Internet Porn

Now I have to support custard here, and it contains the flipside to schraf's valid point.Just because some people in porn do for money what they don't do for fun, does not mean that that is what everyone is doing... it's just you can't tell who's who.And there are PLENTY of people doing exactly what they want, including facials. My gf loves facials because she loves cum, and there are many people like that. In fact I was with one girl at a jerk-off "gangbang". All she wanted was guys to cum on her and she would have orgasms.I'm certainly not saying all girls are like this, but they are out there, and girls are not inherently degraded by a facial. I would add the same goes for boys in gay porn.Heheh. Kind of funny but I have also been with two girls (separately) that wouldn't let me go down on them because they felt it was degrading to me.Yes there are facials which are meant to be degrading, but that can only be known by watching them in the context of the film.Most times it is a visual cue that the sex is over, and it is something that many people find exciting to watch. Did and did.This message has been edited by holmes, 06-29-2004 04:53 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What the hell are you doing on EvC so early in the morning?Anyhow... Cool, thanks. I hope she likes them, but to each their own. Yes and no. Actually I'd prefer a documentary to a book.Unfortunately everything I've found on the subject is limited to analysis of the debate on porn (although there are some good analyses, that doesn't sound like what you are talking about), or amateurish "glimpses" at porn life, which for some reason most of those have to throw in moralizing bits or justifications.I've heard Xaviera Hollander's book on prostitution (the Happy Hooker) was pretty interesting, but I haven't read it.The recent documentaries on Ron Jeremy (Pornstar) and Annabelle Chong (I forget the name) were okay, but had some of the failings I mentioned above.It may be a tough thing to get a real glimpse into the porn world, first of all because it is so huge and diverse, and second because there is so much baggage that comes with it that audiences will expect you to deal with.We'll see though. Now that my main media project just dropped out from under me and I am living in a redlight district, I am considering starting a doc on that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Shoot, I totally FORGOT!Yes there is a pretty good look into the life of a person in porn. It has its own skews here and there, and is definitely scripted (so it ain't a real doc like it pretends to be)...Family Business. It's on Showtime (or HBO, I forget now), and follows the life of Seymour Butts as he shoots porn and tries to raise his kid.Me and my gf liked it a lot.During it you can even see him try and talk an assistant out of becoming a star (which personally I didn't like the moralization on that one), and once she was in porn for a bit, not to get her breasts enlarged (I did like the moralizing on that one).These are things producers of PORN are assumed never to do.I'd also recommend checking out things by Annie Sprinkle.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Are we having the same conversation? What the hell are you talking about totemic significance and Gods of capitalism.I was not even making an argument that the market determines what is right.I just thought it was odd to excuse the person who wants to see something, but blame the person (who usually also wants to see that same thing) and produces it.The buyer is the same as the seller. Yes yes YESSSSS! You are getting closer to understanding.The audience is WATCHING (not exhibiting or they wouldn't watch it) and indulging, wallowing in those stereotypes. Its fun to use your brain in all sorts of ways as long as you don't mistake fantasy for reality.If you understand what you are watching and enjoying is pure fantasy, even if based on some historical truths (though usually these are blown out of proportion for the sake of fantasy), then there is no pandering to or reinforcing of stereotypes. Its more or less making a mockery of them. Stealing them so that they become sources of pleasure instead of the pain which they were. Until you demonstrate that it is interracial porn that has kept racism alive, you are simply making absurd assertions.In fact your very statement above conflicts with the claim has any connection to its survival. 100 years? Gramps didn't have a computer, much less anything called "interracial porn". Who are you? Will Hunting? A robot? I have never heard a voice more devoid personal experience and human emotion than what is contained in that statement.Tab A into slot B, should not identify any exterior characteristics as additionally beneficial. Double plus good.Open your fucking eyes... no go further and touch a person of another race's SKIN. Smell them. Taste them you moron. Everyone looks, tastes, and smells different. Especially those of different races have differences you may pick up on as appealing, even if its just for the fact that it isn't what you've been experiencing for most of your life.Do you go into a greenhouse and say... all plants are plants, none should appeal more. Do your bouquets have to have all one flower because to mix them aesthetically would be to make a political statement?I suppose I can't even choose chocolate or vanilla because all ice cream is the same and so choosing a particular color would be social commentary?Human taste CAN include different races because they are different. Denial of this fact is the real racism.And I would add, going so far out of your way to remove odious parts of history, that you say others should be unable to recreate them in personal sexual fantasy, you are totally out of touch with how humans deal with reality through fantasy.Hogan's Heroes did not enforce Nazism. Saving Private Ryan did NOT support Nazism. Raider's of the Lost Ark did NOT support Nazism.Likewise, interracial porn does NOT support racism. You simply cannot be this clueless. Porn which has white men getting put down is feeding into racist AGENDAS? How?Oh, the guy watching and getting off on that fantasy, turns around and tries to kill blacks because he feels justified in believing his gf or wife will want a black guy instead? Is that what you are seriously trying to claim?Such porn riffs on the fears that might have underlain the racism. It makes it a tantalizing FANTASY, which is a RECOGNITION THAT IT IS NOT REALITY. Oh, is that it? Whew. I didn't realize your whole argument was a joke... though now that you say this I see how funny it is.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

And who is the person that likes to be cum upon?Oh and apparently Wilde (or the writer who wrote that droll line) never heard of creampies. Do you know what that is in porn? Its a big trend.This message has been edited by holmes, 06-29-2004 07:32 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oh my yes. And if we really wanted to draw conclusions you have made one would need research... but you are not proposing any such thing either.Of course not, because to do either would mean your whole ideology would collapse like a house of cards.In this thread I have put up real data and I have referenced it more than once. Yet you continue to make the most absurd claims.Stockholm syndrome? You realize you demean both hostages and people in porn with that statement?But that goes with the territory when you make an uncle Tom out of any black guy who actually prefers a different race sexually.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Schraf, I should feel very sorry for you, just as if I am sure you would feel sorry for me if said all of my experiences with women led me to feel most women were shrewy, shallow, manipulative, vain bitches that had no interest in relationships, other than to feed off of a man's money, fame, or attention.I don't know where you live or what your family is like. But I'll take you at your word that what you detailed was your experience.I pity you with the same pity I would have for someone that lived in a racially mixed area where those of the opposite race happened to fit a stereotype (lets say all the black in the neighborhood were thugs), and so came to believe the stereotype was real (all black were criminals).Your views of males are sexist, cheap stereotypes. I'm really really sorry if all you and everyone you know have only encountered males who fit that stereotype. You have lost out on the ability to live a better life. Yes I understood the argument the first time. I guess I didn't make my rebuttals clear enough.You can like a person as a person and have it only be sexual. Or you can like them as a person and have it be nonsexual. Or you can like them as a person and have it be both.You ARE having a mind/body problem. Sexuality is no different than any other human characteristic. Going to a restaurant because you love the way a certain chef cooks, or a comedy club because of a comedian's sense of humor, or a lecture for a scientist's thought-provoking ideas, is NO DIFFERENT than going to a strip club because you enjoy a stripper's ability to arouse yoru sexual desire.It is you who see some qualitative difference between sex and other human qualities, and use the one to rub out the others.Percy in the other thread porn thread, linked to an essay by a feminist who defends porn. In that she raises the question, if you liked a person because of their sense of humor to the exclusion of their other properties would that be wrong?You only know me through my writings. Let's say you had some respect for me because of what I wrote. Would that make you bad or lesser because you only wanted to know me as this, and because of this, and not anything else?Porn, and strippers and etc etc are for sexual entertainment. Women go to them just the same as men, other than in the exact same percentages.There is no reason to degrade this, and use it as evidence they are incapable of appreciating, or do not enjoy appreciating relationships based on other qualities.It appears to me that you have sex so tied in to love and relationships, that you no longer see it as a valid part of human nature without them. Again, I am sorry for you. You ARE missing out... at the very least of being able to understand the motives and benign nature of other human beings. Do I need to post the research links and stats for YOU AGAIN? Come on schraf, at least be intellectually honest here. We have been through this.In Netherlands (at the VERY LEAST) porn and prostitution have been around openly for a long long long time. People are still getting married. Sex is not Love. Love is not Sex. Sex can and must be a part of real Love. Real Love does not have to be a part of sex.Your continued "wondering" is only possible if you choose not to look at what has been presented to you... in RESEARCH DATA. Keep ignoring the data on the subject, keep wondering. I'm wondering when you'll admit you are pulling the same crap hardcore creationists are in refusing to look at what the data says, in order to pretend your theory is still possible? I wonder when you will read your own words and finally realize how bigoted against men and prudish about sex you really are.Enjoyment of sex for the sake of sex is NOT the same thing as denying, or not being comfortable in, relationships. This is something many people, including women, can separate.If all one is looking for at a particular time is sex, then it would be incorrect to seek a relationship in order to get it. That is where porn etc etc can play a role. I am failing to understand why that is not a good thing? It actually brings honesty to a relationship because you know that sex is NOT the only reason the guy is there.What I love is you pull up this crappy argument against a bunch of guys that are in relationships with girls, and we talk about porn. Hey, I can even have prostitutes legally. Why am I staying with my gf then?Maybe I... I... I L-O-V-E her. No. I said impossible or UNDESIRABLE. There are times when a person may want to enjoy sexual entertainment of some kind, and it is not desirable to do so with a partner. For example, if your partner does not enjoy oggling naked women then bringing her along on a night out with the boys would be undesirable.This would be the same case as her not bringing her guy along when the girls go out for a hen party. Whoops those things don't happen do they? Uh, yeah. According to you absolutely none, right? See according to you men don't seek out real relationships anyway. They are just putting up with girls for sex. So they are simply going from one type of prostitute to another.Okay, now I'll answer nicely. Of course guys go visit them alone. They are enjoying their own sexuality apart from their relationship. If that is not cool with their wives or gfs then they are being jerks. But it is not inherently a statement about their ability to love, or interest in relationships, even with the ones they are "cheating" on.You avoid the fact that they then move on to their relationships. Why are they, if they have these outlets? Why do couples also go to these places together?Why do girls go do the same things? Is it only the emotionally damaged ones? This is true. There are also sex-starved wives for many other reasons that their partner might have for not wanting to have sex (in general, or them in specific).Maybe there's a damn good reason the guys that left their wives hanging, in order to pursue porn, have done so. Maybe the wives are just lousy in the sack anyway and nag them into a state of flaccidness. DO YOU KNOW?I hear a lot of shit about how lousy girls are at just understanding guys' emotions. How they just use them for money. I guess that anecdotal evidence must be true, huh?Phhhht. If men are as shitty as you say they are then the wives ought to divorce men anyway right? They were only after the sex, and if they hit a dry spell it MUST mean something as uncomplicated as they just like porn.And all those women cheating on their husbands (while they are at work) via the internet, is just a bunch of whooee too, because women only like guys for their emotions. That isn't a growing problem either, and if it is it must be the fault of the guy having left her sex-starved because he watched porn.Honestly, shraf. Not that I am saying you are making these exact arguments, but they are on the same level. I just cannot fathom why you do not understand how shallow your introspection and analysis of real data is on this subject.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You said a punter going to a site was okay, a person actually making a site was the one propagating it. Yes, recognize. No, believe in. Other than it existed at some point and so was part of the human psyche and so available for creating psychodramas, there is no need to believe it is legitimate. Yeah, I got that. I'm disputing the latter just as much as the former. In order to be one of, it must be capable of doing so. It is not. Coming from the person who has not only supplied no data, but refuses to address the large amount of contrary data presented by the person she is addressing. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.There is a fucking HUGE chasm between...having a real fear, based on stereotypes about another race, and using it to justify bigotryANDacknowledging that such sterotypes and fears existed and playing roles in order to garner sexual excitement from them.Unless one is a seriously schizoid personality the second is incongruous with the former. What decade are you from, or maybe century given your woodcut jibe?I'm sure there must be sites which riff on the forbidden pleasure of interracial sex. But that is certainly not all of them, and if you are into actually having and broadcasting interracial sex, the point of the "forbidden" aspect is to shock the idiots who don't get that its okay. If all you can see is humans, and have lost your ability to sense difference in sight, smell, taste, and texture as well as the ability to remember that there were social differences but they were not right EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THESE PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES... then you are pretty well PC by definition. Are the differences between flowers trivial to you? How do you select which ones you want? What about food?People are different. Not only can you see large variations between people of two different races, but lots of minor ones within the same one.Are you seriously telling me you don't "discriminate" on any physical characteristics while choosing a mate? I'd wager you do. Why can't very dark skin and fine hair, or dark but not too dark skin an course hair, or blue eyes and light hair be "valid" discriminators like choosing chocolate over vanilla? No I haven't. You say it is a vehicle of propagation. Fantasy in this context cannot propagate what it is using. It is by its enjoyment contrary to the tenets of the racism used in the fantasy. Uhmmmm, not to say that that may not be a part of some of porn out there. But that wasn't what I was talking about at all. The myth they are riffing on is that blacks are better lovers, knowing how to please a woman and have bigger dicks.The intellectual capacity and criminality is part of your own projection. Bwahahahahahahahaha. Do you really believe this line of crap?A guy just gets off because he likes seeing white girls who dig having sex with black guys and he walks away thinking the next black guy is likely to mug him?I might add that there are several more types of "interracial" porn than simply black and white and they get advertised just the same.I'm still trying to picture your idealized world here. To prove no one is a racist no one will desire having sex with another race, or if they do like it no one will express that desire in that way (from now on all colour will be drained from erotica) so it is all just "humans." Talk about objectification. Uh no. People can have all sorts of reactions and desires to any material. But a racist getting off on cuckold porn is about as rare and confused as a nazi who likes watching The Producers and Hogan's Heroes because there are nazis in them.You will notice though, that you are making positive statements, and they must be pretty large because your condemnation puts the effects of porn ona societal level. Even if just one part, it is a part of societal continuance of an institution. That's a pretty whopping claim for someone with no evidence. I'm sorry, which was the dogmatic part? Was it when I offered evidence and wondered why you haven't refuted it before making your claims? Or the wondering where your data is to support your claims in the first place?You not only refuse criticism, you refuse to enter into a factual debate.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, I think house of cards is pretty accurate. You make claims and prop them with other claims. I have data which refutes it, it just doesn't fit your claims. If you had to accept them as true, then your little house of cards (which fit real nice using the cards you choose to play with) will fll to pieces. Heheheh. I love it. Hey if that is the picture it seems I am painting, let me dispell that right now.Some people, like any other industry, get forced into working in porn. Of course unlike most retail, you will not be seeing it on your shelves. You might find it online or in some back alley, but that is not what most porn is about.Some people (and I have already said this many times) do things in character for money, than they would do in real life. Some jerks in the industry even push people (boys and girls) beyond what they would like and what is safe. This is also similar to all other industries.Some people in porn hate each other and cheat each other. Some use drugs and spiral out of control. Some end up killing themselves. This is just like any other industry.Now Contracycle, warts and all, why don't you explain why porn should NOT be treated with the same respect as any other entertainment industry?Maybe I seem a bit happy about it. Well that's because me and my gfs biggest headaches have been the government (horrible documentation laws) and ripoff artists (both producers and distributors and some other artists). In other words red tape, and usual business crap.We have not seen any coercion and no massive drug wipeouts, and no racism, and no sexism, and no all that BS that gets thrown on porn and people like you want to paint porn with to make it look negative as an entity. You are an idiot. On top of that, you must also be very hard to go shopping or restuarants with. Oh wait, or easy.Do your simply throw darts to make choices? Obviously no one is allowed to have personal tastes based on visceral criteria, and I assume that must be true for you as well.I suppose you spit on black families you see at the park eating fried chicken.What a racist.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If you "looked back" and saw no research discounting the claim porn transmits or reinforces misogynist cultural messages, then you didn't READ.What you can find pretty easily if you read post 17 or the link in 27 were studies (in addition to the studies on no real personal changes) showing there is no evidence that there is a decrease in women's rights nor increased acts against women where porn is prevalent. Indeed, it was found that porn correlated (notice I am not saying caused) with liberal attitudes towards women.I had nothing about race issues and porn because as far as I know there are none. There is no reason that it should not follow the same track as women's issues.You can't simply post that you didn't find it and so act like you are justified. Others can go and they will find it.On the other hand you have presented nothing to make your case, in addition to not addressing the results of the studies.Oh wait... I see that you posted an article on an increased slave trade in Kosovo. Bravo. Now you've uncovered what porn is really about.In any country but especially lawless lands with desperate people, or really greedy people, or really sick people, you will get abuse for all sorts of reasons. That will mean forced labor of ALL kinds.I'm not sure why this says anything about PORN, just as sweat shops say nothing about CLOTHES. What this exposes... good for everybody... are people abusing people. Who gives a shit what they were being forced to do? Yes, that seems to be the strawman you have built around me. Hahahahahah... are you seriously saying this for ALL media, or just for porn?I've already pointed out the reductio. Unless you are going to arbitrarily put the weight on porn, you are ending a hell of a lot of fiction, well almost all really except the teletubbies. Nor have I. I take real claims very seriously. For example that article you had on the Kosovo sex trade was quite disturbing and I hope to learn more about it.What I do dismiss, is the over repeated generalizations and guessing games thrown on PORN, as if it is all one thing and guilt shared communally.When someone exposes a sweat shop we do not say how bad clothes are and our desire to wear them shoving people into awful servitude and stereotypes and deride businesses that make them as perpetuating such stereotypes (god forbid you go to a chinese laundromat).We do not have "I wonder what would happen if all people wanted to buy clothes" arguments, and ignore stats that show the clothing industry has no effect, nor people choosing to wear clothes.We don't even blame costume makers for making nazi uniforms or hitler masks for condoning nazism.We blame the people who forced people into a sweatshop and exploited them. It is specific.That's what defines rational response to an issue, from generalized bigotry. I've got some sad news for you.The existence of an ad hominem comment does not indicate that it is being resorted to, nor an admission (or proof) that there is no substance to the rest of the argument in which it contained.In addition, ad hominems can come cloaked in much more fancy clothes than the crude remark. As far as I can tell your entire argument is ad hominem and guilt by association. It just sounds a lot nicer off your keyboard.Tell you what. The only sure way is to present a coherent argument with evidence. Please present you argument with evidence to support your claims. This is not logical.What factors go into who you choose to sleep with? Many of them will be physical criteria. The different races will have different physical characteristics, and thus fulfilling different criteria.You would be correct if a person chose a person of a different race because they are stereotypically supposed to choose that race, they are buying into the stereotype.However, if they happen to honestly like having sex with people of a different race for other reasons, like preference of physical characteristics or just new experiences beyond what they are used to, then that has nothing to do with a "trope".I would like to see any evidence you have that people who choose, or prefer to have sex with those of different races are doing so because that is what they are supposed to be doing, rather than having another reason.What makes this really laughable is that it can only be made in a society where such "tropes" existed. You know there are people outside of western countries which also end up dating exclusively outside of their race?You also have decided to concentrate on black/white as the whole of interracial, as there are no real stereotypes linked to bigotry in other interracial acts (except that oriental girls are hotter?) and they are just the same part of interracial porn.I will rephrase a question I put to you in a flippant way. If a black person ends up prefering fried chicken to eat, MUST it be because of buying into a trope? If not, why does prefering a white girl for sex partner? If so, should all blacks stay away from chicken in order to destroy the trope?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Actually all YOU need to do is go back through porn threads and check out more of Schraf's posts.In the past (indeed I believe it is within THIS THREAD) she excoriated Japanese porn for its concentration on young girls and rape.I was shocked when I saw her post saying they were more interested in the pleasure of women. They are the most NOTORIOUS pain and rape centered porn consumers... and a pretty big producer.And this not to mention Bukakke. I mean.... hahahahahahahahaha. Oh its just too much.There is nothing like hearing people that no NOTHING about a subject, act like their little forays and brushes with it, made them some sort of authority.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The SC decision is good but does not actually decide the matter.I think most people have no idea what government restrictions are out there on communication, in the name of protecting children.Technically, at least this was the case under COPA and its predecessor, just sharing photos of you and your girlfriend having sex on a yahoo group would make you a production company that then forced you into ridiculous amounts of recordkeeping duties.Indeed, according to the letter of the law, with those photos you'd have to include a real street address and your full name so anyone can find you.This was brought up as in issue with some girls that ran webcam services from home. They certainly did NOT want to have to put there address and real name right on the web so someone could drop by (oh yeah even if you webcam yourself, that would count). When a lawyer I had a while back talked to one of the head FBI guys about this issue (remember this is the FBI), the said "what do we care what happens to them?"And there was no sense to the laws. You could have a video of a geriatric gangbang and if one person did not have proper ID and full historical background documentation on file, it would technically be CHILDPORN. That is you would receive the same problems as if that 70 yeard old was 7.They also had it written so that if you put text on the cover (of an obvious geriatric gangbang) that it was a bunch of preteens, it would be childporn.Simply no sense of reality.This latest version of COPA added the dimension that anyone wanting to show sexual imagery on the net would have to be a business anyway. You'd be forced to create or join a creditcard service and charge people.I guess that was really going to help antiporn enthusiasts as then they could actually claim "see, no one makes sexual imagery except for the money."There is currently no concept in the law that people are making and sharing sexual imagery for free, for fun. Its like that Queen that had no clue there were lesbians.And there is also no understanding that independents have grown up which blur the line of for fun and for profit.Ironically this is what has been stepping on the necks of anyone trying to fight purely fictional porn, as Contracycle had said would make porn more legitimate. The "porn is bad" attitude and legislation hinders actual solutions to what people consider bad in that industry.I hope COPA goes down for good, or hope that I never have to return to the US.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

First of all you will notice that if you read my arguments properly, this is not what I said you said.In the first two examples you addressed one was about if I had had an experience, the second was if someone else had had an experience that led to a feeling that a stereotype was true. It did not matter if they had more or less experiences than you did to come to that conclusion.The conclusion was the important part and it IS similar.Me: "led me to feel most women were shrewy, shallow, manipulative, vain bitches"You: "lead me to believe that many males are bewildered, frightened, and threatened by females."You may wish to try and qualify that your "many" is not the same as my "most", and quote your statement that you do not believe it is the "majority". But I find it curious what you left out. Here you have added to the "many", that the out of the remaining boys "very few" have avoided this same behavior. Especially note that last sentence. The rest "participated in it less", which means they still did to some extent.Now I'm not going to argue about what you REALLY MEANT to say. Whatever you say you wanted to say is just fine.But I will say that there appears to be statements that add up to "most" men, including statements like the following... Was that some or most or all or what? Since MOST BOYS USE PORN this tends to implicate MOST BOYS. I'm sorry do you want me to requote your posts saying that boys have issues with emotions and generally just pursue relationships for sex, and that they use those things above to get to the sex without having to invest anything more?Please don't start reversing yourself. Absolutely. I didn't say "all" people only went there for sex did I? You wouldn't be responding to an argument I haven't made again, would you?Your claims centered on use of those sources to get sex directly without having to have any deeper relationships with those they are getting sexual stimulation from. You also spun arguments from this that if boys liked girls as PEOPLE, they wouldn't use those sources.If I got those points wrong then I am sorry, could you please make your argument more clear?But my own argument centered on the idea that there had to be a respect for some personal characteristic other than sexual, in order to respect or like them as a person. I was trying to pound home that sexuality is a genuine characteristic which can be appreciated without greater emotional involvement.I could have gone deeper, but my posts are long as it is and this is the ONLY POINT I NEEDED TO MAKE.What I think is telling is that you used positive motives for reasons to go to all the other places (that are nonsexual), but when it came to sexual places the guys had all these negative reasons.I will not deny that guys might have some of those negative reasons when they go to sexual sources for gratification, so what? Does that make it less legitimate?You know some people go to comedy clubs to HECKLE, as well as restaurants to HARASS waiters and waitresses (or just lord it over the staff by whipping out lots of money).I don't think that's cool but it doesn't demean the business, just those people who use it for that purpose. I think your assessment of males is too simplistic. Your charges make their use of sex outside of relationships as ways to dodge emotional commitment, which they are uncomfortable with. I can't think of a more cardboard cutout theory regarding use of porn, strippers, etc etc.Do you want me to expand on my description of why and how people use sex for pleasure? I could do this. I thought all I needed to do was shoot down your simple assessment that if boys really liked girls they wouldn't enjoy sexual outlets outside of a relationship.Your negative, and shallow assessment of men continues to make me feel very sorry for you. It always will. And it doesn't matter if you say "all" or not. Your overall impression is not a good one. Or at least you need to make your language much less hyperbolic if you want to begin to sound boy-positive.As far as I can tell, its snips and snails and puppy dog tails for boys, and sugar and spice and everything nice for girls... even if those boys (usually gay) are your friends.This message has been edited by holmes, 06-30-2004 05:08 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Variety. They call it the spice of life. Check it out.If the qualifier for leaving home for any reason had to be what one can't get at home, one would only go to work and go shopping. And even those wouldn't really be necessary for many given the computer age.Your line is arbitrary. Can that be WORSE than the apparently numerous clubs you have visited only in FANTASY?Well I suppose it could if your inclination is to try and find the sleaziest dive you can, and then paint everything with that.See at least five clubs. Try and make them at varying types of clubs (even some sleazy ones). Maybe you can include lesbian strip clubs (oops lesbians have... strip clubs?) as well as one for straight women (men strip for women? gasp). You might be surprised when at the latter two the focus of the attention is not on the model reading a book. Not all, not most, just many many men. How many is that? I think you think what you do about women because you are a woman and have never felt the emotions that men have and deal with.If you want an admission that this culture isn't high on men showing their feelings in PUBLIC, then you have that. But that is different than not understanding or feeling emotionally close.Perhaps the men you have encountered with this problem have had their hearts ripped out previously by a total bitch? I too would like some back up on your amazing ability to judge that only SOME of the nearly 60% of men in relationships, can handle intimacy.I also wonder what this means statistically. There are more women that men. If there are only 60% of men in relationships then there are even less women in relationships. Maybe this shows that women have a problem with intimacy?Oh yeah, I forgot, if there isn't a relationship it's the guy's fault. That's kind of funny because one of the biggest complaints that prostitutes hear is how their wives have a problem understanding them emotionally.It is also very common to hear men complaining that their wives were only after money or fame, and not interested in them personally (not even for the sex).That makes women even more inhuman than men.That is if I extrapolate what I hear during people's complaining as some truth regarding the opposite sex (even just many many). So you know Custard personally? Or was that You directed at men? How many? Many many?Read that statement a few times and maybe you will understand why I feel so sorry for you. It is condescending and sterotypical at the same time.I have conversations about my fears with men all the time. And I have had men tell me about there fears as well. Yeah it didn't look like a crying fest with hankies, but it wasn't a bunch of guys grunting and farting.Men can and do care about their male friends. Again, I feel very sorry for your cardboard cutout view of men. And if none of my mom's friends came to help her? Okay not my mom. But there were two neighbors whose female friends abandoned them when they got in physical trouble.I guess that makes my anecdote two to one on yours. Oh and guys did show up for some of my male relatives who fell ill.Now you have me feeling sorry for you and your dad. Are people in Michigan really this nasty to each other? Maybe you need to move to a new State. "I'm givin' er all she's got captain!"Perhaps you can send me the schematics you have on men so I can jerry-rig something and boost my output to its full potential.Can you tell me where you got this schematic from which details what full potential is? Well I don't know about you but that sounds like two people having intimacy problems. Are you laying this mostly on your dad for some reason?Man, I really really feel sorry for you. Please do. But one caveat. Please do not use books from feminist authors, nor sold for a woman audience. Make it real research, academic.And please go visit some clubs, even if just the ones for lesbians and straight women. You might get a real education on what people get out of it, besides avoiding intimacy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Why did you leave this sentence in, when shortly following this I did point to them and you started to reply to them?It's a personal irritation of mine that people leave arguments in which could only have been made if they hadn't read the entire post they were replying to first. It shows a very unfair and poor attempt to understand your opponent's position.If this is how you've been reading my posts, it's no wonder you've shown little understanding what I've been saying (especially my real position on porn). Well this is the FIRST thing you have said which makes any credible or honest attempt to deal with issues surrounding porn. For that I give you credit and I hope to see more of it, because that is what real debate is about.I want to start by agreeing that there is a credible argument about how long observations must be made before data becomes relevant for analysis. In addition, something you did not mention, there are real questions about whether enough data is being collected to get a whole picture.Absolutely these are valid questions. If you honestly read my posts then you did see that I qualified the research data myself. I am actually pretty hard on sociological and pyscho-socio research. There are problems using mass demographical stats, and on the personal level using self-reporting, as well as the issues already mentioned.However, I think this line of reasoning you are making is a bit disingenuous. First of all, using the term "a few decades ago" makes 30-40 years sound pretty short... it ain't. Second, using this statement blurs the fact that stats were observed before and after legalization. A change was observed.I can't remember if it was mentioned in the longer article I linked to or not, but in the 90's while porn began to have a growth market (which Clinton and Reno were bashed for) sexual crimes were actually on the decline. Despite growing hysteria within the populace, the stats were not bearing that out.I welcome you to introduce data which shows the trends these studies suggest, of allowance versus oppression of porn, have fallen apart over time, or that there is a reason (beyond vague doubt) to suggest they should not be considered. A good way to do this is to look back at stats stretching back into the past while porn was illigitimate. Perhaps you can find a different causal mechanism. Uhmmm, I didn't ignore anything in that article. You think it was lost on me that there was collusion from people within the West?The point I was making is that it is irrelevant. You may notice that even in the piece you quoted of mine that people in ALL nations can pull such a thing. Indeed, they most readily do. There victims, or the areas that they victimize will be places where laws are less well maintained. This offers increased opportunties of people living in such lands or areas to exploit those among them.If your point is that there are bad people everywhere, then you never saw me say different and are putting words in my mouth if you think I did. If your point was that there can be parts of the sexual industry in which people are abused, then you also have not seen me say differently and are putting words in my mouth if you think I did.I think that last one has already been shown as you have made out like I said porn was some wonderland of niceness when my entire position is that PORN ELUDES CLASSIFICATION. That cuts both ways contra.People turn blind eyes to bad things going on in other industries in the west. So what is your point then regarding porn and how it should be treated/thought of?If your claim is that it is somewhat greater in porn, I'd like to see the stats on that, especially when you are discussing porn as one finds it for sale to mainstream customers. I can guarantee you are not going to find "abused kid-slaves of Kosovo" for rent at your local store or mentioned on AVN.That is part of the black market. There is a black market for EVERYTHING. Maybe you should look at what you just said, and realize that it actually COUNTERS your position. You are right that it is illegal to broadcast racist propaganda (that's perhaps even heavier in Europe than in the US). Yet people have been able to recognize the difference between propaganda (which means supporting a cause) and using racist elements within fiction.There is simply no support to be found for racists within interracial porn. There just isn't. But I'll tell you what, you show me some literature or links or something where racists are buying up interracial porn, or refering to its MESSAGES as proving their point.The best you'll get are racists blasting the mockery of themselves within such porn, and the breaking of miscegenation taboos in its creation.But by all means... prove me wrong. Actually I have not. My argument is subtly different. I am attacking you for creating arguments which create a generalized negative feeling about PORN (as a whole), because bad things happen within sections of it.If you are not trying to create a general negative feeling about PORN as a whole, then I suggest you review your own arguments.And some of the specific arguments you make are simply not backed with any evidence, and indeed are contrary to logic itself. Abuse within the industry is obvious, it MUST occur as it does in any other industry. But being an avenue of reinforcing misogynist attitudes within society (which you still haven't defined)? And more laughably your claim that anyone focusing on interracial sex must believe in some trope?I attack those specific charges as well. What do you mean salient? You just quoted that article of abuse and used it to rip into the Porn industry. Perhaps you can show me where those being abused were among the wealthy (hell the middel class) of Kosovo. You know how Kosovo is KNOWN for being the mecca of wealth. Haha.What if I were to say to you that the salient point of that article was the poverty and lawlessness within Kosovo? Actually it is wholly relavent to your argument. As part of your "all interracial sites must involve tropes" you commented that any black person that chooses only white girls as sexual partners must believe in that trope.My example brings up the problems with your specific argument and begins to crumble the larger one. If a wholly interracial site was run outside of the US by a person that happens to choose only those outside of his/her race, does that mean that site is or is not supporting the trope?If so, how on earth could it? And if not, why must all those within the US be slaves to the trope and not genuinely have the same feelings regarding interracial sex the person outside the US has?I find it ironic that your own argument gives credence to the racist arguments which were used as races began to cross lines in the sixties. I mean if race didn't matter why was anyone wanting to date outside their race at all? There were definite physical barriers to this (including where people lived) and most had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to get to mix with others of different race.Or don't you remember that? That's even why you can find laws against dance halls in certain areas and restrictions within them. Many white girls and boys went way out of their way to mix with blacks.Not even clear on the history of interracial activity in the US are you? Do you need me to quote your own post where you said anyone starting a website focusing on interracial sex (with a capital I) to define its subject matter was supporting the trope? That was a pretty big brush baby.If you want to change your statement, go ahead, but you and I know that's exactly what you said and I was challenging. So let's see. Porn is generally okay but there are people who abuse people to make it for black market content. There is some interracial porn which plays off of historical stereotypes as part of the fantasy.And you are not making any comments regarding how it supports misogyny (beyond the one stat on UK wages)?What exactly is your position and why were you posting? None of this sounds worthy of mention.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)