# Pornography in your country / La pornografía en su país



## tvdxer

How widespread is pornography in your country?  What are your society's attitudes towards it?  Do most people accept it and think using it is morally acceptable, or is it generally looked down upon?

In the United States, pornography is unfortunately very common.  The San Fernando Valley of southern California is essentially the global center of porn production, and it is widely available on the internet, in many newsstands and gas stations, in hotel rooms, and on some satellite channels.  The social view towards it is mixed: most people would not want to go out in public and speak of their experiences with it, but it seems quite accepted among young men, and is becoming more and more mainstream every day.  Religious conservatives generally eschew it, as do some feminists, while many with liberal sexual attitudes do not hold a negative view of it.

¿Qué tan extendido es la pornografía en su país?  ¿Cómo es la actitúd de su sociedad respecto a ella?  ¿La aceptan y piensan que usarla es moralmente aceptable la mayoría de la gente, o la reproba generalmente?

En los estados unidos, la pornografía es desgraciadamente muy común.  El Valle de San Fernando de la parte sureña de California basicámente es el centro mundial de la producción de pornografía, y es ampliamente disponible en el internet, en los quioscos de estaciones de servicio y varias tiendas, en los cuartos de hoteles, y por algunas canales satelitales.  La opinión respeto a ella es mezclada: la parte más grande de la gente no quería hablar publicamente de sus experiencias con ella, pero es bastante aceptada por los muchachos y se esta haciendo _mainstream _(no sé cómo decir esta palabra en español) cada vez más .  Generalmente, la oponen los que tienen una mentalidad religiosamente conservativo, igual de algunas feministas, pero muchos que tienen actitudes liberales hasta la sexualidad no tienen una mentalidad negativa hasta ella.  

(Correciones por favor)


----------



## mirx

tvdxer said:


> How widespread is pornography in your country? What are your society's attitudes towards it? Do most people accept it and think using it is morally acceptable, or is it generally looked down upon?
> 
> 
> ¿Qué tan extendid*a* es la pornografía en su país? ¿Cómo  *Cuál* es la actitúd de *la *sociedad respecto a ella? ¿La aceptan y piensan que usarla es moralmente aceptable la mayoría de la gente, o la repr*ueb*a*n* generalmente?
> 
> En los estados unidos, la pornografía es desgraciadamente muy común. El Valle de San Fernando *en* la parte sureña de California basicámente es el centro mundial de la producción de pornografía, y es*tá* ampliamente disponible en el internet, en los quioscos de estaciones de servicio y varias tiendas, en los cuartos de hoteles, y por algun*o*s canales satelitales. La opinión respe*c*to a ella es mezclada: la *mayor* parte más grande de la gente no quer*e* hablar publicamente de sus experiencias con ella -la pornogrofía-, pero es bastante aceptada por los muchachos y se esta haciendo _mainstream _(no sé cómo decir esta palabra en español) cada vez más . Generalmente, la oponen *se oponen a* ella los que tienen una mentalidad religiosamente conservad*ora*, *al* igual *que* algunas feministas, pero muchos que tienen actitudes liberales *hacia* la sexualidad no tienen una mentalidad negativa hasta ella hacia la pornografía.
> 
> (Correciones por favor)


 
Well, in México it would be more like, *NO body questions it, nobody talks about it! *It is absolutely accepted by men, women get scandalized at the mere sound of the word but as a matter of fact they too know what it is all about.

It's basically the same as what you mentioned for the States, you can get porn on the Internet, in practically any magazine stand, pay per view satalite channels, eveywhere and all kinds of pornography.

And as I was telling you, all my male friends, including cousins and other relatives, speak freely about it and admit to watch it now and then, and they never make a big thing of it, is not like they have any fixation with porn or anything.

I personally don't see pornography as something bad, well it actually depends a lot of what kind of porn we're talking about here. But my philosophy for pretty much everything is that as long as you don't hurt anyone or yourself, and if it makes you happy, then it has to be good.

Oh, and as a matter of fact teenagers of all ages can get adult content magazines, almost everywhere. I beleive the legal age for buying books wirh graphic or explicit adult content should be lowered to 16 years. 

Cheers.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:


> *
> Religious conservatives generally eschew it*, as do some feminists, while many with liberal sexual attitudes do not hold a negative view of it.



Prove it!

Why should we believe such a sweeping generality?  What makes you think that religious conservatives do not indulge their, errrr, curiosity in the privacy of their web surfing?  To assume that religious conservatives don't do something because they consider it morally bad may be wishful thinking.  It's a bit like suggesting that religious conservatives are never stopped for driving under the influence of alcohol, or that they never exceed the speed limit on highways.

I am sure that most of those religious conservatives who enjoy looking at porn do not make a point of telling their friends and family all about it.  In that sense, they are just like most other people who look at porn.  Human.


----------



## Joca

tvdxer said:


> 1. How widespread is pornography in your country? 2. What are your society's attitudes towards it? 3. Do most people accept it and think using it is morally acceptable, or is it generally looked down upon?
> ...


 
1. Very much widespread, especially in the big cities. This was not the case when I was growing up, in the fifties and sixties.

2. It is tolerated. Actually, it is not much talked about. Basically, it is a man's thing, whether he is heterosexual or not. As far as I know, there is no porn especifically for women, but I know there is women-oriented porn in the USA and elsewhere which can be seen on the Internet.

3. As said above, most people seem to take it for granted or simply ignore it. It can be morally rejected by religious groups, although in some cases they are simply paying lip service. Some people might view porn as pure business (it is indeed a flourishing industry). Most men watch some porn, at least occasionally, but it's something they usually do privately. It may be bad taste to talk about it in public. To admit you have an addiction may be a sign that you have problems with real sex.


----------



## jonquiliser

tvdxer said:


> Religious conservatives generally eschew it, as do some feminists, while many with liberal sexual attitudes do not hold a negative view of it.



Hmm, what a strange path of associations, anyway (though far from uncommon). "Liberal attitudes towards sex" (ambiguous and unclear as that is) doesn't have to have anything to do with any specific stand on pornography.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thank you Jonquiliser.  Pornography is not sex.  Sex is not pornographic.  Liberal attitudes towards sex, whatever that may mean, does not imply that pornography is sex, which in my experience involves human contact, nor does it imply that human sexual contact is pornographic.

In my country, self-styled religious conservatives talk a lot about family values, even after their second and third divorce and remarriage.  This leads one to wonder which family they are referring to.  Does this confusion
carry over to the declarations and silences of religious conservatives in addressing pornography?


----------



## Athaulf

Joca said:


> As far as I know, there is no porn especifically for women, but I know there is women-oriented porn in the USA and elsewhere which can be seen on the Internet.



Well, there are certain publications that are consumed by many women in much the same way that pornography is consumed by men, although they don't seem particulary obscene, at least on the surface.  In fact, their production has a much longer history than contemporary pornography. 



jonquiliser said:


> Hmm, what a strange path of associations, anyway (though far from uncommon). "Liberal attitudes towards sex" (ambiguous and unclear as that is) doesn't have to have anything to do with any specific stand on pornography.



On the other hand, I think this is a common way of obscuring the issue. Nowadays it's still fashionable to sport "liberal" and "open-minded" attitudes towards all kinds of issues, but then people often find themselves in a situation where these liberal principles imply that should tolerate something that seems highly evil or immoral to them because of their other principles or personal tastes. A common cop-out in such situations is to deny that the issue has anything to do with liberalism, and that one can support all sorts of censorship and restrictions in that particular case while still keeping flawless "liberal" credentials. (I'm not saying that you support censorship and restrictions, but apparently you do agree that such an attitude can be consistent with "liberal attitudes towards sex".) Pornography is an issue where one often finds attitudes of this kind, though of course there are numerous others as well. 

I have the impression that many people who like consider themselves liberally minded sometimes happen to totally agree with the arguments and conclusions of out-and-out social conservatives, but are ashamed to admit it, and proceed to invent convoluted ways of arguing that it's in fact some other arguments and attitudes that make them support the same policies. Pornography is an excellent example. Despite having highly libertarian attitudes myself, I can easily see how one can reasonably argue from an openly conservative viewpoint that sexual laissez-faire in general, and pornography in particular, is greatly damaging and should be suppressed by rigid social and legal norms. On the other hand, I often hear much less coherent arguments for the same attitudes given from a "liberal" or "progressive" perspective by people who still insist that social conservatism is a sheer evil in every respect.


----------



## jonquiliser

Athaulf said:


> On the other hand, I think this is a common way of obscuring the issue. Nowadays it's still fashionable to sport "liberal" and "open-minded" attitudes towards all kinds of issues, but then people often find themselves in a situation where these liberal principles imply that should tolerate something that seems highly evil or immoral to them because of their other principles or personal tastes. A common cop-out in such situations is to deny that the issue has anything to do with liberalism, and that one can support all sorts of censorship and restrictions in that particular case while still keeping flawless "liberal" credentials. (I'm not saying that you support censorship and restrictions, but apparently you do agree that such an attitude can be consistent with "liberal attitudes towards sex".) Pornography is an issue where one often finds attitudes of this kind, though of course there are numerous others as well.
> 
> I have the impression that many people who like consider themselves liberally minded sometimes happen to totally agree with the arguments and conclusions of out-and-out social conservatives, but are ashamed to admit it, and proceed to invent convoluted ways of arguing that it's in fact some other arguments and attitudes that make them support the same policies. Pornography is an excellent example. Despite having highly libertarian attitudes myself, I can easily see how one can reasonably argue from an openly conservative viewpoint that sexual laissez-faire in general, and pornography in particular, is greatly damaging and should be suppressed by rigid social and legal norms. On the other hand, I often hear much less coherent arguments for the same attitudes given from a "liberal" or "progressive" perspective by people who still insist that social conservatism is a sheer evil in every respect.



Hmm.. my take on this would be that people sometimes (even frequently?) use 'liberal' without really saying much. Or perhaps, liberal is 'what one is supposed to be', but what one should be in being liberal seems rather obscure.


----------



## Athaulf

jonquiliser said:


> Hmm.. my take on this would be that people sometimes (even frequently?) use 'liberal' without really saying much. Or perhaps, liberal is 'what one is supposed to be', but what one should be in being liberal seems rather obscure.



That's true when it comes to the modern political speech, in which ideological labels such as "liberal" are often thrown around without much concern for their meaning. But in expressions such as "liberal attitudes towards sex", this word still has a precise and well-defined meaning. If attitudes of different people towards a certain phenomenon range from acceptance and tolerance on one end of the spectrum to calls for severe prohibitive measures on the other, with different shades inbetween, a "liberal" attitude is one inclined towards the former end. As long as we're talking about a liberal attitude towards some concrete issue, rather than about some ill-defined full-blown, package-deal ideology of "liberalism", there is no semantic confusion.

Since this case (pornography) is about one particular way of commercializing sex, it's pretty clear what a "liberal attitude towards sex" should imply there. Of course, since there are quite a few people who have highly illiberal attitudes towards this phenomenon, but still like to call themselves and think of themselves as having liberal attitudes towards all sorts of things, including sex, some of them have resorted to higly inventive sophistry with which they are trying to demonstrate that there is no inconsistency there.


----------



## tvdxer

cuchuflete said:


> Prove it!
> 
> Why should we believe such a sweeping generality?  What makes you think that religious conservatives do not indulge their, errrr, curiosity in the privacy of their web surfing?  To assume that religious conservatives don't do something because they consider it morally bad may be wishful thinking.  It's a bit like suggesting that religious conservatives are never stopped for driving under the influence of alcohol, or that they never exceed the speed limit on highways.
> 
> I am sure that most of those religious conservatives who enjoy looking at porn do not make a point of telling their friends and family all about it.  In that sense, they are just like most other people who look at porn.  Human.



I'm sure there are plenty of religious conservatives who look at porn.  We all have our weaknesses.  Indeed, there are sites like this one for those who struggle with pornographic addictions and temptations they may have developed prior to their conversion.

Catholicism has religious teachings clearly and explicitly forbidding pornography, and Protestantism, if the bible is followed at all, also prohibits such trash.  Conservatives, that is, those who hold the teachings of these religions without making room for modern permissiveness, logically oppose pornography.  The first three "religious conservative" groups to come to my mind, Concerned Women for America, the American Family Association, and Focus on the Family, all have pages opposing pornography.


----------



## Dempsey

Pornography is probably as popular here as it is in the US. We have no porn industry so almost all of it comes from USA. We have sex-shops, erotic t.v. stations, erotic magazines, and even some popular video stores sell softcore porn (video ezy for one).
Where I used to work (labourer) there were erotic magazines scattered across all the lunch tables, and many work areas had pictures posted up on the walls.


----------



## mirx

Dempsey said:


> Pornography is probably as popular here as it is in the US. We have no porn industry so almost all of it comes from USA. We have sex-shops, erotic t.v. stations, erotic magazines, and even some popular video stores sell softcore porn (video ezy for one).
> Where I used to work (labourer) there were erotic magazines scattered across all the lunch tables, and many work areas had pictures posted up on the walls.


 
This last thing you mentioned reminds me of mexican mechanic garages, where it seems that is a rule to wallpaper the interiors of the place with pictures of nude women, as well as having big calendars in the wall of nude or seminude women.

This is a sing of how well tolerated pornography is in México, given that a lot of children of all ages go with thier parents to the garage, also it is almost a fact the a bricklayer will be carrying a nude strips book in his back pocket.

No one seems to mind.


----------



## Earth Dragon

In the US, porn is accepted but it is mostly kept private. One of the few limitations on it is that you're supposed to be 18 to access it even though it's easy for anyone to click the "I'm 18 or older" button. The models have to be 18 or older to pose for porn. Child pornography is a federal crime and lolicon's legality is being debated (but I’m not sure if anyone has really tried to regulate it). For those of you who don't know, lolicon is a genre of animated porn in which the subjects appear to be underage.


----------



## tvdxer

I'd really like to hear from our European users.  I wonder how German, Italian, French, etc. views of porn differ from those in the U.S.


----------



## Athaulf

tvdxer said:


> I'd really like to hear from our European users.  I wonder how German, Italian, French, etc. views of porn differ from those in the U.S.



In most of Europe, both Western and Eastern, the social and legal norms concerning pornography and erotica are generally far more liberal than in the U.S. and Canada, often resulting in things that would be unthinkable in North America. 

In Croatia, for example, it's quite normal to see pornographic magazines, tapes, and DVDs with totally uncensored covers prominently displayed on newspaper stands and in store windows, and openly sold on garage sales, flea markets, etc. Any video store has a huge pornography section, not just specialized ones. Serious mainstream newspapers and magazines often carry illustrations that no self-respecting Canadian or U.S. publication would even dare to print (e.g. an economic report on the tourist season might be accompanied by a photo of topless girls on a beach). As far as I've noticed, a similar extremely liberal atmosphere exists in most of the rest of Europe, in some countries even more extreme.


----------



## Kajjo

tvdxer said:


> I'd really like to hear from our European users.  I wonder how German, Italian, French, etc. views of porn differ from those in the U.S.


I believe that we need to clearly define "pornography". I will split my answer in three parts.

Nudity is no issue in Germany (and I guess it is fair to extrapolate this to Western and Northern Germany). Athaulf mentioned nude girls accompanying serious articles about travelling or economy, and this is really common and nothing to be commented on. This applies to TV and printed media.

Softcore pornography, i.e. depiction of nudity in all varieties (mostly female nudity), is not regulated and can be sold freely. I guess nobody cares and magazines like _Playboy _are widely sold and openly read in trains and airplanes without shame. Very many weekly magazines include all kinds of nude pictures and articles about sexual practices.

Hardcore pornography, i.e. the detailled depiction of sexual practices including penis and intercourse, is limited to people above 18 years of age. Video stores have separate sections and magazines and sex toys are only sold in shops for adults. I believe that only a minority of people is regularly interested in such depictions, while most people have tried it at least once in their young adulthood. Sex toys are increasingly accepted and used, but most people regard those items to belong to their intimate, private life and would not discuss such issues openly or show off the items. Good friends might discuss it, though.

It is my private assumption that the liberal attitude towards nudity and softcore creates an atmosphere of normality that somewhat reduces the attractiveness of the hardcore variety of pornography.

Kajjo


----------



## Drechuin

Kajjo said:


> Video stores have separate sections and magazines and sex toys are only sold in shops for adults.



In France, a majority of magazine stands have porn on the higher shelf (mainstream hardcore porn: hetero- and homosexual intercourses, but nothing kinky).
Really soft porn magazines (showing a lot of skin and tits, but no genitals) are not always considered porn.



Kajjo said:


> Sex toys are increasingly accepted and used, but most people regard those items to belong to their intimate, private life and would not discuss such issues openly or show off the items. Good friends might discuss it, though.


 
Some sex-shops tries to offer a cleaner impression to attract people who want to add a bit of spice to their sexuality but are repulsed by the sordid side of some other sex-shops.
The e-trade also allows people to buy sex related stuff more easily.

Nevertheless, it stays a private matter you won't discuss except with close friends.


----------



## Kajjo

Drechuin said:


> In France, a majority of magazine stands have porn on the higher shelf (mainstream hardcore porn: hetero- and homosexual intercourses, but nothing kinky). Really soft porn magazines (showing a lot of skin and tits, but no genitals) are not always considered porn.


The same is true in Germany, both the higher-shelves and the soft-porn magazines not considered real pornography.



> Some sex-shops tries to offer a cleaner impression to attract people who want to add a bit of spice to their sexuality but are repulsed by the sordid side of some other sex-shops. The e-trade also allows people to buy sex related stuff more easily.


Again, the same applies to Germany.



> Nevertheless, it stays a private matter you won't discuss except with close friends.


Right.

Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

Reading Kajjo's and Drechuin's posts, I'm left wondering whether things really are much different in America (including Canada, but especially the States, I guess). 

I have to say that I find your depiction of European habits and mentalities a bit rosy, though, Kajjo. What, there are no conservative Christians objecting to the immorality of nudity and pornography in Germany -- none whatsoever?...

In any case, Europe is not homogeneous, and here in the south people are not as liberal about such things.


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> I have to say that I find your depiction of European habits and mentalities a bit rosy, though, Kajjo. What, there are no conservative Christians objecting to the immorality of nudity and pornography in Germany -- none whatsoever?


We are talking about the society's attitude, the majority thinking, about customs, public policy and acceptance. We did not talk about whether there might be _some_ conservatives moaning about modern culture.

Anyway, I have never heard someone moan about higher-shelf magazines offering soft porn or about videostores having an adult section. I have never seen raised eye-brows because of someone reading _Playboy_. Surely, there is no worthwhile discussion about pictures of topless women.

I guess, our arch-conservatives focus on abortion rights and divorces rather than on nudity. The latter is just too common to start moaning about. Hardcore pornography is probably just not an important issue here -- neither for conservatives nor for the majority of common people.



> In any case, Europe is not homogeneous, and here in the south people are not as liberal about such things.


You are right. This is my impression, too (Italy, Spain).

Kajjo


----------



## Athaulf

Outsider said:


> Reading Kajjo's and Drechuin's posts, I'm left wondering whether things really are much different in America (including Canada, but especially the States, I guess).



It's very different. Except for Quebec, which culturally has far more in common with continental Europe than with the rest of Canada (let alone the U.S.) and a few highly liberal enclaves in the U.S., the attitudes towards pornography (and all other sorts of vices) in North America are much more puritanical. If you look at it purely from the perspective of what's legally tolerated, then there isn't that much difference. But if you observe the actual attitudes of people and the extent to which pornography, both softcore and hardcore, is relegated to seedy and obscure places, the difference is definitely noticeable. Note the examples I gave in my post above.



> I have to say that I find your depiction of European habits and mentalities a bit rosy, though, Kajjo. What, there are no conservative Christians objecting to the immorality of nudity and pornography in Germany -- none whatsoever?...


In Croatia, we have huge numbers of ultra-conservative Catholics who keep complaining about all sorts of evils brought by the modern world, and they are given lots of space in the media and are still considered as a significant factor in politics. And yet, their effective influence on the prevailing liberal attitude towards all sorts of vice is negligible in practice, and the politicians who pander to them are the last people on Earth from whom I'd expect uptight and puritanical behavior. It's that same good old Catholic relaxed attitude towards life. 



> In any case, Europe is not homogeneous, and here in the south people are not as liberal about such things.


Well, Italy is as far south in Europe as possible, and it seems to me like the attitudes there are very liberal, sometimes in the extreme -- there aren't many other places where a porn star can become a serious politician! From what I've seen and heard, the Spaniards aren't exactly an uptight people either, so I'd be surprised if Portugal is that different from the rest of Mediterranean Europe.


----------



## Outsider

Could be. After all, we're only honorary Mediterraneans.


----------



## tvdxer

Drechuin said:


> In France, a majority of magazine stands have porn on the higher shelf (mainstream hardcore porn: hetero- and homosexual intercourses, but nothing kinky).
> Really soft porn magazines (showing a lot of skin and tits, but no genitals) are not always considered porn.
> 
> 
> 
> Some sex-shops tries to offer a cleaner impression to attract people who want to add a bit of spice to their sexuality but are repulsed by the sordid side of some other sex-shops.
> The e-trade also allows people to buy sex related stuff more easily.
> 
> Nevertheless, it stays a private matter you won't discuss except with close friends.



All of this is more or less true in the United States.

As for topless women in newspapers, I'm completely aware of this, though the ones I've heard of having them tend to be on the trashy / tabloid side.  This would never occur in the U.S., where we tend to be very precise about what's allowed and not allowed in the way of nudity, and such a thing would ruin any half-decent newspaper's reputation anyway.  Also, I think nudity itself is more sexualized here than it is in Europe.


----------



## jonquiliser

Athaulf said:


> It's very different. Except for Quebec, which culturally has far more in common with continental Europe than with the rest of Canada (let alone the U.S.) and a few highly liberal enclaves in the U.S., the attitudes towards pornography (and all other sorts of vices) in North America are much more puritanical. If you look at it purely from the perspective of what's legally tolerated, then there isn't that much difference. But if you observe the actual attitudes of people and the extent to which pornography, both softcore and hardcore, is relegated to seedy and obscure places, the difference is definitely noticeable. Note the examples I gave in my post above.
> 
> In Croatia, we have huge numbers of ultra-conservative Catholics who keep complaining about all sorts of evils brought by the modern world, and they are given lots of space in the media and are still considered as a significant factor in politics. And yet, their effective influence on the prevailing liberal attitude towards all sorts of vice is negligible in practice, and the politicians who pander to them are the last people on Earth from whom I'd expect uptight and puritanical behavior. It's that same good old Catholic relaxed attitude towards life.



I think you (well, not only you, but I take these lines you've written as an example of something very common) are confusing things here, by describing pornography as a singular 'phenomenon' and (possible) attitudes towards it as being on a scale, with two opposites (and no other alternatives outside this framework), i.e. "conservativism" and "liberalism", to different degrees. (Now, I'm really not convinced about such a general usefulness of these concepts at all, but that's slightly beside the point). Trouble is, not all standpoints that "look alike" _are_ really the the same. It's quite crucial to look at things in their own right, rather than try to force them into a simple constellation of two opposing alternatives only. It may be seemingly easier to deal with, but ends up painting a picture of the issue in question, either false, or otherwise so insipid as to be entirely devoid of any content. A simple example (can't think of anything more clever right now), we may both oppose the construction of some highway, only you do it because it will result in more traffic and thus more car emissions while I do it because I live just beside the planned route for the highway. "Same opinion" - no road - but really, they are different.

Same thing with pornography, and this is where I believe you're mistaken, people may be "opposed to pornography" but for entirely different opinions. Not to different degrees ("more or less conservative/liberal") but differet scales altogether. Some believe it to be obscene and indecent, for example. This is probably what you have in mind with your conservatives. Others may object to, for example, the sexist attitudes and gender stereotyped structures in (most if not all) pornography there is. Surely you can't say these people are all about the same thing?

To answer the initial question. Pornography in Finland is like pornography in  so many other places and countries, I'd think. Gender stereotypes, highly strange depictions of sex and the sexual likes and interests of the actors involved (or of people in general), male genitals category L to XL of course, sex drive to last for hours, etc ad infinitum. Attitudes towards this? All depends, obviously. 

One thing can probably be stated with quite much certainty, pornography is one of the main sources for young boys for information about sex. In general, not much is talked about porn (oh well, man to man chats about it, of course), either way. Not many people dare to say much, lest they be labeled conservative bigots, frigid, impotent or something similar. Many men just consume it, full stop. Many women take it as an inevitable 'evil' - "men just are like that, they need to what they need to do". Or something similar. 

I'm also a little surprised, to jump from one thing to another, that so many people should equate nudity with 'sexual depictions' (for the want of a better term). Pictures in "serious" magazines about "serious issues" (sic) of naked women, aren't about nudity! I must really say, things like "page 3 girls" in Brittish papers (though there are similar things in too many papers all around the world - almost) shock me from the top of my scalp to the bottom of my feet. How on earth can people take that as normal?!


----------



## tvdxer

Athaulf said:


> In Croatia, for example, it's quite normal to see pornographic magazines, tapes, and DVDs with totally uncensored covers prominently displayed on newspaper stands and in store windows, and openly sold on garage sales, flea markets, etc. Any video store has a huge pornography section, not just specialized ones. Serious mainstream newspapers and magazines often carry illustrations that no self-respecting Canadian or U.S. publication would even dare to print (e.g. an economic report on the tourist season might be accompanied by a photo of topless girls on a beach). As far as I've noticed, a similar extremely liberal atmosphere exists in most of the rest of Europe, in some countries even more extreme.



What's really strikes me as odd is how porn is sold openly at garage sales.  In the U.S., most people would be embarrassed to make that aspect of their life public to the neighbors (since garage sales reflect what a person has bought / owned over time).


----------



## Athaulf

tvdxer said:


> What's really strikes me as odd is how porn is sold openly at garage sales.  In the U.S., most people would be embarrassed to make that aspect of their life public to the neighbors (since garage sales reflect what a person has bought / owned over time).



Well, I guess you won't find it at a typical garage sale; many people would indeed find it embarrassing.  But my point was that if you try selling it at a garage sale open to public (which I have seen done), it won't be scandalous or even illegal as it would be in North America. People are so used to seeing such stuff displayed on newsstands etc. that they won't even notice it as anything extraordinary.


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> You are right. This is my impression, too (Italy, Spain).



Italy?! A country where Ilona Staller, a former porn star, was a member of the national parliament? I don't think this would be possible even in Germany, let alone anywhere across the Atlantic.


----------



## bert.

Athaulf said:


> In most of Europe, both Western and Eastern, the social and legal norms concerning pornography and erotica are generally far more liberal than in the U.S. and Canada, often resulting in things that would be unthinkable in North America.


The exception being the UK and Ireland. You won't find any hardcore pornography for sale on newstands or in store windows here (that would be illegal as far as I know) unless you go to some seedy area of Soho, London or somewhere. I guess our attitudes to pornography and erotica are more similar to those in the USA and Canada than the rest of Europe, although I'm sure we are even more repressed. I don't even know to what extent (if at all) it is legal to produce and distribute hardcore pornography here. As mentioned above though, you can still find a pair of tits falling out of your daily paper every morning, at least if you buy certain trashy tabloids.


----------



## Athaulf

jonquiliser said:


> I think you (well, not only you, but I take these lines you've written as an example of something very common) are confusing things here, by describing pornography as a singular 'phenomenon' and (possible) attitudes towards it as being on a scale, with two opposites (and no other alternatives outside this framework), i.e. "conservativism" and "liberalism", to different degrees. (Now, I'm really not convinced about such a general usefulness of these concepts at all, but that's slightly beside the point). Trouble is, not all standpoints that "look alike" _are_ really the the same. It's quite crucial to look at things in their own right, rather than try to force them into a simple constellation of two opposing alternatives only. It may be seemingly easier to deal with, but ends up painting a picture of the issue in question, either false, or otherwise so insipid as to be entirely devoid of any content. A simple example (can't think of anything more clever right now), we may both oppose the construction of some highway, only you do it because it will result in more traffic and thus more car emissions while I do it because I live just beside the planned route for the highway. "Same opinion" - no road - but really, they are different.



I mostly agree with what you write here. However, when I wrote about "conservatives", I had in mind the concrete political forces in a particular society that I was describing; I didn't imply anywhere that this was the only ideological current opposed to pornography, which would be obviously untrue. I agree that "conservative" is indeed a very vaguely defined word, although I think it was clear enough in the context in which I used it. 

On the other hand, I would still say that "liberal" is a correct word to use here, since in a context like this it simply means the lack of a prohibitionist attitude. Admittedly, it does create some confusion between those who are liberal in the sense of merely opposing legal prohibitions against pornography and those who tolerate its presence in their private lives  (and perhaps even consume it).



> Same thing with pornography, and this is where I believe you're mistaken, people may be "opposed to pornography" but for entirely different opinions. Not to different degrees ("more or less conservative/liberal") but differet scales altogether. Some believe it to be obscene and indecent, for example. This is probably what you have in mind with your conservatives. Others may object to, for example, the sexist attitudes and gender stereotyped structures in (most if not all) pornography there is. Surely you can't say these people are all about the same thing?


While I'm well aware of the difference, and I've read quite a lot about all these sorts of arguments, I would still say they start with some very similar premises. All these arguments that you mention rest on the assumption that exposure to certain ideas and visual depictions is inherently harmful, in the sense that if such materials are allowed to circulate freely, they will massively influence people's attitudes and behavior in a way that is harmful to the society, and therefore they need to be censored out and suppressed at least to a certain extent. (This is assuming that one uses such arguments to support a prohibitionist stance, rather than merely one's personal dislike of it.)

There are of couse many different ways in which pornography is argued to be harmful, and indeed, the most fierce opposition to it comes from two otherwise warring ideological camps (religious conservatives and feminists). But still, this basic "evil meme" premise is common to all of the attitudes you describe (and many others as well). Therefore, in an important way, it does make sense to counterpose a "liberal" attitude to all of the above described arguments, since a liberal counter-argument would be that free individuals should be trusted to think for themselves about anything they see or hear, and that they don't have to be carefully guarded from evil memes for fear of being easily corrupted by them. 

Mind you, I'm not arguing here that the liberal attitude is somehow morally superior in this case (in fact, I'm not arguing in favor of it at all in this thread). Even though I have a libertarian knee-jerk reflex on most issues, I also have respect for well thought-out authoritarian opinons. I have no problem with people who openly present a rational argument that in some area of life and in certain times and places, freedom just doesn't work and that control from above, censorship, and submission to authority are necessary. What I find problematic is when people try to present such arguments while still pretending to be liberal and pro-freedom in some paradoxical way. 



> Many women take it as an inevitable 'evil' - "men just are like that, they need to what they need to do". Or something similar.


Reading this comment, I can't resist pointing out that there is also a vast industry of materials aimed at women's consumption that present a highly distorted view of relations between men and women and intensively promote unrealistic stereotypes about how men and women are supposed to behave and what they are supposed to expect from each other (I guess this should also fall under "gender stereotypes", although it's rarely encompassed by the usual usage of this phrase). Men tend to have exactly the same "inevitable evil" attitude towards such stuff (they're certainly forced to suffer it more often than women are forced to look at pornography!), and my impression is that it probably has a negative impact on human relations similar to, if not even greater than what pornography could be realistically assumed to cause by spreading its distorted views. Still, I have yet to hear any calls for censoring such materials.


----------



## tvdxer

Sometimes in the past I've wondered if the difference between the situation in Europe that Athaulf described and that in the U.S. isn't just a matter of "liberal - conservative" , but also one of heterogeneity vs. homogeneity. 

The United States is the world's largest producer of pornography, including very hard pornography, and this can be acquired from a variety of sources.  As long as the "models" or "actors" are 18+, the law does little to restrict production or sale (again, as long as the purchasers are of legal age) of such material.  To do so would outrage a fair percentage of Americans who have libertarian views towards censorship and would see such restrictions as running counter to the First Amendment.  In addition, I have doubts as to whether the percentage of men who use pornography in the U.S. is lower than in most European countries.

On the other hand, pornography (and erotica or nudity in general) is not put in front of you and your childrens' faces the way it is in Europe (if Athaulf's description is accurate).  A fair percentage of Americans align with conservative, usually religious, camps who are against pornography, and an even greater percentage wouldn't want their children to be exposed to such trash.  Many of the men in this group struggle with temptations to lust, and placing pornography out in public would simply provide more for them.  

Therefore there is a considerable diversity of viewpoints in the U.S. regarding the matter, and the situation here (where pornography is not placed in public settings, but easy to obtain) is perhaps a sort of imperfect compromise, where pornography is a private matter, however popular, but not put out in public with the assumption that a significant amount of people will not be offended, whereas in Europe the public may in general be a bit more secular than in the United States but less polarized on the matter, and more willing (in some countries, such as Germany and the U.K.) to accept restrictions on very hard pornography, while not offended by public display of advertisements for it or the like.  

Personally, I would love to see pornography simply disappear from the earth, but that isn't happening.


----------



## Saleh Al-Qammaari

In my country such a matter is deemed as illegal since our religion prohibits pornographies at all because they lead to adultery. Allah says in the Quran (what means) "*And  do  not  approach  unlawful  sexual  intercourse.  Indeed,  it  is  ever  an  immorality  and is  evil  as  a  way.*" [Surat Al-Isra' verse 32]. One of the greatest goals of Islamic Sharia is to block the way of evil from its very beginning. Unlike many approaches which permit for example such pornography then search for solutions to pt an end to the crimes of rapes, incest, child abuse, prostitute, AIDS, etc., Islamic Sharia eliminate matters which lead to crime and nip them at their bud.  Therefore, Allah says in the Quran (what means) "*Tell (o Muhammad) the believing men to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc) that is purer for them. Verily, Allah is All-Aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things) and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts)" Surat An-Noor verse no. 30-31

*You can  notice that the least rates of such crimes are in the Muslim communities either in the east or the west.
Internet nowadays is the primary source for these obscenities. So, watching them depends on the person's sense of God-fearing. Anyone watches such scenes is considered a sinner and should repent to Allah immediately through stop doing so, regretting for what he did, and determining not to do so again. These are the conditions for accepting such person's or any sinner's repentance. 

So, I advise you if you possess such materials during your visit to my county not to expose them publicly. For anyone does so is disdained by people and become accountable for his act.

Best Regards


----------



## mirx

crystal clear said:


> In my country such a matter is deemed as illegal since our religion prohibits pornographies at all because they lead to adultery. Allah says in the Quran (what means) "*And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is ever an immorality and is evil as a way.*" [Surat Al-Isra' verse 32]. One of the greatest goals of Islamic Sharia is to block the way of evil from its very beginning. Unlike many approaches which permit for example such pornography then search for solutions to pt an end to the crimes of rapes, incest, child abuse, prostitute, AIDS, etc., Islamic Sharia eliminate matters which lead to crime and nip them at their bud. Therefore, Allah says in the Quran (what means) "*Tell (o Muhammad) the believing men to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc) that is purer for them. Verily, Allah is All-Aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things) and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts)" Surat An-Noor verse no. 30-31*
> 
> You can notice that the least rates of such crimes are in the Muslim communities either in the east or the west.
> Internet nowadays is the primary source for these obscenities. So, watching them depends on the person's sense of God-fearing. Anyone watches such scenes is considered a sinner and should repent to Allah immediately through stop doing so, regretting for what he did, and determining not to do so again. These are the conditions for accepting such person's or any sinner's repentance.
> 
> So, I advise you if you possess such materials during your visit to my county not to expose them publicly. For anyone does so is disdained by people and become accountable for his act.
> 
> Best Regards


 
Hi Crystal Clear, Do you have figures to support your opinions?

Because as far as I know, many, too many sexual crimes occur in the muslim world.

And ok, you say pornography is forbidden by law, but so are many other things that people still do. Are you sure there are no pornographic publications in Egypt?

Cheers.


----------



## Kajjo

crystal clear said:


> In my country such a matter is deemed as illegal since our religion prohibits pornographies at all because they lead to adultery. *[...] *You can  notice that the least rates of such crimes are in the Muslim communities either in the east or the west.


Honestly, I cannot believe this. As you know, alcohol is forbidden, too, and almost every family uses it in private parties -- it is accepted if done sceretly. I bet it is the same with pornography -- don't talk about it, but use it. Muslim countries are the main source of opium products as well (>95%) and that should clash with muslim religion, too. There is a huge discrepancy between theory and reality in Muslim countries.

With regards to the crime rates, I just doubt there is any connection between exposure to pornography, availability of pornography and sexual assaults. Do you have any studies to support your claims?

Kajjo


----------



## jonquiliser

Well, Athaulf, it's pretty obvious that what's at stake isn't just some sort of "effects of watching this or that". At least that's not how I interpret or analyse things! So it seems plainly false to say that the same premises are involved (which by the way goes also for saying "feminists say this and conservatives say that - I think it might be worth to listen to what _people_ say, rather than decide what they will say before they have opened their mouths). It's the fact that most pornography _is_ sexist and derogatory that is the problem, not that it "may or may not lead to sexism".

I've never said so called "women's mags" aren't problematic, quite to the contrary, many of the are very much so.

Do you really think most women don't watch porn because they are less interested in sex than men?! Didn't occur that it may be nauseating to see how both women and men are utilised, sexualised etc etc, how it builds on humiliation of women and dominance by men etc? Problem is not solved by "women don't have to watch". Well of course no one has to. But that's not enough, it shouldn't exist. Just as there is a difference between portraying racism and being racist, there's a difference between portraying sexism and being sexist. I'd say most pornography there is today is sexist.  

Call it what you want, frankly I couldn't care less. I don't care for labels, as long as people get my points they can use the label they most fancy (and that's precisely what it's about often when it comes to labels). I only protest if someone claims I say things I don't.


----------



## Acrolect

jonquiliser said:


> Same thing with pornography, and this is where I believe you're mistaken, people may be "opposed to pornography" but for entirely different opinions. Not to different degrees ("more or less conservative/liberal") but differet scales altogether. Some believe it to be obscene and indecent, for example. This is probably what you have in mind with your conservatives. Others may object to, for example, the sexist attitudes and gender stereotyped structures in (most if not all) pornography there is. Surely you can't say these people are all about the same thing?


Good point, especially considering that the issue of attitudes towards pornography is so complex. There are at least four large camps, viz. religious conservatives (opposing the depiction of practically any form of sexuality on moral grounds and being primarily concerned with the ethics of the porn user), liberals (ranging from those appreciating porn to those just defending free speech), anti-porn feminists (being concerned with the sexism of porn and the effects it might have on those related to the porn user) and anti-censorship feminists (they are not really pro-porn, but they think that any measures against porn will cover non-pornographic material, e.g. sexual information for women or homosexuals, too). And these camps are not at all homogeneous either, particularly with respect to the question of legal consequences (there are people who think that pornography might have certain negative effects and also do not think that it has any positive sides but who would still strongly oppose to its banning). 



> One thing can probably be stated with quite much certainty, pornography is one of the main sources for young boys for information about sex.


As far as I know (and as far as I can recollect from the literature I viewed on this matter), peer group information is a much more important source. (Just an aside: Interestingly, this is one of the major positive features attributed to pornography by the liberal camp in the debate - but then they would have to argue in favour of making pornography available to minors.)



Athaulf said:


> There are of couse many different ways in which pornography is argued to be harmful, and indeed, the most fierce opposition to it comes from two otherwise warring ideological camps (religious conservatives and feminists).



You are right that there are some common aspects in the two anti-pornography camps. But then their conceptions of harm, (sexual) morality, discourse and legal intervention are so different that they can hardly be considered to be united in their campaign (but the liberal camp and also anti-censorship feminism has accused feminists of allying themselves with the enemy).



Athaulf said:


> Reading this comment, I can't resist pointing out that there is also a vast industry of materials aimed at women's consumption that present a highly distorted view of relations between men and women and intensively promote unrealistic stereotypes about how men and women are supposed to behave and what they are supposed to expect from each other.[...] Still, I have yet to hear any calls for censoring such materials.



What kind of material do you have in mind? (I cannot really think of anything that could have the same alleged effects as porn. I am not saying that pornography does cause harm - the research in this area is highly heterogeneous - but if it does, it appears to go beyond distorted views of interhuman relationships, particularly considering the probably still more effective agency of males as the targetted consumers of porn)



Kajjo said:


> It is my private assumption that the liberal attitude towards nudity and softcore creates an atmosphere of normality that somewhat reduces the attractiveness of the hardcore variety of pornography.



This seems counterintuitive to me. Couldn't the level of normality instill a desire for (or a curiosity about) more hardcore material? I have no information on the consumption of hardcore stuff, but I cannot really imagine sales being down and lagging behind those of softer material. Besides, I think that the industry is also trying 'hard' to make hardcore appear softer (in clean and respectful-looking porn supermarkets that are becoming more and more popular at least here in Austria, in private tupperware-party-like events, etc.).

As far as the situation in Austria is concerned, I think that it resembles that in Germany and other Central and Northern European countries (although I must admit I have never seen anyone reading _Playboy_ in public - and then this magazine is more vanilla - not necessarily less sexist - than anything else and so many guys read it 'for the articles' ). The major difference to Northern America is that the debate has never figured as prominently, I suspect, so pornography is not as prominent an issue.


----------



## Kajjo

Acrolect said:


> This seems counterintuitive to me. Couldn't the level of normality instill a desire for (or a curiosity about) more hardcore material?


It could, theoretically, but it doesn't practically as far as I know. Research is very difficult because many people do not give reliable answer, flatly spoken they just lie about hardcore consumption. The above mentioned articles concerning rigidly muslim countries being intense consumers of hardcore are supportive of this hypothesis, as are studies concerning video purchases and rentals in strongly conservatives, rural ares of US (can't find the URL link, though).



> Besides, I think that the industry is also trying 'hard' to make hardcore appear softer (in clean and respectful-looking porn supermarkets that are becoming more and more popular at least here in Austria, in private tupperware-party-like events, etc.).


Is this good or bad in your opinion? Wouldn't cleaner and softer hardcore movies be a step in the right direction?



> although I must admit I have never seen anyone reading _Playboy_ in public


Really? Well, there's the difference. I regularly see people read such magazines on airplanes and trains.



> and so many guys read it 'for the articles'


Indeed, many do!  As do women, by the way.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

tvdxer said:


> Personally, I would love to see pornography simply disappear from the earth, but that isn't happening.


Why? Do you think it does harm to those who watch it? Does your opinion apply both to softcore and hardcore material? Surely, nobody is forced to view such material and those who do, decide for themselves. What is so fundamentally wrong about watching sexually stimulating movies?

Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I recently saw a report on BBC news which said that, in fact, Iran, Pakistan and SAUDI ARABIA are the three biggest porn viewing countries (on the internet) in the world.


Possibly because there's no other way to get pornography in those countries, besides the Internet. I assume that selling it on the street is illegal.


----------



## Acrolect

Kajjo said:


> The above mentioned articles concerning rigidly muslim countries being intense consumers of hardcore are supportive of this hypothesis, as are studies concerning video purchases and rentals in strongly conservatives, rural ares of US (can't find the URL link, though).


These studies just show that the public repression of any form of sexual representation does not necessarily mean that these are not consumed in private or underground. They do, however, not indicate whether the availability of softer versions of pornography negatively correlate with sales of more hardcore products. I think I have seen studies suggesting the opposite, but I would have to check this.



Kajjo said:


> Is this good or bad in your opinion? Wouldn't cleaner and softer hardcore movies be a step in the right direction?


I have mixed feelings about the whole issue. I think that the whole sex industry partly lives on its mythical status as a taboo. If this veil of secrecy was to be lifted, the vast majority of products would lose their appeal because of their appallingly poor quality and because of their blatant sexism and racism.
But I do not believe that a cleaner and softer presentation of hardcore material necessarily means that the products are less discriminatory, they are just made to appear more normal (which in turn might have problematic consequences).



Kajjo said:


> Indeed, many do!  As do women, by the way.


"I read it [_Playboy_]for the articles" has become the standard statement justifying one's own consumption of softcore pornography (also the title of a revealing article on the topic). I still think that people seriously interested in good articles will turn elsewhere 

I generally assume that there is just a small minority of women interested in mags such as _Playboy _(even if they are physically attracted to other women - at least if they have access to the much better, more sensitive and less purely commercial products available) and the growing number of female porn consumers is a myth promoted by the industry again to appear more respectable.


----------



## Kajjo

Acrolect said:


> I think I have seen studies suggesting the opposite, but I would have to check this.


I surely have seen studies suggesting both sides. This issue is very difficult to study objectively, because of lying subjects and a tremendous bias by the researchers private ideological opinions. Personally, I cannot see that very liberal countries consume significantly more hardcore, quite the opposite as far as my feeling goes. Look at the situation in the states: Far more pornography is produced and consumed than in Germany.



> I have mixed feelings about the whole issue. I think that the whole sex industry partly lives on its mythical status as a taboo. If this veil of secrecy was to be lifted, the vast majority of products would lose their appeal because of their appallingly poor quality and because of their blatant sexism and racism.


I agree that lifting the veil of secrecy would bring quality issues to the front -- considering the general absence of quality this might either reduce the consumed quantity or increase the quality -- neither development would be bad. However, I do not agree with your assessment of racism and sexism. I think hardcore movies are not about either, they are about sex and phantasies and political statements are the last issue the typical consumers think or feel about.



> "I read it [_Playboy_]for the articles" has become the standard statement justifying one's own consumption of softcore pornography


Sure, I know this joke.



> I still think that people seriously interested in good articles will turn elsewhere


Yes, but still the is a huge gradient of quality between Playboy and other, more primitive magazines, at least in the German edition.



> I generally assume that there is just a small minority of women interested in mags such as _Playboy_


I know enough women who _read_ (not "watch") the Playboy occasionally. 
Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

And why should women read _Playboy_, when they've got _Playgirl_?... 
I don't read _Elle_, either.


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> I don't read _Elle_, either.


Me neither.

Kajjo


----------



## tvdxer

Kajjo said:


> Why? Do you think it does harm to those who watch it? Does your opinion apply both to softcore and hardcore material? Surely, nobody is forced to view such material and those who do, decide for themselves. What is so fundamentally wrong about watching sexually stimulating movies?
> 
> Kajjo



Because:

1) It takes sex out of its proper context, a gift of self to one's spouse, and cheapens it into a animalistic free-for-all.

2) It leads men to lust and fantasize, and Christ said that whoever looks at a woman lustfully commits adultery in his heart.

3) It's just in horribly bad taste, in my opinion.

I'm don't want to turn this into a debate on the morality of pornography, simply because it will get us nowhere, you arguing from a secular POV and me arguing from a religious one.


----------



## Acrolect

Kajjo said:


> Look at the situation in the states: Far more pornography is produced and consumed than in Germany.


 
Is that so? I do not know, I have not seen any sales figures. But I have read articles suggesting that more porn is consumed in the more liberal states of USA.



> I think hardcore movies are not about either, they are about sex and phantasies and political statements are the last issue the typical consumers think or feel about.


 
There is no explicit political message in pornography, nor would be consumers be interested in anything like it. However, there are underlying patterns of behaviour and interaction in pornographic representations of sexual fantasies pointing to consistent relationships of power, submission and humiliation between genders and ethnicities. Whether these have an effect on consumers' cognitive schemata and thus indirectly on their behaviour is one the central question of the pornography debate. But that these patterns can be found in hardcore (as well as in softcore - even if in a milder form) porn is even corroborated by many liberally-minded studies (content analyses...).



> I know enough women who _read_ (not "watch") the Playboy occasionally.


 
This is interesting because I have never met any woman even vaguely interested in _Playboy_ (maybe in _Playgirl_ or even _Playguy_, but not _Playboy_).


----------



## Kajjo

Acrolect said:


> There is no explicit political message in pornography, nor would be consumers be interested in anything like it.


OK, I am glad we agree on this. 



> However, there are underlying patterns of behaviour and interaction in pornographic representations of sexual fantasies pointing to consistent relationships of power, submission and humiliation between genders and ethnicities.


Well, if political ideology is the only issue that gives rise to opposition to hardcore pornography? I see no point whatsoever that a man should not watch a movie with a man-woman relationship he regards as stimulating.

The same argument ("non-modern relation patterns") could be applied to a lot of classical literature -- but it is not done. Classical literature is highly praised, although the same patterns show up consistently. 

Honestly, it seems to me that issues of political correctness are only put forward where in truth are ideological, moral or private reasons to be against pornography.



> Whether these have an effect on consumers' cognitive schemata and thus indirectly on their behaviour is one the central question of the pornography debate.


They are being made central by so-called researchers. I believe the only central issue is that there _are_ people who want to be stimulated by hardcore and they have certain phatansies and desires -- those are obviously fulfilled. We are a free world. Let the people choose what they want to watch and don't try to find political statements or issues where there are in truth none.

Central issues of research _could _better be why some people need, or think they need, such hardcore material. How could such people lead a more fulfilled life, so that such cheap stimulations are not necessary anymore? Why do people watch hardcore? Maybe they have too little possibilities to live phantasies, to have arousing sex at home. This again points into the direction that people with a fulfilled, healthy sex life usually do not need hardcore, while those in morally oppressed or environments with strongly regulated sexual practices appear to have need for "something else". What do you think?

I still tend to the notion that liberal, healthy sexual conditions are not promoting hardcore, while oppression does.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

> I'm don't want to turn this into a debate on the morality of pornography, simply because it will get us nowhere, you arguing from a secular POV and me arguing from a religious one.


You are right. We will not start this. However, let me reply with one argument:

I agree with all of _your_ reasons why _you_ do not want to watch pornography.
But I see no point, why _other_ people should not watch pornography because of _your_ beliefs.

Let everyone decide for himself. It does not harm you if your neighbor watches pornography -- particularly if not even telling you about it. It should not be any issue for you.

Kajjo


----------



## Acrolect

Kajjo said:


> I see no point whatsoever that a man should not watch a movie with a man-woman relationship he regards as stimulating.


I see many reasons why I'd feel uncomfortable if my partner - male or female - found hardcore pornography stimulating and continued watching/reading/looking at it.



> The same argument ("non-modern relation patterns") could be applied to a lot of classical literature -- but it is not done. Classical literature is highly praised, although the same patterns show up consistently.


Well, there are borderline cases (_Story of O_ etc.), but mostly classical literature is very, very different from standard hardcore pornography in the social, emotional embedding of sexual depictions and the aesthetic and cultural surplus value (which was also the reason why these works were finally excluded from obscenity laws in the 20th century). In addition, the modes of consumption are very different, particulary with regard to the possibility of critiquing the very relationship patterns I was talking about. Hardcore pornography is consumed in private, without any voices undigging underlying patterns and critically scrutinizing them.



> Honestly, it seems to me that issues of political correctness are only put forward where in truth are ideological, moral or private reasons to be against pornography.


I seem to have a very different notion of ideology because IMHO someone's attitude towards pornography is necessarily influenced by their views of reality, which are necessarily biased in one way or another. You seem to assume that a liberal view of porn is natural and neutral and thus not ideological.



> They are being made central by so-called researchers.


That is your private opinion, but those doing research into the ideological underpinnings of pornography are serious scholars and experts in their field, whether you like their approach or not.



> This again points into the direction that people with a fulfilled, healthy sex life usually do not need hardcore, while those in morally oppressed or environments with strongly regulated sexual practices appear to have need for "something else". What do you think?


This statement begs more question than it answers: What is healthy sexuality, who defines it, who is responsible if a man's sex life is not healthy, etc.?


----------



## Kajjo

Acrolect said:


> I see many reasons why I'd feel uncomfortable if my partner - male or female - found hardcore pornography stimulating and continued watching/reading/looking at it.


Maybe so, but isn't that only a personal issue of the two persons involved? Would you feel uncomfortable because you despise pornography or because you would question what your relation is missing that such a need arises?



> Well, there are borderline cases (_Story of O_ etc.), but mostly classical literature is very, very different from standard hardcore pornography in the social, emotional embedding of sexual depictions


I did not mean classical erotic literature, but that classical literature in general projects and advocates a society with all "power relations" and "male dominance" or "traditional values". You detect political issues in hardcore, and the same issues could be detected in classical literature.

I simply believe that you interpret to much political aspects into cheap hardcore pornography, that simply focuses on primitive stimulation rather than ideological values. 



> I seem to have a very different notion of ideology because IMHO someone's attitude towards pornography is necessarily influenced by their views of reality, which are necessarily biased in one way or another. You seem to assume that a liberal view of porn is natural and neutral and thus not ideological.


You despise hardcore pornography. I do not like it, too, incidentally. But I try to see it's bare value and nature: Is it stimulating? Do I need it? Do I like it? Does it matter to me if my neighbor watches it if no one knows about it? 

Well, it is the same difference I try to focus the attention on in several threads: I call it ideology if _your_ reasoning influences _my_ behaviour, when actually both your and my behaviour (in this issue) do not influence each other in any important way. I simply cannot see clear implications of political correctness in something that is only of personal, moral and sexual nature. 



> That is your private opinion, but those doing research into the ideological underpinnings of pornography are serious scholars and experts in their field, whether you like their approach or not.


I seriously doubt psychological and societal research, because of the tremendous bias and obviously mistakes made so far. Whenever moral values are involved, objective research is almost impossible. If I were to do ideological reseach into X I surely start with the opinion that there are ideological underpinnings in X and I will find some. No miracle here. Seriously, this is nonsense research and waste of money.



> This statement begs more questions than it answers: What is healthy sexuality, who defines it, who is responsible if a man's sex life is not healthy, etc.?


Well, you managed to circumnavigate my statement completely. I simply asked whether it might be possible that environments of morally oppressed and strongly regulated sex practices might give rise to a need to escape by consuming hardcore. I further asked whether it migh be possible that people with a fulfilled, satisfying sex life have no need to watch hardcore. 

Kajjo


----------



## Acrolect

Kajjo said:


> Maybe so, but isn't that only a personal issue of the two persons involved? Would you feel uncomfortable because you despise pornography or because you would question what your relation is missing that such a need arises?


This is leading nowhere because you depart from a strictly individualistic conception of the world where individual choices, preferences, conditions are not related to social, cultural, political influences. This is OK, but there is not enough common ground for argumentation because I have a different conception of the world, one which you would denigrate (but I couldn't care less)



> I did not mean classical erotic literature, but that classical literature in general projects and advocates a society with all "power relations" and "male dominance" or "traditional values". You detect political issues in hardcore, and the same issues could be detected in classical literature.


I know that you were not referring to erotic literature specifically. But this does not affect nor invalidate my line of argumentation.



> I simply cannot see clear implications of political correctness in something that is only of personal, moral and sexual nature.


No common ground, as mentioned. 



> I seriously doubt psychological and societal research, because of the tremendous bias and obviously mistakes made so far. Whenever moral values are involved, objective research is almost impossible. If I were to do ideological reseach into X I surely start with the opinion that there are ideological underpinnings in X and I will find some. No miracle here. Seriously, this is nonsense research and waste of money.


It's a pity that social psychologists or sociologists will not read this and learn that their research is nonsense and purposeless. But seriously, this judgement is a positivistically biased misconception of this kind of research, ignoring (at least) some hundred years of hermeneutic philosophy and metatheory. So it is as unprejudiced as a Discovery Institute review of a Richard Dawkins book.



> Well, you managed to circumnavigate my statement completely. I simply asked whether it might be possible that environments of morally oppressed and strongly regulated sex practices might give rise to a need to escape by consuming hardcore. I further asked whether it migh be possible that people with a fulfilled, satisfying sex life have no need to watch hardcore.


I did not dodge the questions. I was insinuating that they cannot be answered with so many fuzzy, ideologically-tainted concepts involved.


----------



## Kajjo

Acrolect said:


> This is leading nowhere because you depart from a strictly individualistic conception of the world where individual choices, preferences, conditions are not related to social, cultural, political influences. This is OK, but there is not enough common ground for argumentation because I have a different conception of the world, one which you would denigrate (but I couldn't care less)


I accept your wish if you do not want to discuss this issue any further. No problem. However, from my point of view discussions make sense if two people have different opinions, not if they have the same. We live in the same world, in quite similar societies and the concepts are not black-and-white. We both will have a concept in-between. I prefer personal liberty, but I do not deny the existence of common culture and morals in my society. I really cannot see any reason why I shouldn't understand your arguments and vice versa. Anyway, we stop it here.



> I know that you were not referring to erotic literature specifically. But this does not affect nor invalidate my line of argumentation.


Then you didn't understand my point, probably.

Kajjo


----------



## Qcumber

I have just learned that a Frenchman was jailed for one day by the end of last year because he tore off a giant condom (9000€) on an obelisk that was put there as part of an anti-AIDS campaign in some French town. He said he found the sight obscene. He is charged with vandalizing public property. He should be tried soon.


----------



## rodoke

Outsider said:


> Reading Kajjo's and Drechuin's posts, I'm left wondering whether things really are much different in America (including Canada, but especially the States, I guess).



I wonder that too. 

(For context, I live in the United States in the rural Midwest.)

Most cities around here have laws and zoning rules that (among other things) keep pornography vendors from setting up shop in town. In fact, unless you go one of the two big cities at the extreme north and south ends of my state, you'll never see a sex shop within five miles of the city limits.  As for Internet pornography vendors, they all advertise "discreet shipping"--they deliver everything in plain brown boxes and ship and charge under an obfuscated company name.  Stores that specialize in fetish/niche products are doubly careful.

Many people here don't discuss their pornography, and courtesy is a big part of it; I'd say though that another large part of it is fear. The popular conception of pornography here is that it is a(n inferior) substitute for real sex.  They also believe that when it comes to pornography, "you are what you watch".  These people tend to believe that when someone enters into a relationship, they have a "duty" to stop viewing pornography, and continuing to look at it is tantamount to adultery.   

Many of these people are in positions of power, so the rest of us have to be careful. In American courts, it's not rare to hear someone's porn viewing habits get brought up in an effort to discredit them.


----------



## Athaulf

jonquiliser said:


> Well, Athaulf, it's pretty obvious that what's at stake isn't just some sort of "effects of watching this or that". At least that's not how I interpret or analyse things! So it seems plainly false to say that the same premises are involved (which by the way goes also for saying "feminists say this and conservatives say that - I think it might be worth to listen to what _people_ say, rather than decide what they will say before they have opened their mouths). It's the fact that most pornography _is_ sexist and derogatory that is the problem, not that it "may or may not lead to sexism".
> 
> Do you really think most women don't watch porn because they are less interested in sex than men?! Didn't occur that it may be nauseating to see how both women and men are utilised, sexualised etc etc, how it builds on humiliation of women and dominance by men etc? Problem is not solved by "women don't have to watch". Well of course no one has to. But that's not enough, it shouldn't exist. Just as there is a difference between portraying racism and being racist, there's a difference between portraying sexism and being sexist. I'd say most pornography there is today is sexist.



Frankly, I don't understand the logic of this argument. You claim that the very fact that pornography is "sexist and derogatory" implies that "it shouldn't exist" (you leave it unclear whether you just mean that it wouldn't exist in an ideal world, or that you actually support its prohibition). But either way, I fail to see what this implication rests on.

Assuming that individuals are free to themselves choose whether they want to be exposed to such material, why should it be nonexistent as a matter of principle? The usual answer to this question is the one I described earlier -- that it influences its consumers in some harmful way -- but you're apparently saying that this is not what you base your argument on. So, do you believe that certain evil ideas should be censored out as a matter of principle, even regarless of whether they cause harm in practice? Or do you believe that if sexism were otherwise eliminated from the world, nobody would ever even want to watch pornography in the first place (which, to be honest, sounds like a pretty outlandish proposition to me)? Or am I missing the point completely and you're in fact arguing that the problem is with the way pornography is produced? I'm not saying that any of this is what you have stated; I'm just trying to make sense of what you wrote above, and I admit the possibility that I misunderstood it.

Also, I really fail to see what is so "sexist and derogatory" about most of today's pornography, and I don't observe this supposedly ubiquitous dominance and humiliation in it (except for some subgenres, of course, but those certainly aren't limited to men dominating women). Honestly, I believe that very few of the people (including women) who strongly dislike and oppose pornography are actually motivated by the reasons you mention -- although you probably are, and although a much higher number will trumpet such arguments because they make for quite effective rhetoric. But now I'm approaching certain things that just can't be analyzed objectively without hitting too many nerves.



> Call it what you want, frankly I couldn't care less. I don't care for labels, as long as people get my points they can use the label they most fancy (and that's precisely what it's about often when it comes to labels). I only protest if someone claims I say things I don't.


I didn't attach any labels to you, or anyone else who wrote in this thread. I merely discussed the meaning of certain labels without using them to refer, or even allude to any concrete individuals.


----------



## Athaulf

Acrolect said:


> Athaulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [There] is also a vast industry of materials aimed at women's consumption that present a highly distorted view of relations between men and women and intensively promote unrealistic stereotypes about how men and women are supposed to behave and what they are supposed to expect from each other [...], and my impression is that it probably has a negative impact on human relations similar to, if not even greater than what pornography could be realistically assumed to cause by spreading its distorted views. Still, I have yet to hear any calls for censoring such materials.
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of material do you have in mind? (I cannot really think of anything that could have the same alleged effects as porn. I am not saying that pornography does cause harm - the research in this area is highly heterogeneous - but if it does, it appears to go beyond distorted views of interhuman relationships, particularly considering the probably still more effective agency of males as the targetted consumers of porn)
Click to expand...


What I have in mind are many, if not most of the entertainment materials in our society aimed at women's consumption whose main topic are intimate and romantic relations between men and women. They range from trashy romance novels, which are indeed often consumed by women in ways strikingly akin to how men consume pornography, to high-budget bestsellers and film and TV productions, to various materials that even claim to be a source of serious and useful advice about life. I find it hard to resist the conclusion that many women get severely distorted views and unrealistic stereotypes of relations between the sexes by consuming such entertainment, and that this can have consequences similar to the distorted views that men get from watching pornography. In fact, my impression is that the former effects are probably greater, since men consuming pornography are (for the most part) more aware that what they're watching and reading has no similarity to the real life. But either way, in both cases the mechanism is the same: artificially created images of an invented ideal world ruin people's ability to cope with (let alone enjoy) the real, much uglier one.

As for the effects of pornography going "beyond distorted views of interhuman relationships" (by which I assume you mean the theories that pornography causes rape), I never saw any validity in such arguments. But I do admit the possibility that pornography can have destabilizing effects on the institution of monogamous relationships on which our society is based along the above described lines. In that regard, the religious conservatives arguing against pornography might indeed be on to something. However, as I explained above, the extent of this destabilizing effect is probably no greater than certain other things that are considered as perfectly respectable and aren't going away in any case.


----------



## Kajjo

rodoke said:


> These people tend to believe that when someone enters into a relationship, they have a "duty" to stop viewing pornography, and continuing to look at it is tantamount to adultery.


While most of your description quite well fits to the German situation, too, I never thought or heard about watching pornography being interpreted as possible adultery. The situation is much more liberal and individual in this regard.



> In American courts, it's not rare to hear someone's porn viewing habits get brought up in an effort to discredit them.


I never understood the American court system and this sound ridiculous, too. The discredit/credit system is not about justice, but about playing and influencing the jury to a degree that I seriously doubt any justice can come from it. They are actors, not prosecutors and lawyers.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Athaulf said:


> What I have in mind are many, if not most of the entertainment materials in our society aimed at women's consumption whose main topic are intimate and romantic relations between men and women. They range from trashy romance novels, which are indeed often consumed by women in ways strikingly akin to how men consume pornography, to high-budget bestsellers and film and TV productions, to various materials that even claim to be a source of serious and useful advice about life. I find it hard to resist the conclusion that many women get severely distorted views and unrealistic stereotypes of relations between the sexes by consuming such entertainment, and that this can have consequences similar to the distorted views that men get from watching pornography. In fact, my impression is that the former effects are probably greater, since men consuming pornography are (for the most part) more aware that what they're watching and reading has no similarity to the real life.


I agree with you, Athaulf. Well explained!

I tried to make the same point, i.e. that those political or social issues Acrolect detects, could be discussed in many other media and products as well. The opposition to pornography is for many people too deeply felt to cope with this issue in a rational manner.

Kajjo


----------



## cuchuflete

> How widespread is pornography in your country? What are your society's attitudes towards it? Do most people accept it and think using it is morally acceptable, or is it generally looked down upon?



Friendly reminder:  The thread topic is copied above.  

If you wish to discuss your very personal attitudes about related subjects, rather than addressing the thread topic, this is not the place to do it.


----------



## starrynightrhone

cuchuflete said:


> If you wish to discuss your very personal attitudes about related subjects, rather than addressing the thread topic, this is not the place to do it.


 
Cuchuflete, is it perhaps possible to move the "off-topic" replies above to a new thread? Could you do that?



Athaulf said:


> They range from trashy romance novels, which are indeed often consumed by women in ways strikingly akin to how men consume pornography....


 
I'm really surprised to hear that. I thought male pornography consumption (including acquisition, reading, watching, sharing, critical reflection...) was very different. But what do I know?

I have been aware that products of popular culture can convey distorted views of social roles and social relationships and might thus have problematic consequences. I have not been aware though that the views of romance in women's heads and hands might be more "dangerous" in this respect than those of hardcore pornography in men's heads and ...

Honestly, I first thought that you were just presenting some androcentric apologetic rhetoric. But your (and Kajjo's) arguments and insights have completely convinced me of the opposite.


----------



## Kajjo

starrynightrhone said:


> I have been aware that products of popular culture can convey distorted views of social roles and social relationships and might thus have problematic consequences. I have not been aware though that the views of romance in women's heads and hands might be more "dangerous" in this respect than those of hardcore pornography in men's heads and ...


I believe, Athaulf could be right, though! Imagine how distant hardcore is to real life -- only extremely few men will mix up phantasy and reality. However, many women actually are looking for a romantic life as depicted in trash novels. This may lead to all kinds of unfulfilled and unrealistic expectations.

The main point, though, is that whatever media we consume, we might get a distorted picture of reality -- so what? We need to cope with it and most people cope pretty well.

There is no need to do "research" into hardcore watching, as there is no need to do research into comics or soap operas. There might be statistics, surveys, discussions, but surely nothing would qualify for serious research in the sense of science.

Kajjo

PS
@Starry: By the way you have just commented on issues you requested to be removed. 
@Cuchuflete: I believe, we have drifted not too far away from the topic. Our discussion gave interesting insights into how the cultures relate to hardcore and what possible arguments against are hold in our cultures, or at least claimed to be hold by some members of our cultures.


----------



## Sepia

Outsider said:


> And why should women read _Playboy_, when they've got _Playgirl_?...
> I don't read _Elle_, either.



I do. But I think it is a pretty strange comparison - a fashion magazine and a magazine dealing extensively with erotic themes ...


----------



## Kajjo

Sepia said:


> I do. But I think it is a pretty strange comparison - a fashion magazine and a magazine dealing extensively with erotic themes ...


I believe the comparison played with the fact that both journals target only one gender specifically.

Kajjo


----------



## Fernando

You are probably right about "Elle" (I have never read it). "Cosmopolitan", which is read in Spain by young and middle-age woman with no apparent shame is (in my humble opinion) a sort of soft porn magazine for woman, not by explicit sex images but by explicit sex language and obssession about sex. 

In particular, the publisher seems to have a problem with orgasms. I rarely have seen a cover without that word.


----------



## starrynightrhone

Kajjo said:


> Imagine how distant hardcore is to real life -- only extremely few men will mix up phantasy and reality. However, many women actually are looking for a romantic life as depicted in trash novels. This may lead to all kinds of unfulfilled and unrealistic expectations.


Oh, I forgot that women's desire for het romance to be true is so strong it prevents them from seeing the difference between reality and fantasy. Men, on the other hand, with their sharper minds (possibly made even sharper by the activities accompanying hardcore consumption) can keep the two apart at all times.

Anyway, you talked about underlying structures some posts ago, so superficial realisticness is not really the issue. I suspect hardcore to be unrealistic (but honestly, I do not care to find out), but it probably is not as far removed from people's ideas of reality because then it would not work as a stimulating fantasy.



> There is no need to do "research" into hardcore watching, as there is no need to do research into comics or soap operas. There might be statistics, surveys, discussions, but surely nothing would qualify for serious research in the sense of science.


Isn't that a point you already made (and which has been replied to above)? Anyway, AFAIK the study of language and communication (and thus what we are talking about in these forums) never counts as science (in the sense of natural science). Does this make it redundant?


> @Starry: By the way you have just commented on issues you requested to be removed.


"moved", not "removed"


----------



## starrynightrhone

Fernando said:


> In particular, the publisher seems to have a problem with orgasms. I rarely have seen a cover without that word.


 
I hope you do not mean this personally (i.e. referring to the publisher's sexuality) because this would be pretty sexist.


----------



## Fernando

starrynightrhone said:


> I hope you do not mean this personally (i.e. referring to the publisher's sexuality) because this would be pretty sexist.



1) I referred to the company which publishes "Cosmopolitan" or rather, the people who decide which topics shoud be covered by "Cosmopolitan".

2) I do not know if the members of the Board of the publisher or the magazine's executives are men or women. Did you assume I assumed they were women? Why? Are you sexist?

3) I do not care very much if I am sexist or not.


----------



## Outsider

Kajjo said:


> I believe the comparison played with the fact that both journals target only one gender specifically.
> 
> Kajjo


...And both sell fantasy images of what men and women "should" be like that are quite far from the reality.


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> ...And both sell fantasy images of what men and women "should" be like that are quite far from the reality.


...right. I agree.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

starrynightrhone said:


> I hope you do not mean this personally (i.e. referring to the publisher's sexuality) because this would be pretty sexist.





Fernando said:


> 3) I do not care very much if I am sexist or not.


Right. Nor do I. 

"Being sexist" is a cheap and almost meaningless insult which undermines the real meaning of this word. If someone _actually_ had problems with orgasms and due to that problem would _actually _behave in a certain way, mentioning this is not sexist at all. It might be devoid of tact or very straight-forward, it might cross borders of privacy, but in my point of view it would not be sexist. 

Anyway, we all know that Fernando did not mean it.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

starrynightrhone said:


> Oh, I forgot that women's desire for het romance to be true is so strong it prevents them from seeing the difference between reality and fantasy. Men, on the other hand, with their sharper minds (possibly made even sharper by the activities accompanying hardcore consumption) can keep the two apart at all times.


Wow. What an insightful comment, particularly that in brackets. How about a serious argument supporting your point of view?



> but it probably is not as far removed from people's ideas of reality because then it would not work as a stimulating fantasy.


That would make a nice topic for another thread. How close do phantasies have to be to be stimulating. Too close might be less arousing as might be being too far away from reality. I have read studies about many women phantasising about rape, while everyone is absolutely sure no woman would want that. Thus, I am pretty positive that there is a significant distance between phantasy and reality. 



> Isn't that a point you already made (and which has been replied to above)? Anyway, AFAIK the study of language and communication never counts as science. Does this make it redundant?


I have never said anything against arts or "non-natural" science. There are many areas in which significant and productive work is done. However, claims that so-called "researchers" detect racism, sexism, anti-feminism and so on in hardcore movies is just beyond my scope of tolerance. It is very easy to determine the tremendous effects of bias and ideology in such campaigns.

Social research is very seldom more than _surveying _and _hypothesing_. You cannot do real experiments with societies, thus you have to rely on surveys -- which in very many topics are not at all reliable. This would make a nice topic, too. I will think about it.

Kajjo


----------



## Acrolect

Starry, follow my example from above and stop arguing with people who will refuse to appreciate and value (not accept or adopt) an alternative view of the world. It is just a waste of language and of all the other things.


----------



## ireney

Moderator's note: In this thread it seems that the original discussion has been covered and is followed by a series of mostly personal  views that verge on forgeting the need for "a respectful, helpful and cordial tone". For these reasons I close this thread. Thank you for your understanding and should anyone wish to contribute to the original discussion he or she may contact one of the moderators.


----------

