Latest Stats and Facts on Punography

[wuapinmon]

RoseBud, just to demonstrate that porn isn't the only area where you stake out some moral ground, how would you answer the following true/false questions:

1. I am aware of the labor practices employed at the factories where my garments are manufactured. I know that everything that I wear was fabricated in clean, well lit environments by adult workers who were paid a living wage sufficient to provide themselves and their dependents healthy food, clean water, shelter and health services.

2. I avoid patronizing companies like Nike that have established their market share through a documented history of subcontracting fabrication to factories with atrocious labor practices.

3. I know that all of my food was farmed following the best current standards of sustainable land use.

4. I know that all of my food was harvested and prepared by documented laborers working in safe environments.

Well?

Comparing porn models to sustainable land use isn't even remotely fair. While the former is important, to me, the latter is not even in the same league, let alone ballpark.

[Rosebud]

It is possible to discuss porn without being sexist, and I appreciate how you've bleached the sexism out of Babs' original summary of best points. Also, feminism means more than advocacy of women's equality. It is also a critical lens through which we may examine all issues dealing with sex, gender, gender identity and their relationship with power. For example, if we identify cultural trends that impose false gender roles on men, and advocate for change, we may do so under the umbrella of feminism.

VERY MUCH AGREED!

One of the fundamental problems with discussions about pornography -- especially within the context of the LDS church -- is that men are vilified and women are characterized as beneficent victims. Babs has pointed out many somewhat justifiable reasons why people have a tendency to make these judgmental generalizations. However, having a battle between the sexes on the issue of pornography does little to address the real societal *problems we face. Even worse... it distracts us.

*pornography is "problematic" because it hurts people - a lot of people

[Rosebud]

RoseBud, just to demonstrate that porn isn't the only area where you stake out some moral ground, how would you answer the following true/false questions:

1. I am aware of the labor practices employed at the factories where my garments are manufactured. I know that everything that I wear was fabricated in clean, well lit environments by adult workers who were paid a living wage sufficient to provide themselves and their dependents healthy food, clean water, shelter and health services.

2. I avoid patronizing companies like Nike that have established their market share through a documented history of subcontracting fabrication to factories with atrocious labor practices.

3. I know that all of my food was farmed following the best current standards of sustainable land use.

4. I know that all of my food was harvested and prepared by documented laborers working in safe environments.

Well?

BINGO... my purpose here is to raise questions that will get people to stop and think a little bigger than themselves. Of course your questions are also applicable (but are subjects for another thread). Even so, questioning my personal awareness of where every product I touch comes from makes the mistake of turning a macro problem* into my personal micro problem*. Pornography is a bigger problem than just me or you.... .

Also, I'm thinking that the reason why you immediately jumped to the argument of unethical labor practices is that the book I referred you to is about a little girl in India. Thus... the connection in your mind. Unfortunately, we don't need to fly all the way across the world to see people victimized by the sex industry. They're right here at home in the good old US of A.

* Pornography is "problematic" because it hurts people

[Rosebud]

Robin,

The gender differentiation to which I referred is two-fold:

The first aspect I referred to is what's known as evolutionary psychology and more specifically one of the elements therein, the effect of parental investment on sexual drive and selection. The idea is that in species where parental involvement is differential, the gender (in humans, male) that is not strictly required for rearing develops a biological drive simply to propagate the species, while the gender (in humans, female) that rears the young develops a drive to protect the offspring. This helps ensure LT species survival and diversity. The result is that the male, by nature, is neither discriminating nor reserved in seeking sexual activity; while the female, again by nature, becomes highly discriminating, seeking out mates who appear to offer security and exclusivity.

The observations were first noted by Trivers in 1972. Since then the pattern has been demonstrated in lab settings both on human and non-human subjects. Early studies started out by showing that across cultures, when selecting a sexual partner, men invariably seek signs of youth and fertility, while women seek signs of security and strength. This study has been reproduced repeatedly. Recent studies have found that women will tolerate sexual infidelity so long as emotional fidelity is intact. Studies have also indicated that while men are sexual aroused by erotic, sexual imagery; women are sexually aroused by depictions of emotional intimacy (hence my comment about the difference in preferred materials), with erotic depictions soliciting a lesser response or none at all. So there's evidence that indeed, the woman's primary drive is to seek the security, exclusivity, and an emotional connection -- the sexual need itself is secondary.

Now, I said my comment was twofold, and it is. I also said that these ideas were backed up by science.

The psychological phenomenon I described above is widely accepted and is described in depth in the book I listed below. In addition to the fact that it's proven over and over again, it matches popular expectation, and further it just plain makes sense. So that being the case, the question became what mechanism is fostering these differing drives in men and women. Scientific researchers have been seeking out physiological explanations for the phenomenon. In recent decades this has turned to an exploration of differential brain structure and neurophysiology. It's interesting that men have a larger amygdala, which controls the appetites and plays a role in stimulus-response conditioning. Women have a larger limbic cortex, responsible for mood, memory, and conditioned emotional response. So the anatomical structure of men and women provides some insight as to why the behaviors noted above are so consistently observed.

Anyway, I can't remember exactly what I said, but I remember it was in the context of why women don't seek out porn to the same extent that men do, why it's such a big deal to them when their partners do, and why women like Twilight so much. I think all of this ties into the differing primary biological force driving men and women. There's considerable evidence that women are psychologically and physiologically driven toward emotional and physical security and exclusivity. Porn may provide a release, but will not meet the woman's primary desire for security. Further, the material lacks the emotional connection that the women need even for a full physiological response. It seems reasonable that this is why women are not drawn to erotic materials in the same way that a man might be.

----------

evolutionary psychology and parental investment:

Schmitt, DP. "Fundamentals of human mating strategy." in: Buss, DM. Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Wiley 2005. (available via googlebooks)

gender-based neurological differentiation:

Friedman RC, Downey JI. Sexual differentiation of behavior: the foundation of a developmental model of psychosexuality. J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2008 Mar;56(1):147-75.

Swaab, DF. Sexual differentiation of brain and behavior. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Sep;21(3):431-44.

Cahill, Larry. His brain, Her brain. Scientific American. May 2005.

Guterl, Fred. The truth about gender. Newsweek. March 28 2005.

Kimura, Doreen. Sex differences in the brain. Scientific American. May 13 2002.

http://www.doctorhugo.org/brain4.html

Babs -- Thanks for taking the time to articulate yourself so clearly. I don't agree with you completely but think it would be difficult to argue that there isn't any merit to your assertions. I agree with you that human beings do have biological, evolutionary-drives... and that these drives are different for men than they are for women. However, I think that now that we've all gotten through adolescence (hopefully) these "biological" differences aren't so pronounced.

That being said, your thesis is rather insulting towards men and I'm not at all surprised that they are calling you on it. To tell a man in our culture that biologically he is nothing more than a seed-spreader is to, again, vilify him. Several times during this thread men have asserted that any of them would prefer a loving, close relationship to one woman over mountains of pornography. Pornography doesn't fulfill men's "basic" desires any more than it fulfills women's "basic" desires. Women aren't the only ones who crave love, emotional closeness and security. Feminism does not need to be a battle between the sexes.

It is important to remember, also, that despite any differences that may exist between male and female brains, human beings also uniquely have prefrontal cortexes used to evaluate consequences, plan for the future and integrate social mores. Let's not reduce ourselves to the level of animals or our evolutionary past.

[SeattleUte]

Men just look to get the need taken care of, and if nobody's around, porn will suffice. Not so with woman.

This is only the very tip of the iceberg, I have a feeling. The inter-relationship between sex and gender politics and roles, even or particularly at a micro level, is a subject for a whole new 10,000 hit thread. Suffice it to say that I have a feeling that many women's loathing for porn is many faceted and infinitely complicated and layered, defying any simple formultion. I for one am not really up for such an exploration.

[SeattleUte]

Rosebud, I said I am against and believe the full force of the law should be let loose on porn developed outside the bounds of the law and including the intricate regulatory regime to which it is subject. So there's no sense in making arguments about slave labor and such. Yes, don't buy anything made with slave labor or similarly larcenous or involving crimes against children. Sheesh.

[SeattleUte]

Does the same go for other activities, say, like riding a bicycle?

Your conclusion sounds great, except that you seem to conclude that the actions of the 1 out of 10 have no consequences beyond the couple's joint enjoyment. My simple common sense would argue otherwise.

I love you man, but as to that 10%, your outlook is so deeply ingrained you want to meddle with and brow beat control and guilt trip them, I know. Resist the urge. It's not righteous.

[wuapinmon]

I love you man, but as to that 10%, your outlook is so deeply ingrained you want to meddle with and brow beat control and guilt trip them, I know. Resist the urge. It's not righteous.

I think your avatar is pornographic and I'm going to complain to someone about it. Button pusher. That's a penis on display and it's POINTED AT ME.

[beefytee]

Babs -- Thanks for taking the time to articulate yourself so clearly. I don't agree with you completely but think it would be difficult to argue that there isn't any merit to your assertions. I agree with you that human beings do have biological, evolutionary-drives... and that these drives are different for men than they are for women. However, I think that now that we've all gotten through adolescence (hopefully) these "biological" differences aren't so pronounced.

That being said, your thesis is rather insulting towards men and I'm not at all surprised that they are calling you on it. To tell a man in our culture that biologically he is nothing more than a seed-spreader is to, again, vilify him. Several times during this thread men have asserted that any of them would prefer a loving, close relationship to one woman over mountains of pornography. Pornography doesn't fulfill men's "basic" desires any more than it fulfills women's "basic" desires. Women aren't the only ones who crave love, emotional closeness and security. Feminism does not need to be a battle between the sexes.

It is important to remember, also, that despite any differences that may exist between male and female brains, human beings also uniquely have prefrontal cortexes used to evaluate consequences, plan for the future and integrate social mores. Let's not reduce ourselves to the level of animals or our evolutionary past.

I don't think that what Babs is presenting disqualifies the idea of men having a need for emotional closeness and security.

It is just looking into addressing general tendencies of the sexes. Like anything there are further complexities and even exceptions to the rule.

[creekster]

I think your avatar is pornographic and I'm going to complain to someone about it. Button pusher. That's a penis on display and it's POINTED AT ME.

Just becaseu it is pointed AT you doesnt mean it's BECAUSE of you, so calm down.

[RobinFinderson]

Comparing porn models to sustainable land use isn't even remotely fair. While the former is important, to me, the latter is not even in the same league, let alone ballpark.

Labor is labor. Anyhow, your statement doesn't make any sense, because you offer no frame of reference on what league status means, or what pornography actors might be doing in a ballpark. Please, wuap, make yourself better understood.

[Babs]

I don't think that what Babs is presenting disqualifies the idea of men having a need for emotional closeness and security.

It is just looking into addressing general tendencies of the sexes. Like anything there are further complexities and even exceptions to the rule.

Right. I'm talking about primary versus secondary motivation and drive. And I tried to emphasize that this is a pattern, not universal. There are exceptions for all sorts of reason. But the general patterns are well established.

[SeattleUte]

Labor is labor. Anyhow, your statement doesn't make any sense, because you offer no frame of reference on what league status means, or what pornography actors might be doing in a ballpark. Please, wuap, make yourself better understood.

You are both making value judgments, to which you are entitled. We all do that; indeed there is a hierarchy of values in my view.

[RobinFinderson]

So we all agree that porn CAN hurt people. Perhaps the most generic way of describing this harm might go something like this:

Market forces reacting to consumer demand for sexually explicit material often result in industrial practices that are not in the best interests of industry workers and porn consumers.

But this generic statement about pornography and its dangers is true of all goods and services that are bought and sold in a free market environment. For example, we could also say:

Market forces reacting to consumer demand for meat often results in industrial practices that are not in the best interests of industry workers and meat consumers.

What about porn is UNIQUELY harmful?

[wuapinmon]

Four years ago I wrote a blog post about LDS sex toy parties. I won't repost the content here, out of respect for the sensitivities of some readers. You can examine the post if you wish:

http://wuapinmon.blogspot.com/2005/0...l-orgasms.html

What gets me is that I get a comment today that is some holy-rolling condemnation-spewing really-really-really-hyper-descriptive critique of "Spirit-feeling" priesthood holders and what they should and should not do in the bedroom with 'proxy objects.'

The word "abomination" was used and it wasn't tongue-in-cheek.