Growing up on porn is terrible

[UtahDan]

[tooblue]

Any more worthless than basing conclusions on a sample of 20 Montreal male undergraduates? Do you think we'll ever see that study published?

For her book Paul interviewed at least 100 men. How do you divine the outliers?

Not relying on her own methods (which she acknowledges had flaws), Paul cites a 1979 University of Alabama study:



Why not update this research? Ethics boards won't approve new research that would knowingly subject human test subjects to the proven negative effects of pornography.

From a former porn actress:

Most strippers, prostitutes and porn actresses are adult survivors of child sexual abuse “acting out” their learned behavior from childhood. They will insist their childhood sexual abuse has nothing to do with their decision to work in the sex industry but it’s just not true. Mary Anne Layden, Ph. D., Director for Women's Psychological Health in Philadelphia states in a powerful way:

"Most strippers, as with other women who work in the sex industry, are adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Research indicates the number is between 60%-80%. One study found that 35% of strippers have Multiple Personality Disorder, 55% had Borderline Personality Disorder, and 60% had Major Depressive Episodes, These are severe psychiatric problems and many of them are connected to childhood sexual abuse. These are women who when they were little girls would get into their beds each night and roll themselves into a fetal position and every night he would come in and peel her open. The physical and visual invasion of little girl's bodies damages them psychologically and gives them a psychologically unhealthy view of sexuality. Often as adults they reenact their childhood trauma by working as strippers, Playboy models, and prostitutes. The men who, now as customers, physically and visually invade the adult women's bodies, reenact the role of the perpetrator. These women work in the sex industry because it feels like home."

Shelley lubben

Dr. Layden is Director of Education, Center for Cognitive Therapy, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; and Director, Social Action Committee for Women's Psychological Health, Philadelphia.

We've covered this subject before. There are posters such as ER and others who believe it's only a coincidence that prostitutes can be found near strip joints

[myboynoah]

I assume that the study has been published, as it made all the usual rounds several weeks ago. I'll see if I can find it later today.

What's confusing about SU's statement? I find it spot-on, and would think that even many of the devout on here would agree.

Good luck finding that study. Per Paul, it doesn't exist, at least in published form. I seriously doubt we will ever see it (at least the one based solely on those 20 undergraduate students in Canada). But at least Associate Professor Lajeunesse got a lot of play out of his preliminary findings, such as they are.

Per SU's statement and your defense of it, SU laments Paul's lack of a "reasoned, unemotional, non-religion-tainted approach." How silly (not to mention unreasoned and emotional). A religious appeal was never made (it's as if SU didn't bother to read the article - big surprise). She researched the topic extensively and reported her conclusions. She cited a peer-reviewed study on the effects on pornography on men. Given Paul's career and accomplishments, including authoring three books on family/social issues (two being recommended by The Washington Post and The San Francisco Chronicle), her standing is well established.

[tooblue]

Good luck finding that study. Per Paul, it doesn't exist, at least in published form. I seriously doubt we will ever see it (at least the one based solely on those 20 undergraduate students in Canada). But at least Associate Professor Lajeunesse got a lot of play out of his preliminary findings, such as they are.

Per SU's statement and your defense of it, SU laments Paul's lack of a "reasoned, unemotional, non-religion-tainted approach." How silly (not to mention unreasoned and emotional). A religious appeal was never made (it's as if SU didn't bother to read the article - big surprise). She researched the topic extensively and reported her conclusions. She cited a peer-reviewed study on the effects on pornography on men. Given Paul's career and accomplishments, including authoring three books on family/social issues (two being recommended by The Washington Post and The San Francisco Chronicle), her standing is well established.

We have been over this subject many times. Because I am a victim of sexual abuse I am somehow deemed unfit to comment rationally on the subject. Of course neuroscience is proving that feelings and emotion are essential to rational thought so perhaps I am the most fit to comment on the subject.

It all really boils down to a very basic question: would pornography exist if there were no sexual abuse or sexual exploitation? No, it would not exist. but such is mortality.

[woot]

Good luck finding that study. Per Paul, it doesn't exist, at least in published form. I seriously doubt we will ever see it (at least the one based solely on those 20 undergraduate students in Canada). But at least Associate Professor Lajeunesse got a lot of play out of his preliminary findings, such as they are.

Per SU's statement and your defense of it, SU laments Paul's lack of a "reasoned, unemotional, non-religion-tainted approach." How silly (not to mention unreasoned and emotional). A religious appeal was never made (it's as if SU didn't bother to read the article - big surprise). She researched the topic extensively and reported her conclusions. She cited a peer-reviewed study on the effects on pornography on men. Given Paul's career and accomplishments, including authoring three books on family/social issues (two being recommended by The Washington Post and The San Francisco Chronicle), her standing is well established.

Perhaps I misread SU's intentions, but what I got is him repeating his standard desire from a debate, i.e. that it be based in reason and logic rather than emotion and religion. I don't think he was specifically stating that she her religion is tainting her views. I suspect it probably is, but being anti-pornography doesn't require religion (see Noam Chomsky, et al.)

SU and I both found her piece to be lacking in these criteria, and newspapers and pop-psy books are the last place to seek affirmation on this point. Have you read her books? Are they based on anecdotes and appeals to emotion (cf. this piece)?

[tooblue]

Perhaps I misread SU's intentions, but what I got is him repeating his standard desire from a debate, i.e. that it be based in reason and logic rather than emotion and religion. I don't think he was specifically stating that she her religion is tainting her views. I suspect it probably is, but being anti-pornography doesn't require religion (see Noam Chomsky, et al.)

SU and I both found her piece to be lacking in these criteria, and newspapers and pop-psy books are the last place to seek affirmation on this point. Have you read her books? Are they based on anecdotes and appeals to emotion (cf. this piece)?

I would contend that you cannot have a logical debate without emotion. There is very strong evidence in the research of the likes of an Antonio Damasio at USC that asserts that emotion is essential to rational thought.

http://www.usc.edu/programs/neuroscience/faculty/profile.php?fid=27

Perhaps what you and others are really saying is you don't want to deal in the emotional currency that comes with such a debate. To me that is naive and disingenuous.

[Fiyero]

My usual response: Porn certainly can be addicting and destructive, but I think that you have to believe that it is harmful in order for it to actually be harmful.

My new caveat (tip of the hat to Rosebud): I have heard that there are many abusive business practices in the porn industry. Whether you are consuming porn or Nike shoes, I think that it is ethically incumbent upon the consumer to understand the provenance of that which s/he consumes. We shouldn't patronize companies that abuse workers.

I've heard that Ghirardeli employs slave labor in some foreign nations, but Google and Snopes are inconclusive on the issue. I'm boycotting them in the meantime. Do any of you big beefy brainy types have the 411?

[tooblue]

I would contend that you cannot have a logical debate without emotion. There is very strong evidence in the research of the likes of an Antonio Damasio at USC that asserts that emotion is essential to rational thought.

http://www.usc.edu/programs/neuroscience/faculty/profile.php?fid=27

Perhaps what you and others are really saying is you don't want to deal in the emotional currency that comes with such a debate. To me that is naive and disingenuous.

In other words woot doesn't really want a debate -- he wants to prove somebody wrong.

[RobinFinderson]

We have been over this subject many times. Because I am a victim of sexual abuse I am somehow deemed unfit to comment rationally on the subject. Of course neuroscience is proving that feelings and emotion are essential to rational thought so perhaps I am the most fit to comment on the subject.

It all really boils down to a very basic question: would pornography exist if there were no sexual abuse or sexual exploitation? No, it would not exist. but such is mortality.

This simply isn't true, tooblue. Your history isn't what prevents you from being rational about this subject. I doubt anyone knows why you are so often irrational about most things, but I doubt anyone thinks it is because of your history of abuse.

[woot]

In other words woot doesn't really want a debate -- he wants to prove somebody wrong.

I'll debate MBN, and have been, but not you. We can talk about Canada and whatnot, but your debating skills are much too formidable for me.

[il Padrino Ute]

This simply isn't true, tooblue. Your history isn't what prevents you from being rational about this subject. I doubt anyone knows why you are so often irrational about most things, but I doubt anyone thinks it is because of your history of abuse.

Isn't irrationality relative?

You may think that tooblue is irrational, but that doesn't mean he is.

[myboynoah]

Perhaps I misread SU's intentions, but what I got is him repeating his standard desire from a debate, i.e. that it be based in reason and logic rather than emotion and religion. I don't think he was specifically stating that she her religion is tainting her views. I suspect it probably is, but being anti-pornography doesn't require religion (see Noam Chomsky, et al.)

SU and I both found her piece to be lacking in these criteria, and newspapers and pop-psy books are the last place to seek affirmation on this point. Have you read her books? Are they based on anecdotes and appeals to emotion (cf. this piece)?

Well, he did write this:

As usual, I only ask for a reasoned, unemotional, non-religion-tainted approach. This woman's writings don't seem to do it.

I'll let SU clarify his own intentions.

Again, Paul did extensive research and reported on it. She acknowledged the difficulty and weaknesses of doing these studies, so she cited a peer-reviewed study supporting her conclusions. That's a reasoned approached. Per emotion, Paul is merely quoting those that she interviewed. That the individual stories are emotional is not surprising, given the issue. But the emotion isn't Paul's, it's that of those affected by pornography.

Given the lack of counter studies I suppose one who disagrees with Paul is left with very limited options.

[SeattleUte]

I'll let SU clarify his own intentions.

Again, Paul did extensive research and reported on it. She acknowledged the difficulty and weaknesses of doing these studies, so she cited a peer-reviewed study supporting her conclusions. That's a reasoned approached. Per emotion, Paul is merely quoting those that she interviewed. That the individual stories are emotional is not surprising, given the issue. But the emotion isn't Paul's, it's that of those affected by pornography.

Given the lack of counter studies I suppose one who disagrees with Paul is left with very limited options.

First, I don't know what she's trying to say. Take her little "distilled" anecdote. A girl finds out her boyfriend has a lot of porn on his computer and decides she may not want a future with him. That strikes me as a personal choice, a value judgment, not necessarily a bad one, but that does not constitute a great societal evil. Is her point that men lose interest in women if they are addicted to porn? Really, what's her point? It's not clear what she's saying. Honestly, I can't even imagine a hetersexual who has at attractive woman desiring sex with him being that interested in porn. If the relationship isn't that great, if the guy isn't that interested in the woman, does that mean the porn is to blame, or they have deeper problems? I don't know. Who can know? I'm not sure it's possible to know.

I read a review of her book. A major criticism is that she can't articulate a rational distinction between porn and sex-related art. As we've seen, many people think Rodin's JTB is porn. The title of the book, "Pornified," seems very sensational in an offputting way. To me there is something offputting in the way she states her case.

We now have reached a point where experts seem to agree that porn does not cause men to commit sexual crimes. Still, many women don't want men to look at porn, apprantly for reasons they have a hard time explaining. This woman's article, which, by the way, isn't that well written, sounds a lot like a religious polemic. I don't know if she's religious, but her rhetoric sounds religiously motiveated. It's that impoverished. All I want is to be educated. This scene where guys sit around and watch porn all the time and wack off to the extent that real flesh and blood women are boring to them is alien to me. I don't get it. (I promise you I have never bought porn, nor do I have any on my computer.)

I think the exploitation argument is the one that resonates most with me. But I harken to Babs' description of the new feminism. How do you tell which ones are being exploited and which ones are making a choice to do this work? It seems to me you have to rely on the legal system including employment laws.

Woot is right. I just want a rational discussion. I resent all forms of effort to limit liberty that are driven primarily by fear mongering and dogma.

Noah seems to concede the paucity of reliable data pro or con. Maybe that's because there's nothing there to learn.

[SoCalCoug]

Isn't irrationality relative?

You may think that tooblue is irrational, but that doesn't mean he is.

I thought relativism was the province of the liberals.

[tooblue]

I'll debate MBN, and have been, but not you. We can talk about Canada and whatnot, but your debating skills are much too formidable for me.

I fully understand, as you have made it abundantly clear in the past, that you feel I'm not intelligent enough to debate with you. That's really what's at issue here. It must be nice being so smart.