I take it you won't be signing up?

Yeah, it does sound like a load of bullshit to me...

It's $2000 for four ten-minute sessions over two weeks. However, apparently one needs to do it for three months for it to have any noticeable effect [at a presumed cost of $12,000].

Such advice is common from pyramid-scheme companies like Herbalife/ANC that offer a one-month sample at £XXX but say you need three months' worth of them in order to notice any difference.

It looks like porno videos are more "economical" then...

Apparently, you can buy vibrators that are controlled over the Internet - too bad if the other person is about to orgasm, then your Internet connection dips out on them...

I guess that's why people liked Playboy mags - you can look at it, even in a blackout, for a fraction of the price

As far as I can remember, those vibrators were not controlled over the internet, but secretly reported over the internet to Google or somebody. They were obviously an outrageous violation of privacy and there was a big brouhaha about them. I doubt if anybody actually bought one.

Now that is funny in this thread.

Since this thread's title is "Another Reason Why Porn Is Bad For Us" it obviously presupposes that porn is bad for us. In order to consider that concept I think it is necessary to define the terms. First what is Pornography"? This is especially important since it's meaning has changed over the centuries.


Since the strict definition from the term's origin is "depictions of prostitutes" much of what is in modern times called pornography
is a greatly expanded meaning. The difference is that whether about harlots or ordinary people, pornography came to mean any art form that causes sexual arousal.In some cultures that is widely accepted while in others it is shameful and punishable by various means up to and including a death sentence.

I think it is important to note that Pompeii, somewhat renowned for revealing the degree of public erotic art, was encapsulated by Mt Vesuvius in 79 AD. Since Constantine and the Council of Nicea didn't take place until 325 AD, while there certainly were Christians in the Roman Empire, they were not in the majority nor politically powerful yet. The importance of this is that the predominantly Christian archaeologists who uncovered Pompeii in 1748 were scandalized by the erotic art that was essentially everywhere in Pompeii. Obviously attitudes regarding erotica changed dramatically in 1400 years.... well, at least in the West with the exception of many Scandinavian countries.

It seems that the conflation of sexually arousing art or behavior as a "bad thing" is largely confined to Islam and Christianity. So-called Pagan Religions mostly celebrate sex. The biggest leap in anti-sex attitudes where Pornagraphy was defined as not only immoral but illegal, a crime against The State, came as one might guess during the Victorian Age, where it was defined in such a way that the educated people of righteous bloodlines were not assumed to be adversely affected by sexually arousing literature or graphic art, but "the Great Unwashed Masses, and especially foreigners, being "barely above wild animals", were in danger of becoming mindless violent rapists just from seeing a naked ankle, especially of a white woman.

It seems to me that the entire idea that sexual arousal is bad for anyone is entirely an artificial construct in outspoken denial of natural human needs and desires. There has never been found a definitive, let alone causal, link between what is called "sex crimes" (which is really just a form of coercion and sometimes violence) and sexually arousing materials. Almost without exception the basis for such assumed linkage is certain religious beliefs. Neither has any foundation in reality, especially in the modern world.

All this bitcoin mining produces more CO2 than anything else

I would strip it down a bit further myself. 'Pornography' these days contains a wide variety of categories and subcategories. There is no 'one type' of pornography. I think when most [uninitiated] people think of porn they think of hardcore videos of people having sex with the male being dominant and ruthless. In reality, though those types of videos do exist, there is a wide variety of other material which is very different from the hard to the soft to the so-called 'porn for women' categories that exist on some streaming sites. To presuppose that porn is of one type only, for one type of person, or even for one sex [or gender] is very uninformed in the 21st century.

Granted, there used to be a time when porn used to be all about top-shelf magazines in the '70s and '80s and there was a certain embarassment and shame about buying it. But these days erotica and pornography are becoming increasingly widespread and acceptable, and one only has to look at websites like Lovehoney to see how acceptable and normal it has become to buy sex toys now and to talk about them.

The internet has done a lot for sexuality. Not only has it made erotica and the erotic more widespread, but it has opened the doors to discussions on sexuality and gender and made sexuality of all types far more acceptable than they ever have been. To suppose that 'porn=bad' is a very limited way of looking at things these days. Types of porn, maybe, but one may as well say that all desserts are bad, when that's clearly not the case.

What we should be concerned about in the UK, instead of the existence of porn, is the attempt to restrict access to porn by the goverment. Thinly veiled as a way to 'protect children', this is only another ruse by the Conservatives to spy on people's habits and, not content with closing down many of the erotica shops and strip clubs in Soho, paving the may to a more oppressive and controlling society.

Which is not insignificant.

I agree sexual arousal is not a bad thing, it's good and positive, indeed I'm pretty sure most of us would not be here without it. Whether on-demand arousal triggered by airbrushed actors is good is, of course, another question.

Here is a meta-analysis describing a correlation between p0rn use and sexual aggression, both verbally and physically, in both sexes across a range of countries. No it does not prove causation, and I don't know how much their definition of "violence" overlaps with anyone's definition of "crime", but it does look like a definitive link.

There has been plenty of research in this area, for some reason researchers seem to like sex almost as much as everyone else, and the parts I've seen were not all rosy.


(Full disclosure: In case you hadn't guessed I'm pro-sex and anti-pr0n, but not pro- or anti- the people who use either)

I notice that they don't worry about protecting children from anti-vax campaigns directed at their parents, or advertisements to make vaping look "cool", or web-sites of political and religious extremists … just sex. And don't blame the Tories —Labour and Liberal MPs voted for this too, as you can see from Hansard.

As a lawyer said when censorship of British pornographers was introduced in 2014, "Pornography is the canary in the coalmine of free speech…" The answer, of course, is Tor or a VPN.

I followed your link but unfortunately all I can see is the "Abstract" which on the surface because it does not contain the common headers I see in scientific Abstracts such as what appears in Peer Reviewed Documents common in places like "Nature" creates a bit of suspicion in me that it is something of a "mock up", trying to add (undeserved) authority to an agenda ridden opinion.

Granted, I, too, have a bias that adds to that suspicion since it does not make sense to me that being exposed even to unrelated to sex pure violence, as we all are from childhood in cartoons and then action-adventure shows of all kinds throughout life. These, too, are commonly all "airbrushed" in that the violence portrayed is not at all real being sanitized in almost all cases so as not to be "too offensive" to the largest percentage of the viewing audience.

I don't perceive that where I draw the line has changed at all after all this supposed programming. I still find chase scenes, especially high speed car chases, thrilling but personal violence tends to turn me off. I have witnessed a few so-called "torture porn" movies like "Saw" and Hostel" amd they don't excite me or even give me any sort of adrenaline rush. They tend to make me feel sick and sorry I chose to watch, even if it is some sort of fantasy and not real. In real life, this has not even begun to translate into any kind of increased appetite for violence. If anything, now being substantially older, I find myself less aggressive and less interested in anything remotely tied to violent conflict.

As it applies to sex and what is loosely referred to as "pornography" (and as Lysander666 has pointed out that is still growing in width, definition and to some degree in acceptability) it hasn't changed me much at all. Perhaps it has widened my view of what is arousing but the underlying principles have not changed in 72 years of life. I have never been "turned on" by subservient women and typical male (or female for that matter) domination type sex turns me off just as it always has.

To keep this from just being anecdotal, it is my understanding that what we think of as "real perverts" (especially the actually dangerous kind) find things most of us would not even have a clue that anyone found such publications erotic. Pedophiles, and here I am using the exact term that applies not to merely young people but actually prepubescent children, find such films and magazines as Playboy and even Hustler boring and possibly even disgusting but are highly aroused by say a Girl or Cub Scout Handbook or photos of angelic looking choir boys and girls, or even photos of children in a state of fear even if that is just kids on a roller coaster. This cannot possibly be contained or controlled. What can be at least affected is whether or not such people ACT on socially unacceptable instinctive urges and like most things, access to that is a matter of education.

For an exact example and exactly because society has risen above mere shunning of aberrant behaviour and have created sophisticated studies of serial killers and sexually involved criminals like Jeffrey Dahmer, patterns have been revealed. It is because these sorts of tendencies are apparently already wired in that children display behaviours like cruelty to animals that later can extend to include people as objects if not checked early on. It isn't simple, but simply attempting to eliminate or repress sexually explicit fantasy art provides at least as much stimulus as it may prevention, since to many part of the thrill is exactly because it is forbidden. So not only is that an example of a "zero sum game" but it also tends to shut down discussion and study which ultimately is the only tool we have.

AhHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa bet your the first one to pop that porn site open DAILY. this thread is a load of.....




https://i.imgur.com/pbMcE.gif

I see no basis or support for either your amusement or your statement.

not my problem if you're EXTREMELY slow.