.

And we all know by now that those who commented are part of a small, close knit group of male OLO gender commenters, who have held the OLO gender threads in a state of siege warfare for several years. Anyone with a differing opinion on gender issues gets bullied and intimidated out of any opportunity for decent discussion. Eventually, anyone with a differing opinion to 'the group' finally has to give up, not because of a lack of reasoned arguments, but because it becomes a waste of time and energy to reason with closed-minded people.

But, please ... far be it from me to burst your self-righteous bubble of privilege. As far as you are all concerned, the people you bully off the forum never had any decent arguments to start with - and never let anyone convince you otherwise.

Killarney,

"Yet the commentary section - made up of all the usual, almost exclusively male, commenters who frequent OLO gender threads - there is hardly a decent word to be said about it..."

What is noticeable is that the people who chose to hit "like" obviously didn't "like" the article enough to jump on board and defend it.

The "general consensus" amongst article readers appears to be accompanied by apathy when it comes to articulating their support...much easier to simply click a mouse.

Killarney,

If you want to comment on the article in a supportive way - then just do it.

What's the use of coming on to a thread just to belligerently inform everyone that you think they're bullies? You haven't added anything - or been opposed - or bullied, so there's no need for the provocative attitude.

Squeers

I only saw your comment after I posted. Actually, I agree with much of your first post. And I have no problem with your criticising the article as lightweight. But an article doesn't have to studiously adhere to logic and reason to make a truthful point.

I myself have lost count of the marriages among my friends, family and acquaintances that have been destroyed by the husband's addiction to porn. What strikes me in every case is that the husband is completely unrepentent about the pain he inflicts on his partner. This is not so surprising, as there is an underlying consensus in society to defend porn as freedom of expression. There is also a corresponding denial that this particular form of freedom of expression is almost exclusively one that asserts male privilege and domination over women.

If a discussion can stay with that premise, fine. But more often than not, it will not proceed beyond that point as the patriarchal shutters clamp down hard against any further exploration of the topic.

Poirot

'What's the use of coming on to a thread just to belligerently inform everyone that you think they're bullies?'

Because they ARE being bullies. They have been bullying the OLO gender threads for years. And it's time someone called them out on their methods.

And BTW, you're not doing them any favours rushing to their defence. You're just keeping them in their safe little cocoon of patriarchal denial.

The facts are there for all to see. This article was overwhelmingly supported by its readers. If it makes you feel better to believe that those readers refrained from posting because of apathy or a lack of reasonable arguments, then by all means do so. I believe, however, that they stayed away because some battles are just not worth fighting.

Killarney,

In my relatively short time on the internet, it's come to my attention that the people who complain most about bullying are usually bullies or manipulating types themselves.

You're not doing the "gentle readers" a favour by portraying them as precious little flowers who are intimidated by the big bad wolves on OLO. This is a forum for discussion and debate, not a boxing ring.

Are you trying to tell me that out of the blue 74 "readers" - who would have otherwise commented - held themselves back from posting on OLO because they thought they might get bullied?
There aren't a great many women posting here because it seems they prefer more female orientated forums where they can bitch away ad infinitum without being challenged by a bloke.

Killarney "Because they ARE being bullies. They have been bullying the OLO gender threads for years. And it's time someone called them out on their methods."

It's so convenient to call on those you disagree with as "bullies;" in effect you no longer have to critique the arguments they present. Which is ironic considering you stated in an earlier post that these bullies were resorting to ad hominem.
As with many other feminist articles here, very rarely are they ever defended. There seems to be a number of questions or problems they simply will not even try and defend when called out on.

The problem of porn in marriage is no one else's problem other than the couples involved. It is up to each individual couple to work out between themselves how to deal with this issue, that's if it is even an issue. One wonders what moral busybodies like Ms Bueskens' solution is. She seems more intent on pouring guilt and shame on the male sex drive than anything else. If she thinks making men feel guilt is the solution, then she only shows her inexperience on such problems.

Make no mistake. The male sex drive will exist regardless of the moral musings of armchair critics. The sex impulse is either discharged, repressed, or sublimated, it does not disappear. It is like telling a fire it shouldn't be hot by yelling harmful comments at it. This is the reality. The way forward on this issue would be for couples to recognize this fact and then provide practical solutions to it. (Whatever that is I'll leave it up to your imagination). Of course, at this point the feminists will argue that the man just looks at his partner as a sex object. But again, we just fall back into the yelling at the fire scenario. A repressed sexual impulse will only remain repressed for so long before it finds other ways of creeping out.

"The facts are there for all to see."… Some are, Killarney, but so are assertions. You might be correct that the article was overwhelmingly supported with 73 likes (75 at last check) and one Google plus recommendation but it's only your guess that they read it. They may have just liked the title.

A psychotherapist who was a lecturer in Sociology and Gender Studies at The University of Melbourne and Deakin University between 2002-09 does herself no credit in being unable to distinguish between revenue and profit - the main point of my post. Or if you think that sentence was patronising I'll rephrase it and assume that she does know the difference and deliberately misrepresented the situation.

I also think it's worth repeating, "Whatever the comings and goings of the charge that 'porn hurts women' - the estimate that global annual revenues from prostitution are four times that of porn at $400 billion seems to me to say much more about both genders."

Not wanting to clamp down hard against any further exploration of the topic, I find this claim "I myself have lost count of the marriages among my friends, family and acquaintances that have been destroyed by the husband's addiction to porn." difficult to believe.

You must be capable of estimating how many female friends, family and acquaintances you have; and of those how many were married; and of those how many are no longer; and of those how many 'failed' because of the husband's addiction to porn and not because of some other reason.

The fact that these marriages failed doesn't seem to say much for an assertion of male privilege and domination over women – it seems to me to make a point of asserted female independence.

I don't know who did what but the like figure for this article compared to others if as claimed looks a lot like the message was spread amongst a group to go support the article rather than a pattern of readers liking this article much more than others but not commenting.

As for bullying behaviours, I've seen them at times.Truth be told I've probably tip toed around some of those posters who've since moved on. Ones who quite happily dish it out but were ever so quick to cry bully when some male dared to return in kind.
There are males here who delight in rude behaviour but they are a minority. Others will generally match the tone of those they are having a disagreement with. I suspect that some of the sista's just can't cope with the latter. So much better if males knew their place.

I don't know what the definition of porn addiction is thats used by Killarney. My gut feel is that there is a lot more to those stories than Killarney is willing to acknowledge.

R0bert

It is pleasing to have Killarney's evaluation of the commentary so far. Thank you!

A newcomer to The Forum, I should have anticipated postings inclusive of the predictably unhelpful views of bullies regularly disaffected by political discussion focused elsewhere than themselves. Are ideas about sex unmistakably different than the view represented via industrial porn’s media networks threatening, I wonder?

"...I should have anticipated postings inclusive of the predictably unhelpful views of bullies regularly disaffected by political discussion focused elsewhere but themselves..."

Whaat!

I'm regularly disaffected by ornate twaddle being passed of as cogent rhetoric.

I say it's rather compelling to watch the ladies make the case against bullying by swaggering onto the thread - Killarney in full battle dress, and Athene using an over-sized thesaurus as a soapbox.

Athene is in danger of putting her audience to sleep with her grandiloquent and turgid prose.

Killarney is more likely to plant a left hook on her opponent's rhetorical chin while simultaneously fanning her offended sensibilities with the other hand.

It's a strange way to protest against bullying.

Land sakes Aristocrat and Poirot! As any veteran of feminist politics would point out, there are no ladies at issue here, but flesh and blood women and children whose everyday lives are affected by the normativity of porn’s cultural impact.

Is anyone not familiar with the Bratz doll phenomenon, for instance?

To be honest, I had to Google it, Athene.

>>Is anyone not familiar with the Bratz doll phenomenon, for instance?<<

What was not immediately apparent was any link to pornography.

What did you have in mind?

Killarney,

Surely if the groupies around this thread have managed to organise sufficiently to keep hitting the "like" button (like some other cohorts I have in mind), the same enthusiasts can take the defenders of patriarchy to task?
This is a bugbear of mine, like New Atheists, feminists on OLO seem to think they're above criticism, or that their positions don't have to be defended.

I've only heard of one marriage where the husband was reportedly "addicted", by the wife. Personally, though I expect it's common enough and I certainly agree that porn "almost exclusively ... asserts male privilege and domination over women".
Indeed, that's an understatement! and I don't see how anyone can defend pornography against that charge, although I think that since porn is based on role-play, women are as much responsible for the stereotypes as men. The passive feminist stance here seems to be that women are happy with their demeaned station in life so long as a respectful facade is maintained.
For me the feminists with balls have no truck with patriarchy at all, overt or covert. But let's face it, most women are oh so compliant.

The compliance extends to being in full cahoots with the celebration of phenomena like "Bratz".

Who buys these miniature tartz for their daughters or as presents for their friends? It's women who purchase them, just as it's women who purchase clothing for toddlers and young girls that would be more appropriate on pole dancers.

Women embrace the consumer paradigm with eagerness. How many women stop to think or to talk to their girls about the pitfalls of slavishly following whatever advertisers have conjured up as "fashion? Women don't have to buy these things for their girls. They do it because they're comfortable shelling out for whatever helps their kids fit in - and in doing so they perpetuate cultural mores that demean womanhood.

Do men buy these dolls for their daughters? Not usually. So why blame men for a phenomenon that women aide and abet by wielding their purchasing power and freedom of choice?

Poirot,
you make an excellent point.
I have an 11 year old girl who collects Bratz and she and my 3 year old daughter play with them together for hours on end, as well as watch the Bratz tv show. You're right, it's the mothers who drive the market and the mothers who let their little girls go out dressed like prostitutes. I live in a fairly conservative place but it's still commonplace seeing girls from say 13 up semi-clad in highly alluring outfits and stuccoed in make-up.
It's just to easy for feminist to blame this vague institution known as "patriarchy". The challenge seems to be again for feminists to defend this phenomenon, and if they can't do that to start explaining their own contributions to kiddy porn via the shopping malls.
I also have a nearly 16 year old daughter who lately nearly always has her nose in her smart phone (she works 6 or7 hours a week). Meanwhile I have three boys, two on the brink of adolescence and the oldest looking like getting some work too. He'll also want a phone, and all he has to do then is type in "red tube" and up will pop endless pages of glorious porn. Except it's not that glorious. Females are overwhelmingly portrayed in demeaned and omni-penetrated-defiled situations, and males are depicted as indifferent sexual automatons.
I'm no prude but as a parent this not just disturbing, it's an absolute affront and a mental assault against my children that I'm powerless to prevent.
Thankfully all my kids are modest creatures by nature, but what sort of effect is exposure to this unspeakable feast going to have.

Going back to Poirot's post; why are women grooming their girls for this kind of role play?

'I'm regularly disaffected by ornate twaddle being passed of as cogent rhetoric.

I say it's rather compelling to watch the ladies make the case against bullying by swaggering onto the thread - Killarney in full battle dress, and Athene using an over-sized thesaurus as a soapbox.'

Poirot will you marry me. I have not heard a more accurate or cutting summary in all my time on OLO.

' time someone called them out on their methods.'

Looks like the reverse has occurred. Look away from the mirror girls.

People who agree don't often post in any forum, whether it be news articles or opinion sites. The act of posting is more likely a action of dissent.

Killarney and Athene are like a little weedy guy being held back from fighting a 120KG Adonis yelling, if these guys weren't holding me back....! If you have objections to the points people have posted,.....um........ refute them! Oh, and preferably giving some kind of reasoning other than 'you just don't understand the patriarchal powers that must be taken as gospel'. Specifically refute arguments.

The stage is yours. We're all ears here.

I put it to Killarney and Athena that 'bullying' consists primarily of
' patriarchal denial.'. ie if any poster dares even question the righteous universal victim positioning of women (and we have a great case study right here don't we), that dissent is bullying in itself.

'If a discussion can stay with that premise, fine. But more often than not, it will not proceed beyond that point as the patriarchal shutters clamp down hard against any further exploration of the topic.'

I'd say the reverse is happening. You're on the other side of the shutters. Maybe you could embark on a brave journey to that dangerous world where discussions don't stay within a convenient comfortable premise that women are always the victim, and contemplates whether men's sexual desires and mores should be controlled by women's interpretation of and reaction to them.

I'm sure if men posted articles about how vibrators hurt our feelings we'd be considered controlling and dominating women and their sexuality.

Just when I thought the day was not interesting enough…

You're wrong, Houllebecq… This is the best one, two punch: "Athene is in danger of putting her audience to sleep with her grandiloquent and turgid prose. Killarney is more likely to plant a left hook on her opponent's rhetorical chin while simultaneously fanning her offended sensibilities with the other hand."

The high-five still goes to Poirot though.

Vibrators have never hurt my feelings, I'll have you know, but they have loosened a couple of teeth.

You'll have to excuse me because my Bratz Boys Alek, Zack, Braden, Cade and Koby want me to go and make a fuss… or a quiche or something.

'Females are overwhelmingly portrayed in demeaned and omni-penetrated-defiled situations, and males are depicted as indifferent sexual automatons.'

This is standard dictionary feminist definition of 'porn'. For a start, porn is a broad church. Just like feminism avoids any universal condemnation by trotting out 'broad church', so can porn. There's art, erotica, and the lazy voyeurism that is porn. Just as we have reality TV, and we have grief porn, and even home improvement porn.

Just because that chick on Better Homes and Gardens porn shows how to make ugly trashy trinkets and rubbish for the house doesn't mean my good taste is going to change.

The 'objectification' critique I find astounding, given we're talking about a representation in a visual medium. If you are anti-objectification you must be anti-audiovisual technology. It's a matter of context, and when the context is a visual representation, not a breathing person in front of you, it's an object! Adobe makes darn good tools, everyone knows that!

They are images. Just like a painting, to be built upon and dissected by the individual, the topics and content motivated by already existing tastes and it's about as damaging as putting people in front of gay porn and worrying they'll turn gay.

'I'm no prude but as a parent this not just disturbing, it's an absolute affront and a mental assault against my children that I'm powerless to prevent.'

This is after they search for MILFs or after they aren't turned on by MILFs but see the fantasy depicted and it suddenly turns them on?

'It is a gloomy view that holds that humans, and women in particular, are so suggestible that an airbrushed thigh will cause them enduring emotional pain.': Helen Razer.

Ditto porn. Men see real women, we love real women, you know, actual people we know not actors playing a part, and we have dirty fantasies that are OURS, in our own world, we sometimes like to see them acted out, just like women like to see Hugh Grant being a vulnerable weed, and dimples on celebrity thighs.

I didn't get that far Trev I was laughing so hard I had to post immediately. I was wondering where you were quoting from until I scrolled up again, and you're right though, grandiloquent and turgid prose fits the bill.

'Vibrators have never hurt my feelings, I'll have you know, but they have loosened a couple of teeth.'
Perhaps you're not using them correctly. I have no problem with vibes, I just like to see the reaction of women when their sex aids and their sexual activities are given an equivalent analysis as feminists use for porn....

If the feminists critique of porn was directed towards the sexual habits of women, to be consistent, it would have to go something like this...

The amazing increase in the volume of sales of vibrators and dildos are a symptom of the rampant misandry in society where women reduce the value of a man to just his penis, or a tool for their own orgasm.

They objectify men in this way as they are afraid of the all to real desires of real flesh and blood men, men with their own sexuality and their own thoughts and feelings. The widespread use of these devices has terrible consequences for male body image, as how many men can compete with these unrealistic and unattainable 12 inch dildos and super fast vibrators.

Women bring into their relationships with men these unrealistic expectations about the speed of which men should be able to bring them to orgasm by measuring against these mechanical means. This creates a barrier in relationships between men and women, with many married women using the devices in secret and therefore leading a double life.

The inevitable ruptured attachment and a loss of trust leads to the destruction of so many relationships.

As Ben Dover, a clinical psychologist and sex addiction expert notes, "This mutual scenario ... is not the predominant experience". Most married women who are using vibes, are doing so in secret and maintaining this duplicity in the knowledge that it's distressing to their partners.

One of Schlong's research participants, who after lamenting her husband's putative sexual potency goes on to recount the following scenario:

.. So when he's asleep I turn to my vibe, which is always hard and ready, and makes no demands of me. I know it's not real and it's not fair to expect my husband to compete with these devices, but this is what I love and get off on. I'll do it for up to an hour, slowly, going from speed to speed, while my husband is sound asleep, or worried about mosquitoes. I can take as long as I want and get lost in my own world.

PS: If all porn can be represented as violent porn then the hyperbowl of 12 inch dildos is fair play.

Gee Houelly, I have always found ladies are always a little frightened of 12 inches, at least at first.
.
.
.
.
He He He.

I tips me lid, Houellebecq.

A most complete response, perfect in every detail.

That's gold Houllebecq. XD

You should expand it and see if Graham will post it as an article.

If a feminist wrote an article like this I have no doubt it would be slammed by other feminists for dictating what other women do with their own bodies and how they choose to enjoy their sexuality. Some of the more extreme commentators might compare a husband's distress over his wife's sybian saddle to spousal rape. And the word patriarchy would be used about a thousand times.

It would be interesting to see how the lurking but silent horde of feminists Killarney assures us exist would take such an article when it is written by a man.

Cheers,

Tony

oooh! Poor boys and girls defending their upright positions against mothers’ pandering to their daughters’ peer pressure demands - women’s fault. Again.

Is it the case that only defenders of patriarchal porn remain at The Forum? Are you still there Killarney – and do you know who that poor weedy little bloke is? The last time I saw him he was storytelling at The Glass Canoe!

I try to be as evenhanded as possible in all situations, Athene… And though I don't know anything about your reference to the little man in a Canoe, would it be helpful to declare myself a defender of matriarchal porn?

"oooh! Poor boys and girls defending their uptight positions..."

Athene, you appear to be a tad confused about the venue...this isn't the girls' toilet on Prom night.

Women don't just pander to their daughters' peer pressure, they facilitate the very fads over which feminist sensibilities cry offence. Explain to me how blaming something like Bratz on peer pressure exonerates their mothers from their role in perpetuating it. If mums didn't buy into it, it would disappear.

Women don't have to pander, do they? They aren't forced to buy into a phenomenon like Bratz. Could it be that modern consumer society and its accompanying ubiquitous media are constructs fashioned and presided over by both genders?

As I pointed out, this isn't the girls' loo. It would be nice if you or Killarney offered something more appropriate to an adult discussion forum. I'm sure you have plenty to offer.