I find this really… scary. Maybe you don’t see this, but having an ideal sexual fantasy where someone’s comfort is ignored, where they’re put in straining positions, and where there’s no focus on people as people is really unhealthy.

Because porn is sociopathic: you use people like that’s disposable. Maybe you can’t see where I’m coming from like that; I certainly don’t see where it’s personally acceptable to fantasize about it.

Then there’s that it’s not your fantasy. It’s not. It’s not about “how would I like my sexual fantasy to go?” because it has nothing to do with your fantasy: it’s someone else’s entirely. And I’m pretty sure I’ve punched that person before.

And the other thing is that, as I know in my experience with and coming back from porn, the more you watch porn, the less you know about what you really like. (Unless you’re a sociopath, but I hope not.) Your sexual fantasies and what you find attractive molds around what’s being presented to you as sexy and hot, especially if you masturbate to it.

Porn is hard as hell to get out of your head. And even aside from the idea of a teaching tool (and I too have heard the same thing from people), you’re just presenting another Utopian Promise of Porn: it’s just a harmless fantasy that has no effect on you or anyone else. It’s just masturbation material. It’s just something (supposed to be) sexy and attractive to get off to.

I find it really disturbing that you don’t question that.

I think you are right in that contemporary images of romance are damaging but I don’t think we need to form a hierarchy competing with porn for which is the most damaging.
Porn is damaging to people’s lives. Whether romance genre is or not does not detract from how problematic porn is.

I’d still really like to quote and link to this post at the Anti-Porn Feminists blog, but I need a clearly stated ‘yes’ from you so I know you’re ok with that!

Thanks!

I know very little about romance novels, having never really read any (at least not of the harlequin type), but I’d be interested in your take.

You said:

But as it stands, porn exists so that people will have something ideal in front of them while they get off.

In reply, I’m just going to repeat something I said in an earlier comment:

More to the point, however, many people in pornography are not depicted as having an awesome time. In particular, woman who look disinterested at best, demoralized or even a bit in pain are COMMON portrayals in mainstream porn. Yet these women are commonly not shown to renegotiate, suggest activities they would prefer more, call for an end, or anything else, other than continue to “take it�. Men who look disinterested or bored or disengaged from their sexual behaviour are also common.

If porn’s purpose is, as you say, to sexually arouse, then apparently it is calling for people to be sexually aroused by sex with uncomfortable partners who appear that they would rather be elsewhere. Problematic at best.

My point, perhaps poorly enunciated, was that people do not have something ideal in front of them when they watch pornography. Ideal might well be what they’d have in their head if they just fantasized. I suspect it’s likely that people would, for the most part, fantasize enthusiastic and excited partners. Which is one of the ways that fantasy and pornography are different.

A key to this fantasy is that it matches the attention span of the average person in the middle of a masturbation session. If you were to fantasize about owning a brand new car and taking it out for a drive on a beautiful, clear day, you’d probably skip the part where you have to work to save money for the car. And the part where you didn’t get to go the weekend you’d planned because you caught a stomach bug. And then when it rained the next weekend. Likewise, we all know that sex can include complications that aren’t addressed in porn–because that’s not what porn’s for.

I think the real issue you need to tackle here is where adolescents are getting their sex education. Financial planning ought not be rendered from car commercials.

You MUST realize how silly you sound when you suggest that porn include people deciding not to have sex.

You MUST realize how limited your sexuality sounds when you interpret “And wouldn’t sex where people changed their minds and negotiated different ways of being together than they first intended” only as “decide not to have sex, get dressed, go home”.

If pornography only ever depicted folks who are clearly having an mutually enthusiastic great time with each other, then it would make a certain amount of sense that they don’t change their minds mid-awesome sex.

More to the point, however, many people in pornography are not depicted as having an awesome time. In particular, woman who look disinterested at best, demoralized or even a bit in pain are COMMON portrayals in mainstream porn. Yet these women are commonly not shown to renegotiate, suggest activities they would prefer more, call for an end, or anything else, other than continue to “take it”. Men who look disinterested or bored or disengaged from their sexual behaviour are also common.

If porn’s purpose is, as you say, to sexually arouse, then apparently it is calling for people to be sexually aroused by sex with uncomfortable partners who appear that they would rather be elsewhere. Problematic at best.

This is a terrible argument. It’s much like feminists arguing that the woman in “Knocked Up” should have gotten an abortion, and saying the movie would be more feminist-friendly if she had, etcetera.

Then there’d be no movie. Shock, gasp. If she got an abortion, the movie would be 22 minutes long. There would be no film.

If people in porn changed their minds and decided not to have sex (which, I don’t see how deciding not to have sex is, in your words, an “enjoyable encounter”), then, there would be no porn.

It would be two people getting dressed again, and what? Talking? Watching TV? Going home?

That’s not exactly sexually arousing, interesting, or serving any purpose whatsoever.

Porn’s purpose is to sexually arouse. If the people within said porn decided not to have sex, the main purpose would go unfulfilled. You MUST realize how silly you sound when you suggest that porn include people deciding not to have sex.

I don’t think he’s covered this topic, and I’d like to see the two of you in dialog about it.

P.S. He’s upgrading his blog software, so there is NO RUSH to get over there until the dust settles.

I found this post through the first commenter’s link to our blog. I think you’ve made some very interesting and important points, and I’d like to quote and link to this post at the Anti-Porn Feminists blog, would this be ok with you?

Thanks,

Sex ed classes and parents alike can say, “Porn is fantasy,” but the reality of it is; when a boy’s (or girl’s) first exposure to sex is with this violent type of porn, no matter how much assurance that it’s fantasy will actually make them believe it. Its the mere exposure effect: the more your exposed to something, the more you have a tendency to like it. So these boys watching this violent porn will in turn have an attraction to this violent kind of sex. This is not to say that everyone who watches porn will become violent in bed, but the tendency is there. And especially when it appears that the girls in the movies like being violated the way they do, these teen boys may feel like, “If girls like it rough, that’s the way to keep my girlfriend happy.”

There is nicer porn available: I suggest Digital Playground, Adam and Eve, Danny’s Harddrive, or Girlfriends Films. But still, the companies may not ask for the rough stuff, but the talent leads them in that direction.

Well, yes and no. Porn isn’t there to be a teaching aid about how sex would be in an ideal world, and how we can make the real world closer to that ideal. I get very angry with people like the ones who were telling you about porn, who say that it’s a “teaching aid”. Porn doesn’t teach anything, except that we as a society don’t provide proper education about sexuality and sexual interaction with one another. It’s purely about “how would I like my sexual encounter to go?” - fantasy in the daydream “fairytale castle” variety, no more.

Would you make the same claims about masturbation based purely on imagined scenarios (instead of masturbation to pornographic presentations)? I am sure that there are some people whose masturbation fantasies involve a negotiation phase, but I’m willing to bet that few of them have a phase where their fantasy partner says, “Sorry honey, I’m not in the mood - let’s just snuggle instead.” (Incidentally, I think it can and is sometimes done in written erotic fiction, although maybe not often enough. The written word makes it a lot easier to convey that type of interaction without losing the reader/viewer interest in the way things play out.)

My point being that it seems to me to be unfair to blame porn for not doing what schools and sex ed classes should be doing (i.e. teaching about negotiation, how to deal with changing one’s mind - or one’s partner changing hir mind, etc). T me it makes as much sense as it does to criticise “Alice in Wonderland” for not having any particular moral to the story.