Sunday, May 25, 2008

On Being a Bookworm: Part Three - what are the effects of porn on men?

Note: This post is incredibly long-winded. To keep it from being such an eye-sore, view the full text here. What follows below is only the summary of my post, the details of the individual studies are at the link. Please comment on Female Impersonator, not my personal blog, to get a healthy thread going.

---

I promised in the comments section of my last post that I would cover some of the factual supports to the preposition that porn is damaging to its viewers. The book I am reading, Pornified, devotes an entire forty page chapter to the subject. I wanted to cover a couple of things from the chapter, particularly the factual studies done on porn with interesting results.

1. Violence in Porn

According to a study done by Barron and Kimmel called Sexual Violence in Three Pornographic Media, one in four pornographic magazines and 27% of videos depict some kind of violence. Internet Usenet groups link to and distribute material that depicted violence 42% of the time.

2. Porn and Perceptions of Sexuality

Paul takes a lot of time to consider the very methodical and balanced research that Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann did 25 years ago to test how the viewing of pornography impacted the viewer's opinions of various social phenomenons. Modern studies this extensive are not available because most universities will not approve studies that cause any sort of psychological harm to the testing subjects that cannot be cured. Since the effects could not be proven reversible, their studies are probably the most reliable statistical scientific examinations of pornography to date:

The study featured 80 test subjects divided into four groups. One was the control, one group watched nothing but tame movies, the next watched a little softcore porn, and the final group watched 36 complete pornographic videos. Without exception, those that watched more pornography believed that more Americans were sexually active, had engaged in group sex, oral sex, anal sex, bestiality, and S&M than the other groups.

3. Porn and Objectification, Misogyny

The Zillmann-Bryant studies also found that porn viewers are less likely to want a daughter than non-viewers. A 1994 report summarizing 81 peer-reviewed studies found that 70% of the studies conclude that even exposure to nonaggressive pornography has clear negative effects.

In the study done for the book, Paul found that half of all Americans think porn is demeaning towards women. The group least likely to think so was Gen-X males and most likely was anyone over the age of 59.

In a study done in 2002 by a professor at Texas Christian University on heterosexual men who distributed porn via Internet newsgroups found that the more porn men use, the more likely they are to describe women in sexualized and stereotypically feminine terms. They were also more likely to approve of women in traditionally female occupations and to value men who are more submissive and subordinate to men.

4. Porn and Diminishing Returns

Paul also postulates that viewing porn, especially for prolonged periods of time, facilitates the need to view more explicit and demeaning porn to get the same thrill. This is supported in the study by James Howard, Myron Reifler, and Clifford Liptzin which is cited in the 1970 federal report on pornography that found that men that viewed pornographic material for 90 minutes a day 5 times a week experienced less sexual arousal over time to similar material.

5. Porn and Acceptance of Sexual Violence, Diminishing of Sympathy

Paul cannot provide any sort of evidence that those that view porn are more likely to be rapists or become a rapist (the problem of causation). However, the Zillmann-Bryant study does show that increased exposure to non-violent pornography demonstrably affects how men and women perceive men who rape. Male participants that viewed the most porn would assign the shortest sentence to a rapist. They were also less likely to support women's causes in general and were about three times less likely to favor the expansion of women's rights.

Pauls says that:

Pornography leaves men desensitized to both outrage and exicitment, leading to an overall diminishment of feeling and eventually to dissatisfaction with the emotional tugs of everyday life. Men find themselves upgraded to the most intense forms of porn, glutting themselves on extreme imagery and outrageous orgasms. Eventually they are left with a confusing mix of supersized expectations about sex and numbed emotions about women. (Paul 90)

So what?

For one, many have argued that they can separate fiction from fantasy when looking at porn, and that attitudes and expectations portrayed there are not carried over to real women. This supposition is in direct opposition to the entire premise of the multi-billion dollar marketing campaigns running constantly. If humanity was impervious to images and advertising, why would businesses spend so much on it?

The answer is that humanity is not impervious to images and sights, as seen above in various studies. Pornography is much more subtle than advertising. It does not prey upon an unnatural urge for a Mercedes, but the appreciation of human beauty and sexuality. It does not enforce itself with the rush of new purchases, but with the ecstasy of orgasm. Advertising must convince us that we want or need a new car. Pornography just asks that we submit to human sexuality. It taunts us with sexual release without vulnerability. It preys upon cultural stereotypes of women and men and then reinforces them.

And then it succeeds: horribly, subtly, orgasmically, addictively.

Previous parts of this series: Part One, Part Two

59 comments:

Lindsay said...

I read Paul's book last fall and I can remember part of her argument, but I've forgotten if she says anything about sex-positive, female-positive porn. I'm torn on pornography because I think people should be able to make and view porn (within legal limits - no kiddie porn or anything), but I do think a lot of it is demeaning to women.

I remember those statistics from her book and she presents them in a very compelling manner.

Anonymous said...

speaking from a former "nice guy" who couldn't get a date cuz he didn't have a big enough wallet:

if it wasn't for porn, there'd be a few more raped women in the world.

consider wisely when you attack this outlet for male sexual energy.

it will not be repressed.

Ennui said...

So most of these studies are either incredibly old (and therefore not really relevant in a modern sense), or from biased (Texas Christian University) sources, or use such incredibly small sample sizes, that they cannot be compared to the populace as a whole?

Somehow I saw that coming.

Regardless, why not write about the effects of porn on women?

This and your previously article are strongly anti-male, and imply that only men use porn. When you speak of women, it's only in a very brief way.

It's somewhat offensive.

Anyway, a lot of the conclusions are dubious, at best. Such as the "slippery slope" argument that one will need more and more and more and harder porn to get off, if they use it.

The same could be said of regular sex, and yet, I've never heard of anyone studying if that is the case. I mean, if you're in a relationship, and you have steady sex with the same person, eventually, that constant sameness won't work as well, right?

I can say that I've looked at the same types of porn for as long as I've looked at it, and I can still get the same enjoyment from things I looked at a decade ago.

Then again, you'd probably tell me that because I feel I don't need sex, that something is wrong with me, and it's somehow the fault of porn.

But if I somehow need sex, something tells me you'd say it's because porn taught me to objectify women, or somesuch.

The way you write it, tells me you'd probably be comfortable placing someone (male) in a no-win such as that.

Faith said...

"if it wasn't for porn, there'd be a few more raped women in the world.

consider wisely when you attack this outlet for male sexual energy."

There is absolutely no evidence to support the theory that porn reduces incidents of rape. I'm always appalled when men argue that without porn, more men will become rapists. By doing so, you are quite literally stating that men are essentially sexual beasts who can not control their sexual behavior. Which is highly amusing given that it is commonly argued that feminists believe men are inherently sexual beasts unable to control themselves...when in fact, most feminists believe the exact opposite.

Andrew said...

Faith said it perfectly. Anon, you contradict yourself by asserting (out of nowhere, based on no facts whatsoever) that porn prevents rape, and then saying you're offended by the idea that only men look at porn.

However, I'm curious as to why people are even debating whether and how it negatively affects anyone. The fact is that the vast majority of pornography is misogynistic, which I'd say is reason enough to question and criticize it.

I'd be interested to see examples of this "sex-positive, female-positive" porn. Mostly because I doubt it actually exists, but also because I can't get my head around how it would work. I mean, the premise behind porn is that the "people" involved(whether male or female) simply can't get enough, and therefore precluding the necessity of silly things such as plots, acting, or realistic sexual scenarios.

Most porn that I've seen reminds me of that book Simulacra and Simulation by Jean Baudrillard. Namely, the stage (3 or 4?) at which the signifier (porn sex) no longer even resembles the signified (real sex).

Anonymous said...

"There is absolutely no evidence to support the theory that porn reduces incidents of rape. I'm always appalled when men argue that without porn, more men will become rapists. By doing so, you are quite literally stating that men are essentially sexual beasts who can not control their sexual behavior. Which is highly amusing given that it is commonly argued that feminists believe men are inherently sexual beasts unable to control themselves...when in fact, most feminists believe the exact opposite."

as i said: male sexuality will not be repressed. ever heard of the damsel in distress? the knight wants her and fights off armies and dragons to score.

also, you do have evidence: every time a man stands up and said "if it wasn't for porn, i probably would have...." you have some evidence.

porn doesn't cause rape to go higher. i'd posit it makes rape go down, by providing an outlet. cases like jeff dahmer are not the norm; he was clearly sick before, and porn was just a catalyst. he would have found a different catalyst, so removing porn won't do anything except make men more irate towards women.

Faith said...

"also, you do have evidence: every time a man stands up and said "if it wasn't for porn, i probably would have...." you have some evidence."

No, you do not. All that indicates if a man states such is that he refuses to accept responsibility for his desires and actions. Plenty of men avoid being rapists whether or not they watch porn or have sexual access to women.

"so removing porn won't do anything except make men more irate towards women."

You seem to have a truly pathetic opinion of men. Women do not exist to sexually serve men. Women are not obligated to satiate men's sex drives. They are not obligated to do this through porn, prostitution, or even in relationships. I know this is a terribly difficult thing for many men to grasp...but it is one which they must.

Repeat: Women do not exist to sexually serve men. Men are responsible for their sex drives and their sexual behavior. Any other stance is nothing other than an excuse.

I have absolutely no use for the "give us what we want or you'll be sorry" defense...which is what your line of reasoning basically is.

Faith said...

"so removing porn won't do anything except make men more irate towards women."

Oh, and one more thing...In my experience, it's the men who use porn who always seem to be the one's most "irate towards women" not the other way around...

Andrew said...

And I would posit that I am not my cock. My cock is one of many parts of me, and my brain does not reside inside it; therefore, it does not control my actions.

I am also not my testosterone, or my sex drive, or my "mating instinct", and the same basic principle applies to these as that which applies to my penis.

What does all this mean? It means, quite simply, that I am a sentient, free-willed human being, capable of deciding what my body does -- or in this case, does NOT do. And I have DECIDED that my body does not rape people.

Unless I am a freak of nature, every other man on the planet also has this ability. Therefore, it is not even remotely logical to suggest that porn prevents rape, nor can its absence be used as an excuse for the release of "male sexual energy".

Faith said...

Hey, here's another log for the fire:

According to nony's logic, I guess that means we should supply pedophiles with their own personal child porn collection. I mean, if porn stops men from raping women by providing an outlet...then obviously child porn would stop men who are sexually attracted to children from raping children, right?

See, this is the problem with arguments like nony's. It's literally arguing that the victims - or potential victims - or sexual crimes have an obligation to provide an outlet for would-be sex offenders. When in fact, as I've already clearly stated, the only person responsible for making sure a crime does not occur is the person that is committing the crime.

Jen said...

Anon - I have provided plenty of peer-reviewed evidence that porn is harmful. You have not provided any evidence that porn is positive. Consider that.

Also, this post was about male viewers of porn because I had no read the chapter on female viewers yet.

Ennui said...

Anon - I have provided plenty of peer-reviewed evidence that porn is harmful. You have not provided any evidence that porn is positive. Consider that.

Your information, as I stated, has incredibly small sample sizes, is terribly out of date (20-30 years? Honestly?) and/or is from biased sources.

Also, honestly, if you're going to make an article like this, at least have the decency to respond to comments. Consistently ignoring them makes you look as though you're making a point that you can't back up when it's challenged.

Faith said...

"Also, honestly, if you're going to make an article like this, at least have the decency to respond to comments. Consistently ignoring them makes you look as though you're making a point that you can't back up when it's challenged"

As a fellow blogger, I can state that it is tremendously time-consuming just writing decent posts for blogs. Responding to the comments is often a virtual impossibility. It is not an indication that the blogger just can't back up their stance. She's already stated her stance within her posts.

Jen said...

I choose not to respond because I have nothing to respond to. Your "sources" are nonexistent, and your objections to my sources are inconsequential. Sex has not radically changed since the 1970s, the older studies are still extremely complete and academically lauded, and plenty of the sources were more recent. Zillmann and Bryant did studies up until the late 80s, and replicated the results. It's not exactly a good tactic of logical debate to try to debunk the author's sources with no alternative sources of your own.

Like Faith and Andrew have said, the postulation that porn reduces crime is absurd. My sources clearly show that negative opinions of women are fostered by viewing pornography, not cured. Furthermore, while the numbers of violent crime and rape have fallen since the advent of the internet, no study has been done to prove that this is a product of causation. Also, there have been studies done that show that the introduction of adult shops into a neighborhood increase the amount of domestic crime, not reduce it. Larry Barron at the University of New Hampshire found that for every 2% the circulation of pornographic magazines increased, the rate of rape reports also increases 1%.

Ennui said...

Your "sources" are nonexistent

I never made any arguments that required them.

and your objections to my sources are inconsequential.

Doesn't work that way. I could easily say any of your feminist views are inconsequential.

It's not exactly a good tactic of logical debate to try to debunk the author's sources with no alternative sources of your own.

It's pretty common knowledge that you can't use 30 year old statistics to reflect a current situation.

You especially cannot use a sample size of 80-100 people to reflect the population as a whole, considering there are 300 million people in the US.

My sources clearly show that negative opinions of women are fostered by viewing pornography, not cured.

I'm sure I could dig up a "statistic" from the 50's that show women are less intelligent, or more likely to do this or that negative behaviour.

Will you take those as fact, too?

Larry Barron at the University of New Hampshire found that for every 2% the circulation of pornographic magazines increased, the rate of rape reports also increases 1%.

Correlation does not equal causation. You just stated that yourself.

Your arguments are flawed, because you're coming from a biased position. A person who is anti-porn will never argue in good faith, as they will always believe they are right, discount anything that says they are not, and only collect statistics from sources that agree with them, and attempt to discredit those that do not.

Amelia said...

Ennui, to keep this comment thread on track, I highly suggest that if you have such a problem with Jen's arguments, you provide your own sources that can prove her wrong.

Just saying that her sources aren't good enough is not productive unless you can prove that she is wrong with alternative information.

I do not have a firm stance on porn as of yet, but I do find many of the things Jen says interesting and worth looking into.

But from here on out, instead of arguing about sources and people who make opposing arguments, if you disagree with something, either say so and move on (don't dwell on it, and don't bring into personal "you" things), or back up your statements with studies that can prove another comment's invalidity.

Having older statistics at least shows you are well-read. Providing none does nothing. If you can provide better data, I'm sure we'd all like to read it. But you have to bring it first.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

"No, you do not. All that indicates if a man states such is that he refuses to accept responsibility for his desires and actions. Plenty of men avoid being rapists whether or not they watch porn or have sexual access to women."

there. i'm glad it didn't take long to lead you to that conclusion: plenty of men avoid being rapists whether they watch porn or not.

thank you.

"They are not obligated to do this through porn, prostitution, or even in relationships."

true! they are not obligated to be in porn or to be prostitues. so once again you have been lead to the appropriate conclusion: porn and prostitution exists because women choose to do it.

thank you.

this was all my post was meant to do; press the correct buttons to lead you to the correct conclusion:

that porn and sex-work exists because women choose to do it
and
plenty of men watch porn and do not become rapists (the majority, actually, 99%)

jen: your sources are based on the anecdotes of about two dozen men. failed.

speared.

Amelia said...

I forgive you, Anon, for your simplistic thinking (not meant to be insulting) because I myself have only come to be more broad-minded in considering issues like these.

You assertion that "porn and sex-work exists because women choose to do it" is one that I would like to argue against because you are lacking a little something in making such a simple statement.

Are the majority of women who engage in sex work physically forced into such a job? No. But the reasons that women may choose to do sex work are not as easy to comprehend as you seem to believe.

Many women engage in sex work because of financial necessity. Why is it often that women need to supplement their incomes? Traditional "women's work" (jobs that women can get into more easily than men) is valued less in our society. It often, as a result, does not pay as much.

To make this short, because I have papers/projects to be working on: if we corrected the wage gap and gave women equal access to higher paying jobs as men, I bet less and less women would CHOOSE to be sex workers.

Faith said...

"plenty of men watch porn and do not become rapists (the majority, actually, 99%)"

I wouldn't agree with 99%, no. I haven't got a clue how many men use porn and commit acts of rape, but I'm willing to bet everything I own that the percentage is higher than 1%.

"true! they are not obligated to be in porn or to be prostitues. so once again you have been lead to the appropriate conclusion: porn and prostitution exists because women choose to do it."

Inaccurate. It is estimated that less than 10% of women engage in porn and prostitution entirely by choice. Porn and prostitution exist by and large because men prey on women who are financially or otherwise vulnerable. Yes, some women engage in sex work entirely by choice, but it is by and large men who decide whether or not sex work exists by being consumers of sex work. Supply and demand. Without demand there is no supply.

Faith said...

These are posts on prostitution and sex-trafficking from one of my blogs. All of this information came from a book published by the U.N.:

http://brokendreams.wordpress.com/2006/09/13/sex-trafficking-in-women-and-girls/

http://brokendreams.wordpress.com/2006/09/18/sex-trafficking-part-2/

http://brokendreams.wordpress.com/category/child-pornography/

http://brokendreams.wordpress.com/2006/09/05/child-prostitution-2/

Faith said...

Gah...I hate blogger. Rather than fool with the html., if anyone has problems with those links, just click on sex-trafficking, prostitution and trafficking, and child pornography and child prostitution under the categories side-bar...

Coyote Skinhead said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ennui said...

Ennui, to keep this comment thread on track, I highly suggest that if you have such a problem with Jen's arguments, you provide your own sources that can prove her wrong.

Burden of proof falls on her. It's not up to your audience to disprove you, when you make a claim, it's up to you to provide proof.

Using old sources with sample sizes that in no way reflect the population as a whole does not make a good argument.

Like I said, she's arguing from an anti-porn standpoint, using anti-porn literature to "prove" that porn is bad.

http://www.netspeed.com.au/ttguy/refs2.htm

Anonymous said...

i find it hard to believe that only 10% of porn stars do it willingly. yeah right.

ennui we have to realize that the porn these girls are talking about is porn in which the woman gives fellatio, receives anal sex, or is "dominated" by the man in other way. this is the only porn that bothers them.

notice they don't talk about bondage porn, where women often put on strapons and insert them into men. or whip men. or abuse men. nope no commentary on that, only erroneous claims such as "the majority of rapists and serial killers look at porn."

that's like saying the majority of criminals smoke cigarettes, so if we made cigarettes illegal there'd be less murder. lol

Faith said...

"Like I said, she's arguing from an anti-porn standpoint, using anti-porn literature to "prove" that porn is bad"

Ennui,

I was once adamantly pro-porn. I consumed a great deal of porn myself and even considered performing in porn. It was only after experiencing the negative effects of porn myself, and observing the rampant misogyny that is present in most pornography...as well as noticed that violent pornography often mirrors sexual violence in the real world exactly that I developed my anti-porn stance. Also, a great many anti-porn women are former porn stars. That alone should tell you a great deal.

The anti-porn literature that shows the harms of pornography did not just appear out of nowhere. Even some of the most adamantly pro-porn people I've encountered admit that most porn is misogynistic and that much of it is damaging even if they support the right of people to engage in it and consume it.

Dredz said...

Okay here's the thing with porn:

You're little anecdotes mean nothing. "I was addicted one time, waa, porn is even outlaw it." is silly, at best. Also, nony is right: I only see one type of porn being attacked. The feminists here fail to realize, even though it's been pointed out twice now, that there are many, many different types of porn, and not all of it is misogynistic. I've seen a man giving oral sex to a woman while another woman tags him in the arse with a strap-on. Can't get any less misogynistic than that!

Your entire argument "porn objectifies women" is wholly erroneous- for the simple fact that "porn" in and of itself is merely the depiction of 1) the naked human form and 2) the act of sex.

On "the act of sex"- sex comes in many forms. A woman in the "on top position", strangling the man (in some acts of BDSM) is no more "objectified" than the woman receiving anal sex. The sex act is as varied as the participants, and indeed, there are many types of porn; some are violent, yes, but sex itself is sometimes violent. And some people, men and women alike, prefer it in that manner.

The argument "porn increases rape and violence" is also a silly argument. There is a correlation- however, causation is not proven anywhere. Perhaps it's working the other way around; porn is not causing violence, but perhaps violent people enjoy porn. The same way violent video games do not cause violence, but perhaps violent people enjoy them (for the obvious reason that they are violent people and enjoy acts of violence).

And yes, I concur, the only porn I see being attacked here is "porn that 'objectifies women'." There are women, and indeed I have had relations with such women, who enjoy being "objectified" in the sex act- it's a fantasy they enjoy indulging in.

And yes, that "cigarette analogy" was fairly well done. Poor people are more likely to smoke cigarettes; perhaps if we outlawed cigarettes, it would decrease poverty in our country? Such ideas are silly, and obviously so.

Faith said...

"i find it hard to believe that only 10% of porn stars do it willingly. yeah right."

I said entirely by choice. Meaning, if they had other options which could earn them a reasonable income, they would not perform. There is also the matter of psychological damage due to being sexually abused. Many porn performers enter the trade because they have been essential psychologically programmed to view themselves as objects existing for the sole purpose of sexually serving men. I hardly believe it's accurate to say that a severely psychologically impaired person who engages in porn under such circumstances is engaging entirely by choice.

"ennui we have to realize that the porn these girls are talking about is porn in which the woman gives fellatio, receives anal sex, or is "dominated" by the man in other way. this is the only porn that bothers them.

notice they don't talk about bondage porn, where women often put on strapons and insert them into men. or whip men. or abuse men. nope no commentary on that, only erroneous claims such as "the majority of rapists and serial killers look at porn.""

I - and most anti-porn feminists that I'm aware of - happen to be against all porn. Not just porn in which the women are dominated. The problem with the type of porn that you mention is that it also exists to overwhelming serve male desire. Even femdom porn is marketed to men. The women are still existing to serve men....and the women are still often being coerced in various manners into performing.

Faith said...

"There are women, and indeed I have had relations with such women, who enjoy being "objectified" in the sex act- it's a fantasy they enjoy indulging in."

Yes, I myself happen to be one of those women. However, as many other women who enjoy such sexual activity will also tell you, I know for a fact that my enjoyment of being objectified is little more than a defense mechanism against a society which perpetually attempts to objectify me. It's also a result of experiencing certain sexual abuse which I don't care to share in a public forum. In other words, I know for a fact that my desire to be sexually objectified is not a healthy one.

OutcrazyOphelia said...

"I read Paul's book last fall and I can remember part of her argument, but I've forgotten if she says anything about sex-positive, female-positive porn. I'm torn on pornography because I think people should be able to make and view porn (within legal limits - no kiddie porn or anything), but I do think a lot of it is demeaning to women."

I recall a feminist porn awards ceremony from around a month ago. I'm torn over the porn issue--I've done a lot of undergrad work around the subject and the information out there is rather inconclusive. At the same time that there's demonstrable harm to men and women, not everyone reacts the same way--it's like televised violence. It's hard to get a dialogue going since so many are convinced that they're completely unaffected and therefore any critique is misplaced. Likewise, the whole "sex positive" feminism sets itself apart from anyone who may have an issue with porn or even the porn industry (the way they treat women is shoddy at best and its rare to see a woman in full control of her career or the acts she wants to engage in on film) is sex negative in their eyes. It seems almost impossible to get a conversation going about the pros and cons without someone feeling personally offended and derailing.

I think it's entirely possible for porn to be sex positive, but I don't think that most of it is. I mean human sexuality shouldn't be anything to be ashamed of, likewise, no one should be used for their parts, and no one should be forced into participation. I think porn says something about the society in which it is being consumed, and seeing so much of "big butts 3" "cum guzzlers 5" and the like really makes it difficult for me to think most porn is female positive. It's not just the objectification but also the dehumanization (and I won't get into the fact that the women routinely appear dry as a bone and not really interested in the goings on--not all that hot) that bothers me.

Faith said...

sorry if this posts twice....

This post was written by a pro-porn woman who also happens to be a gonzo porn star and a prostitute. She does what she does entirely by choice and totally defends her right to do so. Even she admits that mainstream porn is misogynistic...

http://tinyurl.com/3xoegr

Jen said...

My sources and the studies cover the viewing of nonaggressive heterosexual porn. Which you should have known if you had read the post. They are not covering rape porn, or BDSM, or bestiality. All studies were done on consensual heterosexual softcore and hardcore porn.

Please do not misconstrue my argument for your own needs. It's immature.

Faith said...

"I think it's entirely possible for porn to be sex positive, but I don't think that most of it is."

Ditto.

Goose said...

no offense, but are a bunch of feminists, who self-admittedly are concerned with women's rights, really the ones who should be discussing how porn affects men? I'm not trying to be trollish, I really am curious.

Lindsay said...

Personally, I'm interested by all gender issues and society's ideals of masculinity and femininity. I think patriarchy hurts all of us and this is one example that complicates the issues around freedom of speech, sexual rights and the question of the influence of different mediums, television and the internet mostly in this case.

weedelz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ennui said...

no offense, but are a bunch of feminists, who self-admittedly are concerned with women's rights, really the ones who should be discussing how porn affects men? I'm not trying to be trollish, I really am curious.


While most feminists will attack a male for having any sort of opinion on things that specifically involve women and their experiences ("You aren't a woman, and can't speak for their experiences, because you've never had to experience that!")...

But they tend to have no problem not only speaking about men's experiences, but TELLING us what our experiences are.

Jen said...

Goose, Ennui-

It's a book. It's studies. I, and other feminists, have every right to comment on books and studies and various academic and peer-reviewed texts. What makes this look at Paul's chapter on porn affecting men legitimate is that I provide studies and sources and do not make any sort of conclusions that are not supported by research.

I also would ask for various other commenters to cease from twisting my argument to suit their own purposes. If you are not capable of reading the text you are commenting on, please don't bother to think that I will take you seriously.

Faith said...

Ennui,

"But they tend to have no problem not only speaking about men's experiences, but TELLING us what our experiences are."

If you find listening to feminist women's opinions on porn and the negative effects of porn on men so offense, perhaps you might wish to read the opinions of feminist men who are also anti-porn....

http://hugoschwyzer.net/

http://www.adonismirror.com/

Robert Jenson's Home Page:

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/index.html

Ennui said...

If you find listening to feminist women's opinions on porn and the negative effects of porn on men so offense, perhaps you might wish to read the opinions of feminist men who are also anti-porn....

http://hugoschwyzer.net/

http://www.adonismirror.com/

Robert Jenson's Home Page:

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/index.html


Feminist men can hardly be counted on for the voice of men.

Just like feminists discount what they call "misogynistic women", I discount "feminist men".

When a man is trained to speak what feminists and women want him to say, his words are no longer honest and true.

Secondly, I notice no one comments on the link I gave, that shows that pretty much everything hypothesized (porn= more rape, etcetera) that Jen stated turned out exactly opposite, or no change.

Funny, that. Ignoring things that prove your statements wrong, and sourced, at that. Wow, didn't see that coming.

Faith said...

"Feminist men can hardly be counted on for the voice of men."

Oh, so sorry to have been so terribly mistaken as to believe that maybe you could learn something from those men.

I guess I'll have to go tell the quite Feminist man in my life that he hasn't got a flaming idea of what it means to be a man.

Faith said...

"Secondly, I notice no one comments on the link I gave, that shows that pretty much everything hypothesized (porn= more rape, etcetera) that Jen stated turned out exactly opposite, or no change."

I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't comment on it because I didn't see anything in that article worth commenting on.

Faith said...

"When a man is trained to speak what feminists and women want him to say, his words are no longer honest and true."

You know, the more I look at that statement, the more it bothers me. You didn't just basically say that men who care about what feminists want are somehow flawed and not to be trusted...you also basically said that men who care about what women want can't be trusted to be honest. According to this statement, it would seem that you have little to no ability to empathize with women. I mean, really, Ennui, is that what you believe, that men can't be trusted once they empathize with women?

What a bloody statement.

(I apologize for veering off-topic with this comment...but I can not avoid pointing out what appears to be such blatant sexism)

Jen said...

Now that we have established that Ennui's primary objections to our posts stem from his sexism, we should probably just ignore him.

Amelia said...

Oh no, Jen!

You know what they'll say. Something along the lines of: "Stupid feminists. Ignoring people who disagree means all feminists are super feminazis who want to silence the opposition!"

heh....

Ennui said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ennui said...

Of course.

Good job, Jen.

I call you out, prove you wrong, and respond to unfounded accusations and insults thrown at me, and what do you do?

You delete the post.

I can't say I'm surprised by this behaviour.

If you're going to post articles, and have comment sections, and encourage discussion on a topic, be a little more honest, as you apparently only want people to tell you that you're right.

If the owners of the blog let the comment stand, it means it passed muster, and considering you're under them, it's a bit rude to go over their judgement and remove it anyway.

Amelia said...

If the owners of the blog let the comment stand, it means it passed muster, and considering you're under them, it's a bit rude to go over their judgement and remove it anyway

First of all, "passing muster" can be an accident sometimes. Just today, I accidentally published several comments that I had not read. Stuff like that happens.

And Ennui, don't you dare tell my co-blogger (see how I say CO-BLOGGER) that she is somehow under anyone. I started this blog. I invited Jen to write here. She is my equal. She is the equal of everyone who writes here.

Anyone can delete comments. Knock of this antagonistic attitude that you displayed in that last comment. If she deleted something you wrote, then maybe you should think of coming at your argument in a different way. If you can't, or refuse to do that, then your argument must not mean that much to you.

If you don't like it here, find another blog to read.

Ennui said...

Knock of this antagonistic attitude that you displayed in that last comment.

Excuse me? Don't give me orders.

If your commenters are rude and insulting to me, I have every right to be "antagonistic" and defend myself.

Frankly, it's rude to outright delete anything you disagree with. They take time to write out and respond to.

If she deleted something you wrote, then maybe you should think of coming at your argument in a different way. If you can't, or refuse to do that, then your argument must not mean that much to you.

That's a lousy argument. The only thing she'd be comfortable letting stand, would be me telling her just how right she is, even when she's not, and me just sitting there and taking all the insults she and her ilk throw out.


If you don't like it here, find another blog to read.


I'd just prefer the self-proclaimed champions of "equality" be a bit more equitable in their behaviour.

I mean, you people can insult me left and right, be rude, confrontational, and then when I respond, and defend myself, and rebut arguments, what happens?

Oh, you delete the comments. Really, really equitable.

Ennui said...

Also, as to coming at the argument in a different way, or whatever, the only way I can come at it is the way I did.

It's not my fault she doesn't like that, or gets upset when she's wrong or disagreed with.

Finally, on that note, when I type them up, I don't save them all somewhere, for future editing.

Amelia said...

That is an order, Ennui, and if you don't like it then don't expect your comments to be posted here. The comment of yours that I quoted in my last comment was incredibly rude and you never even addressed that. Like I said, Jen is not beneath anyone here.

If she couldn't handle the way your comments were written (I still have them saved) then re-write them. Most of your comments were probably deleted because they strayed into the territory of "feminists this and that" instead of trying to convince anyone of your point. If you can't state your point without resorting to "Ha, typical, feminists do this, that, and the other" comments, then yours doesn't really seem like something worth debating/reading.

If you refuse to re-submit your ideas, then don't expect to be heard here. If your argument was so important to you that you will throw a fit about it not being heard, re-write it.

an.optimistic.cynic said...

-"Feminist men can hardly be counted on for the voice of men.

Just like feminists discount what they call "misogynistic women", I discount "feminist men".

When a man is trained to speak what feminists and women want him to say, his words are no longer honest and true."-



@ ennui,

I’ve read similar comments from you in a few other posts, but I wonder if a little clarification might help?

I’m setting aside my cynicism for a moment here, and am genuinely curious.
What subjects do you consider women’s issues, and which men’s issues?
Also, who would you consider a proper spokesperson for men?
Who, in your opinion, exemplifies what a man is?
For that matter, what qualities embody what a man is? What qualities embody what a woman is?

I strive towards thinking critically in all areas, and it seems to me the ladies and gents blogging here do the same. Maybe a little context would foster – if not agreement – than at least some understanding?

Alright, cloaking myself back in cynicism. ;)


aOC
http://anoptimisticcynic.blogspot.com/

Amelia said...

I agree with you, aOC.

I don't want Ennui to stop commenting, but if he were more careful in his comments, I would be much more inclined to take him seriously. But he seems unwilling to do that and instead focuses on supposed misandry in the writers here instead of focusing on the points he tried to make.

Ennui said...

Well, if you tell me I can't make comments about feminists, because "not all are the same", then I request you no longer make comments about males, because "not all are the same".

You either allow both or neither.

Or stop stifling what people have to say.

I made no outright insults, but still get censored.

Amelia said...

Ennui, I will be censoring you because you comments are not on topic! Instead of saying something relavent to the effects of porn on men, you have lately been consumed with the "misandry" of people, and the unfair moderation.

Stop the complaining about our policies and stop making accusations against our writers and you will be heard. If you cannot do without those things, then you will not be heard here.

That's final. If you choose to comment otherwise, I will not allow it to be posted. Period. Take it or leave it.

Amelia said...

**"unfair" moderation.

Amelia said...

A last note: Ennui, if you wish to continue complaining about the moderation policies of this blog, please e-mail me personally (see my profile).

I refuse to have that discussion on a comment thread.

an.optimistic.cynic said...

@ ennui,

I don't really want to derail the thread(any further), but I was hoping you might answer my queries?
Thanks!

*What subjects do you consider women’s issues, and which men’s issues?

*Also, who would you consider a proper spokesperson for men?

*Who, in your opinion, exemplifies what a man is?

*For that matter, what qualities embody what a man is?

*What qualities embody what a woman is?

Ennui said...

I don't really want to derail the thread(any further), but I was hoping you might answer my queries?
Thanks!


I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to. Any attempt I've made to respond to questions, rebut statements, or defend myself against insults gets deleted, I'm afraid.

Amelia said...

**ATTN ALL: Please note Ennui's continuing refusal to focus on anything but our policies, and his reluctance to leave this blog despite his problems with them that he refused to discuss with me in a civil manner.**