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!