Latest Stats and Facts on Punography

[DU Ute]

Great stuff, Bud. I'm anxiously awaiting the response from SU.

[Babs]

Great post. Some of these points are unproven and/or debatable...

yeah, but several of them have been demonstrated in studies.

[CardiacCoug]

yeah, but several of them have been demonstrated in studies.

I'm too lazy to look at actual studies on this topic, but I would guess that the studies are observational studies, which as you know are much more subject to bias and confounding than prospective, randomized trials. You can't really do good studies on these issues, in my opinion.

[Babs]

I'm too lazy to look at actual studies on this topic, but I would guess that the studies are observational studies, which as you know are much more subject to bias and confounding than prospective, randomized trials.

soft science.

[SeattleUte]

It objectifies, demeans, and subjugates women.

It creates a disconnect between a man and his real-life partner.

When used regularly, it trains the body and mind to physiologically respond to artificial reproductions of sex, rather than the real thing. Pavlov ring a bell?

It creates sexual dysfunction in men, by exposing them to more and more extreme types of sex, until typical sex with a real partner is not enough to inspire interest.

It puts men at risk of committing date rape, as they learn from porn that forced sex is acceptable and erotic.

Personally, I'd rather have a real woman, any day. I always thought I was normal. I guess not.

[Babs]

Personally, I'd rather have a real woman, any day. I always thought I was normal. I guess not.

Well, convenience dictates that night is more common, but I think day is perfectly acceptable, too.

[RobinFinderson]

yeah, but several of them have been demonstrated in studies.

Studies that you can cite?

[SeattleUte]

Thanks Seattle...

Here's my NEWCOMER observation: it's really difficult to have a coherent discussion about this topic or any topic when posters "kitchen sink" the threads. "Kitchen sinking" happens when people bring up unrelated or slightly related arguments to prove their points. The term comes from fighting couples who "kitchen sink" their arguments when they try to resolve a SINGLE conflict by debating about EVERYTHING that bothers them in the relationship -- including the dirty dishes in the sink. I believe pornography is important and worth continuing to discuss... but too much "kitchen sinking" makes it incomprehensible.

I personally think that Seattle has a lot of important arguments that many people on this board agree with. He gets a lot of defensive responses because he states them angrily and has a tendency to talk in extremes.

I, for one, am a bit disgusted by the kitchen sinking, the extremes and the defensiveness, because they make it almost impossible to carry on any sort of productive conversation. To help mitigate this problem I've made a quick bullet point summary of Seattle's main arguments (from the above paragraph). Seattle -- you're welcome to insult me for this action... but I'd prefer you revise my list to make it more closely reflect your beliefs. I'm doing this in hopes of being able to get past these arguments so that we can discuss pornography without me getting a headache because I'm confused about the topic.

* ARGUMENT 1: The LDS Church has too much control over its members

* ARGUMENT 2: LDS people are too willing to submit to the will of their church

* ARGUMENT 3: The LDS church discriminates against women, gays, and (historically) blacks

* ARGUMENT 4: The LDS church doesn't promote thinking among its members

* ARGUMENT 5: The LDS church shuns those who express contradictory opinions

* ARGUMENT 6: The members of the LDS church don't receive charity and compassion from their church because it has become so institutionalized (I'm sure I didn't word that one right, Seattle)


I hope breaking these down isn't insulting. Truthfully, I think a lot of the posters here agree that most of these arguments are valid in some (maybe even most) situations. My hope is that by delineating them so succinctly we'll be able to discuss pornography without trying to wade through all of these arguments at the same time.

And I know it's weird that I haven't visited Ellis Island... but that doesn't mean that I'm duping you. It just means that I'm a private person. I'll probably get around to it at some point... but I don't really see why it matters where I live, what I do, etc. I'm strange that way... that's all. K?

I think your summary is fine. Maybe I would have tweaked the wording, but it's certainly accurate enough. It should be clear, I'm not really interested in defending porn, but addressing "porn addicts'" relations with their religion. A religion that recently claimed in a "semi-official" church organ that Stalin and Hitler were spawns of "secularization" and condemned "the pill or other means of artificial contraception."

[Babs]

Studies that you can cite?

Is there any other kind? If they were proprietary, how would I know about them?

[SeattleUte]

Is there any other kind? If they were proprietary, how would I know about them?

The problem is that folklore is folkore, whether it's taught in a church or someplace else. See, e.g., Andrea Dworkin; Adolf Hitler. I'm not saying you're necessarily talking folkore but your argument cries out for a citation. Give us some science, Babs.

[Babs]

Einsidel, Edna, F. The Experimental Research Evidence; Effects of Pornography on the 'Average Individual'. In Itzen, Catherine. 1992. Pornography; Women, Violence and Civil Liberties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[YOhio]

Einsidel, Edna, F. The Experimental Research Evidence; Effects of Pornography on the 'Average Individual'. In Itzen, Catherine. 1992. Pornography; Women, Violence and Civil Liberties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shouldn't the title be italicized?

[Babs]

Shouldn't the title be italicized?

hey, if you guys can't do your own research, surely you can do your own formatting.

[CardiacCoug]

soft science.

The soft science of hard-ons.

I don't think anybody doubts that men who look at a lot of porn have more of the problems or tendencies that you mentioned above than men that don't look at porn at all.

But I'm pretty sure nobody has randomly assigned hundreds of men to porn-watching or non porn-watching status over the course of years and then measured pre-specified outcomes like the ones you describe. That's the kind of study it would take to establish reliable scientific evidence on this topic.

[Babs]

The soft science of hard-ons.

I was going to go with soft science of hard porn. But either way, yes, you're not going to pull off randomized double-blind with something like this.