MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Political/War Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/political-war-lounge/)
-   -   Should There Be "Tame" Porn Sites For Teenagers? (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/496447/should-there-tame-porn-sites-teenagers/)

 
subego Dec 21, 2012 06:49 PM
Should There Be "Tame" Porn Sites For Teenagers?
Discuss.
 
Uncle Skeleton Dec 21, 2012 07:12 PM
You mean should there _stop_ being tame porn sites? There's already all types of porn.

At least all types I can imagine...
 
subego Dec 21, 2012 07:20 PM
No, I mean should the tamer ones target teenagers, and should parents encourage their teenagers to go there.
 
raleur Dec 22, 2012 09:37 AM
No, there shouldn't.
 
subego Dec 22, 2012 09:41 AM
Why?
 
Uncle Skeleton Dec 22, 2012 09:58 AM
I can't imagine it having the intended effect. On the other hand, what's the intended effect?
 
subego Dec 22, 2012 10:11 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4208373)
I can't imagine it having the intended effect. On the other hand, what's the intended effect?
The goal of all parenting. Manipulating your children into doing what you want them to do.
 
Spheric Harlot Dec 22, 2012 10:30 AM
There's already PG Porn. (Google that, but not at work. No nudity, though.)
 
Waragainstsleep Dec 22, 2012 10:32 AM
Surely Miley Cyrus is America's idea of porn for teenagers?

;)
 
raleur Dec 22, 2012 10:37 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4208368)
Why?
Because you haven't offered any reasons why there should be. It's your proposition to prove, not mine to disprove.
 
subego Dec 22, 2012 10:44 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4208378)
There's already PG Porn. (Google that, but not at work. No nudity, though.)
It's not about it existing, it's about pushing (manipulating? motivating?) teens in that direction, as opposed to them having no guidance and going wherever the Internet happens to take them.

Porn without nudity sounds... like it's not porn.
 
Spheric Harlot Dec 22, 2012 10:50 AM
You didn't google it. :p
 
subego Dec 22, 2012 10:53 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by raleur (Post 4208382)
Because you haven't offered any reasons why there should be. It's your proposition to prove, not mine to disprove.
Oh.

I wasn't challenging you. I thought you may have had something specific in mind, and was willing to focus on that.

The main reason is so growing minds can pattern off some "normal" porn before they get hit with the fry your eyeballs stuff.
 
subego Dec 22, 2012 10:55 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4208393)
You didn't google it. :p
Yes I did. You were talking about the Spike TV show?
 
Uncle Skeleton Dec 22, 2012 12:21 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4208396)
The main reason is so growing minds can pattern off some "normal" porn before they get hit with the fry your eyeballs stuff.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (PM if you want to keep your head down, I won't spill your secret ;) ), but I didn't think the eyeball fryers were even arousing to *cough* people, until after being thoroughly jaded to the tame kind first. I thought this was nature's way. And if a growing mind isn't on nature's track, I don't imagine that "cinemax therapy" is going to put them back on it.
 
besson3c Dec 22, 2012 01:26 PM
I think what the industry needs for teenagers is some semi-realistic porn where women aren't portrayed as your typical archetype modern day pornstar that exists to swallow and service men. I remember as a teenager being pretty ignorant as to what women were like and what made them tick. Realistic scenarios that include women behaving semi-realistically that include men pleasuring women rather than largely the reverse would be pretty cool - sort of sex reality show type stuff with a lot of nudity? At that age simple nudity was exciting for me, I didn't need spitting on buttholes and stuff.
 
Waragainstsleep Dec 22, 2012 02:41 PM
There probably is a market for that. Expect Middle America and the Daily Fail to go ballistic at them if they actually market to teens specifically.
 
besson3c Dec 22, 2012 03:04 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep (Post 4208424)
There probably is a market for that. Expect Middle America and the Daily Fail to go ballistic at them if they actually market to teens specifically.
The beauty with what I'm suggesting is that you wouldn't have to market it at teens specifically.
 
raleur Dec 22, 2012 03:50 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4208396)
The main reason is so growing minds can pattern off some "normal" porn before they get hit with the fry your eyeballs stuff.
I see.

Well, I disagree with the principle that's predicated on, so I have nothing to add. Carry on!
 
subego Dec 22, 2012 07:42 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by raleur (Post 4208435)
I see.
Well, I disagree with the principle that's predicated on, so I have nothing to add. Carry on!
Of course you do! :)

I'm open to the idea my principle is off. I'm not trying to convince people (much), I'm more interested in discussion. I don't have kids.
 
besson3c Dec 22, 2012 07:59 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4208453)

Of course you do! :)
I'm open to the idea my principle is off. I'm not trying to convince people (much), I'm more interested in discussion. I don't have kids.
What is your principle?
 
subego Dec 22, 2012 08:16 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4208409)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (PM if you want to keep your head down, I won't spill your secret ;) ), but I didn't think the eyeball fryers were even arousing to *cough* people, until after being thoroughly jaded to the tame kind first. I thought this was nature's way. And if a growing mind isn't on nature's track, I don't imagine that "cinemax therapy" is going to put them back on it.
Is that nature's way? Serious question. I'm honestly not that much into the eyeball fryers*, but I notice on your average aggregation site, it's the eyeball frying which floats to the top.

I assume that's because it's the most popular.

I fully admit, my learning experience with porn was from a different generation. You accessed porn by stealing it from adults. Graphic (and I don't mean eye-searing, but close up enough to see what was actually happening) photographs of sex weren't widely available. I was probably 13 before I saw that, and it wasn't even produced in America. I stole a movie a year or two later.

How would that be if I had an all-you-can-eat buffet placed in front of me, with the melty-melty stuff right on top. Would I not be aroused by the stuff put in front of me and instead dig though to find tamer stuff? That doesn't sound right.


*To be clear, one person's tame is another person's melty. I have a specific issue with the seeming popularity of over-the-top degradation and abuse of women. I'll also admit I'm not beyond liking objectively horrible stuff, but I know it's objectively horrible. Who tells a 14-year-old what they're watching is objectively horrible?

The way we used to do that was to apparently to hide the horrible stuff better than the tame stuff.
 
subego Dec 22, 2012 08:20 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4208454)
What is your principle?
Scroll up. It's what he replied to. :)
 
Waragainstsleep Dec 23, 2012 04:31 AM
My experience began much like yours. As a kid, softcore porn went from page 3 in the tabloid papers to top shelf magazines that you found in skips on building sites, then that oh so rare hardcore mag or VHS that someone's parent or older sibling had brought back from a trip to Europe.
When I got to college I hadn't spent much time on the internet, I didn't even have an email address before then. Some of my new friends had been working their way through some of your so called eyeball melters for years by that point. Its not all about titillation though, to a large extent its fascinating to see what other people like, how far they will go etc etc.

I don't see how you are going to get teen-friendly vanilla porn in the door ahead of the harder stuff without marketing or otherwise directing the teens to it before they find the rest. Especially when the rest is advertising on torrent sites, or places where you can get software serial numbers. Places where internet savvy kids go long before they would otherwise care about porn.

You could come up with some sort of grading system that led you on a journey of pornographic discovery so to speak. It would be amusing to watch the conservatives try to decide whether they were more against the porn itself or the fact someone was trying to regulate it for them.

;)


I think you'd just have to put it out there, bring it to the attention of more liberal, progressive parents and just try to build a reputation for hosting normal, healthy, realistic sex content.
 
Uncle Skeleton Dec 23, 2012 07:46 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4208455)
Is that nature's way? Serious question.
Well we're handicapped because of the stigma, and there's no objective way to measure it other than to look inward like Descartes. When I do that, this is what I get. Ask someone else and you might get a different answer.


Quote
I assume that's because it's the most popular.
Why should we expect the most popular to be the most basic, or appeal to newcomers? I think it's safe to say that the majority of users are seasoned veterans, not newcomers, so the use patterns of the group aren't going to tell us much about novice preferences.

The sites I've seen are subcategorized, so users aren't just at the mercy of popular preference.


Quote
How would that be if I had an all-you-can-eat buffet placed in front of me, with the melty-melty stuff right on top. Would I not be aroused by the stuff put in front of me and instead dig though to find tamer stuff? That doesn't sound right.
I feel more like it's a Rorschach test, everything is in view, and what you come away with is the one your eye was drawn to ;)


Quote
Who tells a 14-year-old what they're watching is objectively horrible?
How about the whole non-smut world of media and culture?


Quote
The way we used to do that was to apparently to hide the horrible stuff better than the tame stuff.
There's certainly a wide range of tools for the whole parental controls philosophy. They're not completely ineffectual.
 
raleur Dec 23, 2012 11:29 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4208454)
What is your principle?
I think that his argument operates on a couple of assumptions.

First is that, issues of degradation and abuse aside, porn is not harmful, more of a puritanical hangup. Of course, issues of degradation and abuse aside, racism and child molestation are pretty harmless, too.

Second is the notion that since they're going to be exposed to porn anyway, it's better to "ease them into" what they'll be seeing in order to prevent some bad result- I assume "fried eyeballs" is the thing this would prevent.

And, of course, since it's Sub, these are based on some libertarian principles of rational agency and free markets- but that's an issue for another day and another thread :stick:
 
subego Dec 23, 2012 12:57 PM
You've got the right idea.

To be clear, I do think most porn is degrading on some level, however there are most certainly different levels. Obviously, that isn't enough to stop me from being a consumer.

I do have a concern for fried eyeballs, but I'm far more concerned with people seeing it and then taking it into the realm of reality. When it comes to strictly fantasy, go off the rails. I don't care. Not like I haven't been there.

The only Libby angle I can come up with is it could help re-monetize the industry, but when it comes right down to it, it's more grinding my feminist gears.

My feminist gears aren't very Libby.
 
raleur Dec 23, 2012 02:29 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4208512)
I do have a concern for fried eyeballs, but I'm far more concerned with people seeing it and then taking it into the realm of reality. When it comes to strictly fantasy, go off the rails. I don't care. Not like I haven't been there.
But how does making porn of any kind more freely available solve any of that? I mean, what if an important part of the appeal of porn is precisely the fantasy element? Granted, I doubt I've seen the more extreme stuff, but all of it seems based in fantasy to me- so what kind of movies would these sites show?

More to the point, there's a certain element of education that seems to be missing: the marketplace doesn't teach respect for human beings or moral responsibility, both of which are needed in order to avoid degradation and abuse. If children aren't learning these things now, how would making it easier for them to access porn change that?


Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4208512)
The only Libby angle I can come up with is it could help re-monetize the industry, but when it comes right down to it, it's more grinding my feminist gears.
My feminist gears aren't very Libby.
Yeah, but your idea that putting it out there on the free market somehow offers a solution is entirely libertarian. Also, I suspect there are some assumptions that everyone involved would make free, rational choices when exposed to it- that's wholly libertarian as well.
 
subego Dec 23, 2012 02:53 PM
I think both these things mesh.

You're 100% right on the education front, and also 100% right about the free market not being something which could bring it into existence. At best, the market could take advantage of a cultural sea change where education about porn is something we actually do with children.

In hindsight, the business model question was jumping the gun. The real question is should we start educating about porn, and how do we educate people on educating people on porn.
 
raleur Dec 23, 2012 03:49 PM
Wow, that's a very different question.

I guess you'd have to start by thinking about why people use porn? It seems obvious, but perhaps there are some deeper questions, such as the fantasy element or even the degradation. I suspect that a lot of the hardcore stuff appeals precisely because it is a degradation fantasy, but there are probably other reasons as well.

And then you have all the problems of educating about that sort of thing- who and how, will it even work, and so on...
 
Shaddim Dec 23, 2012 06:51 PM
The women control modern porn, not the other way around. They're producing, directing, and starring in it. It's feminism in the boldest sense.
 
subego Dec 23, 2012 08:36 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4208535)
The women control modern porn, not the other way around. They're producing, directing, and starring in it. It's feminism in the boldest sense.
"Modern" porn doesn't have things like producers and directors as we know them.
 
Shaddim Dec 23, 2012 09:03 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4208538)
"Modern" porn doesn't have things like producers and directors as we know them.
It isn't just a mindless gangbang, there is direction. While it isn't Spielberg level, they aren't all gonzo "do what you want" type affairs either. And production, well, someone has to provide financial backing. Gear is expensive to rent or purchase and the women make $500-$1000 /scene, if not more, and they're paid the day of the shoot. (Unless they're contract chicks who draw a salary for a flat number of videos per year.) I know a little about the business.
 
besson3c Dec 23, 2012 09:08 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4208535)
The women control modern porn, not the other way around. They're producing, directing, and starring in it. It's feminism in the boldest sense.
Examples?
 
Shaddim Dec 23, 2012 09:19 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4208542)
Examples?
Jenna Jameson started the ball rolling on that, and now most female stars in that business handle their own scene blocking and production (Tori Black, Jenna Haze, and Jesse Jane are prime examples). It leaves more money for them and gives them more control. Essentially, Digital Playground, and the like, are money/distribution guys, the chicks are at the heart of actually making the porn, in most cases. Men are just there to insert meat, if it's called for.
 
subego Dec 23, 2012 09:20 PM
You misunderstand.

"Modern" porn doesn't have direction. It has two schmucks, a bottle of Jäger, and a smartphone.

What the people you know are doing isn't modern. They're dinosaurs.
 
Shaddim Dec 23, 2012 09:48 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4208544)
You misunderstand.
"Modern" porn doesn't have direction. It has two schmucks, a bottle of Jäger, and a smartphone.
What the people you know are doing isn't modern. They're dinosaurs.
Not really. You're talking about amateur crap on F*cktube, not serious porn as a money-making business. I can tell you don't think highly the "work", but don't for a second believe that "two schmucks, a bottle of Jäger, and a smartphone" is the foundation for a $12B /yr industry.
 
besson3c Dec 23, 2012 10:00 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4208543)

Jenna Jameson started the ball rolling on that, and now most female stars in that business handle their own scene blocking and production (Tori Black, Jenna Haze, and Jesse Jane are prime examples). It leaves more money for them and gives them more control. Essentially, Digital Playground, and the like, are money/distribution guys, the chicks are at the heart of actually making the porn, in most cases. Men are just there to insert meat, if it's called for.
What about Vivid and Brazzers? According to Wikipedia they have male owners.

It would be interesting to survey the entire industry to see if what you say is accurate more often than it isn't.
 
subego Dec 24, 2012 01:00 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4208550)
Not really. You're talking about amateur crap on F*cktube, not serious porn as a money-making business. I can tell you don't think highly the "work", but don't for a second believe that "two schmucks, a bottle of Jäger, and a smartphone" is the foundation for a $12B /yr industry.
What I'm talking about is why what should be a $100 billion or larger industry (based on how much porn is consumed) is only $12 billion and shrinking. It's that "amateur crap".

What do you mean by "think highly of the work"?
 
Shaddim Dec 24, 2012 02:28 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4208560)
What I'm talking about is why what should be a $100 billion or larger industry (based on how much porn is consumed) is only $12 billion and shrinking. It's that "amateur crap".
What do you mean by "think highly of the work"?
I'm talking about the financially lucrative part of that business, not guys trying to see how many hits they can get on an open porn site. The porn industry, not the amateur hobby.

I've seen you make some not-so-complimentary comments about the women in that profession, over the years. Hey, some are skanky people, no denying, but others are just in it for the cash, while they're still young and attractive enough to make it.
 
Shaddim Dec 24, 2012 02:31 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4208552)
What about Vivid and Brazzers? According to Wikipedia they have male owners.
You're largely talking about the the financiers and distributors, not the people actively making the vids.
 
raleur Dec 24, 2012 05:38 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4208535)
The women control modern porn, not the other way around. They're producing, directing, and starring in it. It's feminism in the boldest sense.
Sorry Shaddim, but that's not "feminism in the boldest sense"- that's just some smart women making money for themselves.

In any case, regardless of who makes it, the problems remain the same.
 
Shaddim Dec 24, 2012 06:01 AM
Problems? Please specify. It is feminism, just not the type that the Birkenstock wearers approve of.
 
raleur Dec 24, 2012 06:36 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4208582)
Problems? Please specify. It is feminism, just not the type that the Birkenstock wearers approve of.
No, it's not feminism, it's capitalism. Certainly, it has a feminist appeal, if you look at it from the perspective of "women taking control of their own career" perspective, but that's not what makes something feminist. You seem to have conflated making a profit with respect and equality- a common error, but an error nonetheless.

As for the problems, we've mentioned those above- namely, the degradation and abuse that porn so often cater to, if not propagate. Who makes money from it doesn't matter in the least: there have always been people willing to be humiliated or abused for a few pieces of silver.
 
subego Dec 24, 2012 09:32 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4208565)
I'm talking about the financially lucrative part of that business, not guys trying to see how many hits they can get on an open porn site. The porn industry, not the amateur hobby.
Yes. I understand this. Repeating again, what I'm talking about is the non-lucrative part of that business, which is killing the lucrative part of the business.

Let me put this another way.

I haven't paid for porn in over a decade, and have consumed more than I have during any other decade in my life. That's known as a broken business model.


Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4208565)
I've seen you make some not-so-complimentary comments about the women in that profession, over the years. Hey, some are skanky people, no denying, but others are just in it for the cash, while they're still young and attractive enough to make it.
I'm 99% sure you're talking about someone else, and since that person sounds shitty, I'm really not appreciating the comparison.
 
subego Dec 24, 2012 09:56 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4208582)
Problems? Please specify. It is feminism, just not the type that the Birkenstock wearers approve of.
Maybe I wear Birkenstocks or something, but IMO all porn is worthy of some form of disapproval. It's people taking what's supposed to be private and intimate and selling it, or putting out there so people can objectify you, or both.

That's a horrible thing to do to yourself.


To be clear, this isn't a moral judgement. Cutting on yourself is a horrible thing to do too. That doesn't make you morally deficient.
 
besson3c Dec 24, 2012 10:00 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by raleur (Post 4208585)

No, it's not feminism, it's capitalism. Certainly, it has a feminist appeal, if you look at it from the perspective of "women taking control of their own career" perspective, but that's not what makes something feminist. You seem to have conflated making a profit with respect and equality- a common error, but an error nonetheless.
As for the problems, we've mentioned those above- namely, the degradation and abuse that porn so often cater to, if not propagate. Who makes money from it doesn't matter in the least: there have always been people willing to be humiliated or abused for a few pieces of silver.
Thank you for pinpointing what I couldn't! I didn't like the word "feminism" either, I just didn't know why :)
 
besson3c Dec 24, 2012 10:05 AM
Besides, it is pretty hard to wrap one's head around porn being a form of feminism when the movies are pretty much about getting guys off (both as far as the outcome in real life as well as the actual action in the sex scenes). How is that equality? Most women aren't as stimulated by penetration as they are with stimulation of their clit.
 
subego Dec 24, 2012 10:22 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4208607)
Besides, it is pretty hard to wrap one's head around porn being a form of feminism when the movies are pretty much about getting guys off (both as far as the outcome in real life as well as the actual action in the sex scenes). How is that equality? Most women aren't as stimulated by penetration as they are with stimulation of their clit.
I see what goes on in the movie to be pretty irrelevant.

As I said above, you're taking something personal, private, and intimate, and then exploiting the shit out of it.

That's not an aspect of any feminism I'm familiar with.
 
Uncle Skeleton Dec 24, 2012 10:45 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4208607)
Besides, it is pretty hard to wrap one's head around porn being a form of feminism when the movies are pretty much about getting guys off (both as far as the outcome in real life as well as the actual action in the sex scenes). How is that equality? Most women aren't as stimulated by penetration as they are with stimulation of their clit.
There are ones about making the ladies come instead. Is that the feminist then?
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:40 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2