Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Good news about porn

Many of you may have already seen the study saying that porn does not change men's perception of women or their relationship (via instapundit). The professor who oversaw the study had this to say:

Lajeunesse believes the early findings of the study cast significant doubt on the common perception that pornography dramatically changes the sexual behavior of those who view it.

“If pornography had the impact that many claim it has, you would just have to show heterosexual films to a homosexual to change his sexual orientation,” he says.


I have often known women who seem very ill at ease if their husband or boyfriend viewed porn. Perhaps they should read this study and realize that viewing porn for most guys is not harmful (not that this should matter, I think guys should be free to view porn as long as there is no abuse or underage kids). This study might help those women realize that porn use is normal, so much so that the researchers couldn't find any guys in their twenties who had not viewed it.

61 Comments:

Blogger Trust said...

Contrast that with how emotional porn like *gag* Twilight and romantic comedies affect women's views of their men.

6:26 PM, December 02, 2009  
Blogger Thras said...

Pornography can't reprogram biological wiring. It's not going to pervert heterosexuals nor fix whatever has gone wrong with homosexuals or people suffering from paraphilias.

However, to claim that it has *no* effect? That's pretty wild. We know that the social programming of sexuality has immense effects. To say the pornography does not matter at all to the social programming is very strange. You would need a very powerful study to say any such thing.

This one didn't even have a control group. Dismiss it out of hand.

7:16 PM, December 02, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: This Study

That's one out of how many others?

On the other hand, I'm reminded of a recent item over on Pajamas Media.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. If you are really in love with your wife, you only have eyes for her.

9:30 PM, December 02, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: All Men Watch Porn?

Really??!?!?!

How very odd. I must not be a 'man', by THEIR criteria.

Or maybe it's the other way around.....I think that may be a better understanding.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Real men love their wives.]

9:44 PM, December 02, 2009  
Blogger Fen said...

I disagree. Porn opens up doors that were better left shut. There are all kinds of things I *do* to women that I learned from pornos.

9:55 PM, December 02, 2009  
Blogger tomcal said...

Wherever I have travelled, I have seen porn; the bulk of it thousands of years old.

2:53 AM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Francis W. Porretto said...

If the testimony of my male Scandinavian friends are any evidence, porn might have a harmful effect: few of them can summon any sexual desire these days. Their Significant Others are almost always the initiators.

(No, they're not all in their seventies!)

In consequence, there's a growing number of Scandinavian women aggresively seeking non-Scandinavian men for bed partners. Be on the lookout: they tend to be blonde, beautiful, and utterly without inhibition. The danger of being consumed sexually by one of these Nordic predators is as yet unknown. Research continues.

4:44 AM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

Really strange here. There's the self-described Manly Man Chuck Pelto, the Sensitive New Age Guy Fen and Francis, who warns us about being sexually consumed by a cute Swede who has already worn out all of her male partners.

Yeah, it's all a big, important crisis. Looking at a picture of a naked girl is going to really, really influence you in some bad way. Maybe you should all carry around a cat-tail whip and whip your back several times, or run up and down a set of rosary beads, should you happen to catch a glimpse of a girl's skin above the knee.

Unbelievable.

5:06 AM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

Don't forget to cover up any table legs or piano legs that faintly have the shape of a woman's leg. Lustful thoughts may arise if you see a table leg like that.

And we certainly don't want that.

5:08 AM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

Last note:

For some reason, Chuck Pelto sounds like the kind of guy who will go on and on about how Real Men only have eyes for their wives and he is a Real Man's Man ... and then he will be found dead in a cheap motel wearing women's pantyhose with witnesses saying they saw a transvestite prostitute leaving the room.

5:11 AM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Fen said...

Tether: "Yeah, it's all a big, important crisis. Looking at a picture of a naked girl is going to really, really influence you in some bad way....should you happen to catch a glimpse of a girl's skin above the knee. Unbelievable."

Oh cute, Filcher Tether is playing his "clutch your pearls" line, like some geeky highschool punk aspiring to be hip and cool.

No worries Tether, I'm off to fist your daughter. Make her whine like the bitch she is. Because porn has taught me she's just a sex object that deserves to be ripped up and tossed away.

7:23 AM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

Fen,

Grow up. Countries that are more free with nudity have far less crime of that type than the United States (which is kind of prudish). So your argument that seeing a naked girl is going to make you go out and commit a violent crime is simply off the mark.

You sound like the product of the politically correct school system.

By the way, if you want to see objectification, take a look at how women view men as wallets and walking ATM machines. THAT'S objectification, as opposed to being sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

7:40 AM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

Frankly, "Fen", you sound like a feminist woman trying to play the role of a man.

If you are really a man, you have been so thoroughly brainwashed you cannot see reality.

7:42 AM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: All
RE: Tether....

....then he will be found dead in a cheap motel wearing women's pantyhose with witnesses saying they saw a transvestite prostitute leaving the room. -- Tether

....is just jealous because his significant other doesn't remind him of the leading lady in Life Force.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. And maybe I DO have something of an advantage in that respect.....

8:52 AM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

P.S. Anyone care to wager as to whether or not Tether HAS a 'significant other'? Maybe Fen is onto something there with that description.....

9:02 AM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

You got me on that one, Big Chuck.

My last crush was on the overweight lunch lady in high school. She rejected me. That was over 40 years ago, but I'll never give up the dream.

9:07 AM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger DADvocate said...

there's a growing number of Scandinavian women aggresively seeking non-Scandinavian men for bed partners.

I hear they wield a mean golf club, too.

There are all kinds of things I *do* to women that I learned from pornos.

fred - can you elaborate?

10:38 AM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger DADvocate said...

Wherever I have travelled, I have seen porn; the bulk of it thousands of years old.

Some of the paintings of walls of ancient Roman ruins wouldn't be allowed in public today. Watch "The History of Sex" on the History Channel. Very enlightening.

10:40 AM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger I R A Darth Aggie said...

If you are really in love with your wife, you only have eyes for her.

So, you're legally blind?

Experiment for Chuck: we'll hook you up to monitoring equipment and let a scantily clad Angelina Jolie give you a peck on the cheek. If your heart rate doesn't go up, I won't give you crap about your mushy nonsense.

Married men are married, not dead. Don't pretend you don't notice, you do. Not acting upon it is what makes you a good husband. Lying about it doesn't help your cause.

10:40 AM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: I R A Darth Aggie
RE: Legally Blind

So, you're legally blind? -- I R A Darth Aggie

Only where it comes to sex.

After all....

....re-read my missive at 8:52 AM, December 03, 2009, follow the link and read the comments.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[For additional information, please re-read this message.]

12:18 PM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:18 PM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: I R A Darth Aggie
RE: Experiment for Chuck

....we'll hook you up to monitoring equipment and let a scantily clad Angelina Jolie give you a peck on the cheek. If your heart rate doesn't go up, I won't give you crap about your mushy nonsense. -- I R A Darth Aggie

If my heart-rate DID 'go up', I'd go looking for my wife.....{nudge-nudge, wink-wink}....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Who can find a good woman. Her worth is greater than rubies. -- Proverbs 31]

12:25 PM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

P.S. Angelina Jolie is not, repeat NOT, a 'good woman'. Indeed, based on reports, she's just another 'f***ing idiot', in the literal sense.

12:27 PM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger Bill said...

I really can't think of anything to add to this. Which is unusual for a Dr. Helen thread

Bill

1:45 PM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger dr.alistair said...

porn takes the passion out of a relationship for men and for women.

the ladies who watch twilight with thier daughters and then come home to a tired 50 year old who`s been on the internet all the while is in a significant disconnect.

my woman went with her daughter and was mildly embarrassed while teen-age girls oohed and ahhed openly on a number of occasions.

to be stimulated by extreme images of sexuality is bound to interfere with any normal sexual relations between partners.

i can`t remember a time when my father took me to a movie showing young girls undressing repeatedly....though this seems normal now between mothers and daughters.

personally i see porn as another prong in the attack on the family.

sorry for the disjoined post but there are so many directions the "normalising" of pornography takes me.

6:43 PM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger The Archivist said...

In consequence, there's a growing number of Scandinavian women aggresively seeking non-Scandinavian men for bed partners. Be on the lookout: they tend to be blonde, beautiful, and utterly without inhibition. The danger of being consumed sexually by one of these Nordic predators is as yet unknown. Research continues.

Unknown? Uhhhh.... do you thing Tiger would agree with that?

11:25 PM, December 03, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

Well, I broke down and got a girlfriend. I have rediscovered something, so I'm having a good time. She too, by the way.

It's definitely not a spectator sport as far as I am concerned, and i never really thought so. Much better to actually be in the game.

I reserve the right to turn on my heels, however. I believe I've earned that.

6:14 AM, December 04, 2009  
Blogger br549 said...

And I know i say "I" as much as Obama does. I've earned that, too.

6:17 AM, December 04, 2009  
Blogger dr.alistair said...

br, if i may congratulate you.......

9:02 AM, December 04, 2009  
Blogger Fen said...

Filcher said: "Grow up. Countries that are more free with nudity have far less crime of that type than the United States (which is kind of prudish). So your argument that seeing a naked girl is going to make you go out and commit a violent crime is simply off the mark."

Where the did I say that seeing a naked girl is going to induce violence? Idiot.

"By the way, if you want to see objectification, take a look at blah blah blah"

So you agree that its objectification, then attempt to justify it with a tu quoque fallacy. Moron.

12:10 AM, December 05, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: All
RE: On a Related Note....

....we have Jaymaster's Moral Dilemma.

If he hadn't visited that site in the first place, he wouldn't be having these obviously serious issues about his relationship with his friend and co-worker and his friend's wife.

Another victim of 'unintended consequences'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If you avoid dark alleys, you're less likely to get 'mugged'.]

8:30 AM, December 05, 2009  
Blogger EgregiousCharles said...

"If you are really in love with your wife, you only have eyes for her."

Nonsense. Chuck may be wired this way, humans in general (men and women both) are not and have never been. What we need to is move the eyes we have somewhere safe, not pretend we have eyes that don't want to follow the cleavage going past. This becomes more important when there is more opportunity for infidelity (your hot opposite-sex friend) and less important when there is less opportunity (Internet porn of a pseudonymous naked chick who's on another continent).

Speaking of your hot-opposite sex friend, there is not enough attention paid to the dangers of emotional closeness. A married person can't afford to get too friendly with anyone of the opposite sex besides the spouse.

8:53 AM, December 05, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: EgregiousCharles
RE: Nonsense?

Nonsense. Chuck may be wired this way.... -- EgregiousCharles

Maybe....

.....and then again....

....maybe not.

And maybe you're right about being 'wired'. Interesting what your remark brought to my mind. Something said about 2000 years ago....

Remember, You did not choose me. I chose you. -- Some Wag in the vicinity of Jerusalem. We celebrate His birth in a score of days

RE: It's Only 'Human Nature'

...., humans in general (men and women both) are not and have never been. What we need to is move the eyes we have somewhere safe, not pretend we have eyes that don't want to follow the cleavage going past. -- EgregiousCharles

Aren't we called to rise above our more selfish 'nature'?

And then again, you touch my missive from earlier today, about Jaymaster's 'moral dilemma'.

You talk about 'moving the eyes'. I suggest that Jaymaster moved HIS eyes where he would been better off NOT moving them in the first place.

A couple of years after I married the woman I call 'good', I threw out my collection of porn. I didn't NEED it anymore. [Note: See my missive about some 1980s movie (above).]

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Good hunting and good luck.... -- combat unit commander's word to his troops as they go into the proverbial 'fray'.....]

11:22 AM, December 05, 2009  
Blogger Cassandra said...

Whenever the subject of porn comes up, people on both sides of the "is porn harmful" debate rush to defend their position with a great deal more passion than good sense.

Do I think porn turns normal, good men into rapists and perverts?

No, because that conclusion isn't reasonable in the face of the evidence all around us. Many men do use porn and yet don't rape, despise, or hurt women.

And while we're on the subject, that's a separate question entirely from whether a wife is being irrational or needy if she objects to her husband using porn. Seems to me that unless we know - from both sides - everything that's going on in the old bedroom, it's impossible for outsiders to say whether there's a problem or not.

Would I be willing to say that porn is morally neutral, or that anyone who is concerned about the effects of porn consumption is insecure or has psychological issues? No, because this isn't reasonable in the face of the evidence all around us either.

10 years ago, porn use was almost never cited in divorce actions. Now it is cited in nearly 2/3ds of all divorces. If you can look at that without at least *wondering* if Internet porn might just be different from the girlie mags most guys my age grew up with, I have to question your objectivity.

I have read many, many threads where men - not women, but men - talk about the hold it has over them, or how it has made them sexually numb and unresponsive. I read one post where the author challenged his readers and himself to stop watching porn for a few weeks. If I recall correctly, not one of them was able to stop. Not one.

And several of these young were deeply shaken by that fact. This wasn't on some Christian site, but on Cracked.com.

I don't see how anyone with an open mind (as opposed to folks who are only looking for evidence to support their predetermined opinions) can dismiss the evidence on both sides.

To maintain that Internet porn isn't causing real harm to real men and the women in their lives requires you to blithely dismiss the experience of these men and women. And to pretend that it causes massive problems for everyone who uses it requires you to ignore all the normal men and women out there whose lives haven't been wrecked by it.

It just seems to me that the debate could use a bit more objectivity and a lot less defensiveness. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

1:43 PM, December 05, 2009  
Blogger EgregiousCharles said...

Chuck, I'm sorry, but your writing style is so affected that I tend not to be able to understand what you're saying. Please try to be less clever and more clear. We may not be disagreeing at all.

I say you have to conciously look away from that which may tempt you to sin. As far as I can tell, what you are saying is if you REALLY loved your wife you wouldn't have to conciously put effort into looking away; it is that idea that I call nonsense. Maybe that's not what you meant?

I think that looking specifically at local amateur porn, as Jaymaster did, is much more dangerous to one's own fidelity than general professional porn; it's pretty obviously in the 'more important when there's more opportunity' category I mentioned.

2:40 PM, December 05, 2009  
Blogger EgregiousCharles said...

Cassandra, I think it's partly that porn is like alchohol; most people drink without harm, many actually receive health benefits from limited drinking, but for some it ruins their lives.

How often it comes up in divorce proceedings doesn't mean that much to me; as it is a convenient club with which to beat the future ex-husband, I'd expect it to come up almost all the time. I imagine the wife's divorce lawyer is sure to ask about it. Divorce lawyers usually profit by exacerbating the problems.

Another thing, I don't think all porn is the same. I work in a media delivery industry; on rare occasions I have to watch porn professionally, and I don't get to pick the type either. Watching a naked person posing and making eyes at the camera is very different than watching a couple of actors who don't particularly like each other having sex, and of course it gets much worse than that.

3:21 PM, December 05, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: EgregiousCharles
RE: Heh....

Chuck, I'm sorry, but your writing style is so affected that I tend not to be able to understand what you're saying. Please try to be less clever and more clear. We may not be disagreeing at all. -- EgregiousCharles

....sounds like, as we say in the Army....

....a 'personal problem'.


I say you have to conciously look away from that which may tempt you to sin. As far as I can tell, what you are saying is if you REALLY loved your wife you wouldn't have to conciously put effort into looking away; it is that idea that I call nonsense. Maybe that's not what you meant? -- EgregiousCharles

Finally 'catching on', are we? But...yet...you seem to deny the idea of the ideal.

Too bad.

RE: 'Looking'

I think that looking specifically at local amateur porn, as Jaymaster did, is much more dangerous to one's own fidelity than general professional porn; it's pretty obviously in the 'more important when there's more opportunity' category I mentioned. -- EgregiousCharles

Why look in the first place?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. As I stated earlier, if Jaymaster hadn't looked in the FIRST PLACE he wouldn't have this problem on his mind.....

4:25 PM, December 05, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

P.P.S. I'm reminded of something....a tag-line that I think apropos.....

If you have to think about it, you are already without honor. -- Lieutenant Worf

4:28 PM, December 05, 2009  
Blogger Cassandra said...

Well, you may attribute porn being cited in a divorce to the woman's desire to "club" the man, but I'd say you don't really have any evidence to support that.

I'm suspicious of broad brush characterizations. Porn is not a ground for divorce and I'm not aware of any law that has made it so, so its legal value as a "club" is minimal (especially with no fault divorce so prevalent).

I've never really understood men or women who admit men and women are different and then only want to consider things from the man's or the woman's perspective. That doesn't work because a marriage consists of a man AND a woman, both of whom have distinct needs and desires even once the need to honor the marriage vows is taken into consideration.

I've been married to the same guy for over 30 years. And we have a good marriage.

But if I have learned one thing in life it's that try as we might, I don't always understand him and he doesn't always understand me. Some things I do (that I don't think "ought" to be hurtful to him from my infinitely rational feminine perspective), nonetheless are.

And some things he does (that he doesn't think "ought" to hurt me from his infinitely rational male point of view), hurt me anyway.

This happens b/c we're different.

If you love someone, you make the effort to understand them. And you understand that marriage will change both of you. In your efforts to get along, hopefully both of you become better and more complete people. But if you go into it thinking your own viewpoint is the only one that matters, it shouldn't surprise anyone if things fall apart :p

4:31 PM, December 05, 2009  
Blogger EgregiousCharles said...

"....sounds like, as we say in the Army....

....a 'personal problem'."

I read Chaucer in Middle English for fun. Like George Orwell, I just have no patience with a writing style that substitutes oblique circumlocutions for plain speech. It's a pet peeve. For example, you use two sentences totalling seventeen words to indicate one word, Jesus, avoiding His Name and replacing it with your own flippancy. The style disguises shallow thinking behind obscure communication; it cannot be used for deep thinking, because deep thinking must be presented as clearly and simply as possible if it is to be communicated at all. That's why, say, the apostle Paul or Thomas Jefferson write as plainly as they do, despite having more wit that Wilde, Shaw, and that whole troupe of mountebanks put together.

I confess, though, that I responded without bothering to wade through all the allusive veribiage; which is a personal problem. I should not have responded your posts if I didn't bother to do more than scan them, which was the case.

8:44 PM, December 06, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: EgregiousCharles
RE: [OT] As I Was Saying....

I read Chaucer in Middle English for fun. Like George Orwell, I just have no patience with a writing style that substitutes oblique circumlocutions for plain speech. -- EgregiousCharles

....it sounds like a 'personal problem'.

Deal with it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Take you 'peeve' and 'pet' it.....

8:58 PM, December 06, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

P.S.....

....speaking of Him, I'm reminded of another of His comments that you might learn something from....

If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out. -- Some Wag, around 2000 years ago....

....and we celebrate His birth in a fortnight....or there abouts.

So....

....if people were to take your advice, we'd have more blind people wandering about. Or so I suppose, based on your approach to dealing with porn.

9:02 PM, December 06, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: EgregiousCharles
RE: [OT] Speaking of Him

You have problems with my referring to Him?

Stop wasting band-width HERE and come talk about it over at MY place. Or another venue involving christianity of YOUR selection. Just give me a URL...

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If they are not against me, they are for me. -- Some Wag, around 2000 years ago....speaking to some disciples who were behaving like EgregiousCharles is here....]

9:21 PM, December 06, 2009  
Blogger EgregiousCharles said...

"As far as I can tell, what you are saying is if you REALLY loved your wife you wouldn't have to conciously put effort into looking away; it is that idea that I call nonsense..." -- EgregiousCharles"

"Finally 'catching on', are we? But...yet...you seem to deny the idea of the ideal."-- Chuck Pelto.

In this human context I do absolutely deny the idea of the ideal. "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.", 1 John 1:8. "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", Romans 3:23.

Given human fraility, if anyone believes that "If you are really in love with your wife, you only have eyes for her", they can only conclude when their eyes wander that they are not really in love with their wife at all. It's not a helpful idea for some one struggling with lust.

9:25 PM, December 06, 2009  
Blogger EgregiousCharles said...

Cassandra, you misunderstand me about the divorce proceedings. I don't think it's the woman's desire to club the man, I think it's the lawyer's desire to make the opposite party look bad when assets are divided. It's part of how they get the largest possible share for their own client. Please note that I talked about the wife's lawyer, not the wife. "Family law" is an ugly, ugly business in general. The husband's lawyer has an array of dirty tricks too, also based on nasty stereotypes (e.g. the spendthrift slut).

9:44 PM, December 06, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: EgregiousCharles
RE: Heh

Once again....

....I'm not allowed to reply.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

2:30 PM, December 07, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

P.S. Reply 'in full'....

2:30 PM, December 07, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

P.P.S. I even TRIED to repost the original 'in-full' response to your missive at 9:25 PM, December 06, 2009, and despite the fact that I could make SOME comments appear here....

....not THAT one.

2:38 PM, December 07, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Somehow, the alarmists here about porn remind me of the "Reefer Madness" people with regard to Marijuana.

I smoked marijuana in college and ... umm ... I forgot what I was going to say.

6:43 PM, December 07, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Oh, yeah, now I remember. Chuck Pelto is NOT paranoid.

Yeah, that was it.

And seeing a naked girl probably won't make you jump out of a window.

6:44 PM, December 07, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: JG
RE: Yeah!

Oh, yeah, now I remember. Chuck Pelto is NOT paranoid. -- JG

Let's see if YOU can post this....


....aw heck.....

....it wouldn't let me slip the verbiage into THIS missive.....

9:25 PM, December 07, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

....but when I removed the verbiage.....

....Voila!!!! [Pardon my French]....mais Ceci est chié....

9:27 PM, December 07, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: Hey!!!

If porn is soooo gooooood....

....why not incorporate it with Christmas and Frosty the Snowman?

Ooooops....

....looks like CBS already has.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Welcome to the great apostasy....]

9:34 PM, December 07, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

P.S. I wonder if the 'good' doctor and her hubby show porn to the Insta-daughter.....

9:36 PM, December 07, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

People don't give alcohol to minors, Chuck, but not many people see anything wrong with an adult having a glass of wine with dinner.

5:47 AM, December 08, 2009  
Blogger Cassandra said...

I wonder if the 'good' doctor and her hubby show porn to the Insta-daughter

Chuck, that was below the belt. Dr. Helen was kind enough to allow you to discuss a difficult subject on her site. Not sure what she did to merit a remark like that.

Surely people ought to be able to discuss a subject rationally without going to extremes? Well perhaps not. Come to think of it I don't recall anyone saying simply seeing a naked woman (which is not porn, at least by my definition) would cause anyone to jump out a window either :p

It's kind of funny to me that people on both sides of this don't seem to be able to discuss the topic on the merits without resorting to silly exaggerations, straw men, or personal attacks.

At any rate Chuck, I think you owe the good doctor an apology. Not a tack that strengthens your argument.

/and I'm outta here!

9:10 AM, December 08, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: JG
RE: Please....

People don't give alcohol to minors, Chuck, but not many people see anything wrong with an adult having a glass of wine with dinner. -- JG

...expand on that comment.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The 'devil' is ALWAYS in the details.]

8:51 AM, December 12, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Cassandra
RE: No....

Chuck, that was below the belt. Dr. Helen was kind enough to allow you to discuss a difficult subject on her site. Not sure what she did to merit a remark like that. -- Cassandra

.....it's not. Indeed. It's particularly germane to the discussion.

If 'porn' is good, why don't we show it to our children. Just like they're doing in the vaunted American public education system? Or how about the television of late? Case in point, I happened to see a commercial some time back that had the famous Marilyn Monroe Playboy centerfold done in a 'cloudscape'. It was obviously a naked woman. And on prime time television.

If the someone, including the good doctor, has qualms about showing it to her children, then there is OBVIOUSLY something of a cognitive disconnect going on. Don't you think?

Surely people ought to be able to discuss a subject rationally without going to extremes? Well perhaps not. -- Cassandra

On the nosy!

Sometimes you have to point out the extreme in order to put a matter into 'perspective'.

Hope that helps.....but I have SERIOUS doubts.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Save yourselves and your children.....KILL your television.]

8:57 AM, December 12, 2009  
Blogger Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: It's Kind of 'Interesting'....

....but I've noticed that many people don't REALLY pay attention to a discussion—let alone the import thereof—until it ACTUALLY 'touches' on them in a personal manner. This seems to be especially true with 'acadamicians'. They think it's all so esoteric and distant from them.

It's also true with most others. They won't recognize the actual 'threat' until it's beating on their door....

.....in the form of a steel plated rifle-butt with a bayonet on the 'business' end.

Merry Christmas,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

P.S. JG & Cassandra....

....Two previous comments, one to each of you, for some strange reason, have not appeared as yet.

3:28 PM, December 12, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

"... seeing a naked woman (which is not porn, at least by my definition) ..."

---------------

The Supreme Court idea is that it is up to the relevant community. And some people think that naked women bring up lustful thoughts and are thus pornography.

Really.

And it's all a bit silly to me. So what.

America is very prudish relative to many other countries.

Again: So what?

9:11 PM, December 12, 2009  
Blogger Cassandra said...

Chuck:

I doubt that I'm going to be able to convince you, but I believe it's important (especially when discussing fraught topics) not to personalize the argument.

I think your point could have been made in a way that didn't involve a direct personal challenge. For instance, you could have said, "If there is nothing morally wrong with/dangerous about porn, why don't parents show it to little children or teenagers?"

The answer might well be, "Well, there's nothing intrinsically immoral or dangerous about alcohol in moderation, but we don't let kids drink until they're mature enough to make responsible judgments about what constitutes appropriate drinking."

I don't know what child rearing philosophy is followed by Dr. Helen and the good professor but then that is really none of my (or your) business either. We can discuss a subject in the abstract without challenging people to reveal information they rightly consider private. We can pose the same question as a hypothetical rather than a direct challenge.

I just think the same point could have been made in a less confrontational manner, and without conscripting an innocent child :p

Tether:

I'm not aware of any even moderately recent decision where a mere naked woman was ruled obscene. The current obscenity test has 3 parts:

Are the materials patently offensive?

Do they appeal only to prurient interests?

Do they have any serious artistic, literary, social or political value?

Under #2, many famous works of art are "obscene". Fortunately, the test is a bit more nuanced than that.

5:00 PM, December 16, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home