[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That doesn't make sense to me: I don't want my sex tape all over the internet, and no amount of magic that would change that.

Yeah, but exhibitionism and voyeurism are two different things, and just because you like to watch does in no way imply you want to be seen by others. I think yours is just the wrong lens through which to view it. Porn is fantasy just like an action movie is. And watching an action hero mow down a bunch of enemies with no remorse does not mean I would want to do the same thing. But for a second you imagine yourself being in the hero's shoes and doing all that. And you regret nothing because you know the villains are not real.

Why don't you want the video out? It's legitimate not to want it out, but if that's the case, then there's a reason.

In a movie, the actor hero is shooting fake bullets at people who have fake blood squirt out of fake bullet holes.

In porn, they actually have the sex.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The widespread use of contraception has enabled humanity — and especially women — to have sex simply for recreational purposes. This is a huge advancement for both sexes.

or detriment, depending on how you look at it. STI rates are through the roof, with some strains being untreatable with even the strongest antibiotics. I know a former adult actress with incurable gonorrhea, her doctors have thrown everything at it and the best they can do is suppress it.

http://www.wday.com/news/north-dakot...come-incurable

Even worse, since >90% of porn is still produced w/o condoms, that's what is expected, especially with young people.

While there are still feministis who want to see porn and prostitution abolished, the younger generation seems to put more emphasis on the self determination of women — and that includes making choices that they personally would perhaps not make. To me it seems absurd to advance the cause of women by continuing to regulate their sexuality. If they want to “give away” their services as a sex worker on film, it's their body and it should be their decision.

3rd wave feminism, aka. intersectional feminism, is quite "sex negative" at times, look up the "male gaze". They believe it's a thing.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

One of your rules is to "use women as mere intstrument of your" pleasure? Wham bam thankya ma'am?

See, this is the part you don't get. Sex is consensual.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

3rd wave feminism, aka. intersectional feminism, is quite "sex negative" at times, look up the "male gaze". They believe it's a thing.

Heh...."man spread"

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

or detriment, depending on how you look at it. STI rates are through the roof, with some strains being untreatable with even the strongest antibiotics.

There is a positive correlation between the use of condoms and inhibition of the spread of STDs (see e. g. here). Have a look also at the maps here which give you the spread of certain STDs, e. g.



and compare that states where condom use isn't mandated:



(I would have preferred to point to a map of actual condom use per state, but I haven't been able to locate a map covering all states.)

They also significantly reduce the risk of teen pregnancy (taken from here) and abortions (taken from here):





Hence, if Americans want to reduce the number of STD infections, they should improve sex ed (my health teacher in the US taught us that condoms don't work … go figure), condom use has reached its peak in 2003 and declined to around 60 %. That's 20 to almost 30 percentage points lower than what you'd see in several European countries. The rate of HIV infections is also lower.

To claim that the use of condoms and other contraceptives led to “STI infection rates going through the roof” is factually incorrect.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I know a former adult actress with incurable gonorrhea, her doctors have thrown everything at it and the best they can do is suppress it.

You are conflating several problems: infections becoming resistant to a broad range of available antibiotics is not peculiar to STDs. This is a huge problem going forward, but something that needs to be handled comprehensively and not through the lens of STDs. Secondly, getting an infection is a work hazard that can be minimized but not entirely eliminated with a strict testing regiment. If you don't want to take the chance, don't enter the adult industry.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

3rd wave feminism, aka. intersectional feminism, is quite "sex negative" at times, look up the "male gaze". They believe it's a thing.

You should talk to women in real life rather than put too much stock in what you hear regurgitated on Youtube. Most women don't know the difference between intersectional feminism and differential feminism — they don't care. (I'm sure they're out there, but they are not representative for the bulk of women.)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why don't you want the video out? It's legitimate not to want it out, but if that's the case, then there's a reason.

Most people don't want to be judged by others when they are intimate — and that includes things which are not connected to sex in any way. I don't want a video of me and my wife or me and my friends being silly on the net either. The intimacy would be lost, and it is this intimacy which makes having sex with my wife special compared to imagining myself having sex with someone else (or, hypothetically speaking, doing it in real life). Put another way, the value of real sex to me (and I imagine most people) is that they can let go, drop all masks, and be free of the judgement of others (apart from your sex partner). I wouldn't mind making a video of me and my wife for me and my wife, but honestly, that's not on my bucket list.

That's not possible if you want to make porn because you are performing for others. It's obvious that most people have no desire to act this out in real life. So there you have it: sex in real life is not a performance whereas sex in porn is a performance. I don't enjoy the latter.

Originally Posted by subego 

In a movie, the actor hero is shooting fake bullets at people who have fake blood squirt out of fake bullet holes.

In porn, they actually have the sex.

But it's still a performance, and because sex is generally a pleasurable and safe activity (provided you take the obvious precautions) you don't need to simulate it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You're thinking of Islam, or Game of Thrones, Christians haven't done anything like that in centuries. I hate to tell you this, but the Crusades ended some time ago.

Its in the rulebook, only a matter of time before someone launches a back to basics campaign. Besides plenty of Christians, particularly in the US are literalists (as impossible as that is) and plenty more are "traditional" = patriarchal misogynists.

If women are so revered why can't they be priests?

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Just the way it is, religion will be fashionable again in our lifetimes.

Somehow I doubt religion has ever been unfashionable where you live in your lifetime. Nor will it be. The change is slower than that. Its been 400 years since science really started to tangle with god in Europe and its a way to go yet before science wins out.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

To claim that the use of condoms and other contraceptives led to “STI infection rates going through the roof” is factually incorrect.

I see data here presented on condoms. Am I missing the data on other contraceptives in the post?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Most people don't want to be judged by others when they are intimate — and that includes things which are not connected to sex in any way. I don't want a video of me and my wife or me and my friends being silly on the net either. The intimacy would be lost, and it is this intimacy which makes having sex with my wife special compared to imagining myself having sex with someone else (or, hypothetically speaking, doing it in real life). Put another way, the value of real sex to me (and I imagine most people) is that they can let go, drop all masks, and be free of the judgement of others (apart from your sex partner). I wouldn't mind making a video of me and my wife for me and my wife, but honestly, that's not on my bucket list.

That's not possible if you want to make porn because you are performing for others. It's obvious that most people have no desire to act this out in real life. So there you have it: sex in real life is not a performance whereas sex in porn is a performance. I don't enjoy the latter.

But it's still a performance, and because sex is generally a pleasurable and safe activity (provided you take the obvious precautions) you don't need to simulate it.

My assertion is with people for whom an important aspect of sex is intimacy, non-intimate sex is psychologically damaging. Psychologically damaging someone to turn a profit is exploitative.

The question becomes how many people are there in the industry for whom non-intimate sex is psychologically healthy. This is opposed to those for whom it isn't, those who are in denial about the psychological effects, or those who only feel that way because their psyche has already been damaged beyond all recognition.

The number for whom non-intimate sex is healthy isn't zero, but it's low enough one has to assume it's going to be less than half the people in any given work. Probably much less. I'm not even getting into homemade porn found on the Internet, where it's generally being distributed against someone's will.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

There is a positive correlation between the use of condoms and inhibition of the spread of STDs
To claim that the use of condoms and other contraceptives led to “STI infection rates going through the roof” is factually incorrect.

Originally Posted by subego 

I see data here presented on condoms. Am I missing the data on other contraceptives in the post?

This is misleading because it doesn't address the use of the pill and other non barrier contraceptives. Humanae Vitae was addressing the use of the pill. Condoms had been around for a long time. There is always the risk of the condom breaking or having an undetected hole. It makes easier to have "unprotected sex" when oral contraceptives are used. It also more readily facilitates infidelity because as I mentioned earlier, there is alway the risk of the condom having a hole ore breaking.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I see data here presented on condoms. Am I missing the data on other contraceptives in the post?

My initial argument was about reproductive freedom, and all forms of contraception help here. The most common form of contraception are condoms. Shaddim claimed that there was an outbreak of STDs due to a more lax attitude towards sex. The data doesn't bear that out. Other forms of contraceptives do not prevent STDs, but they can help couples decide when to have children and when not to. Both have helped women — and hence, men — to have sex for fun, because they not only prevent pregnancies (all forms of contraception), but also, in the form of condoms, significantly reduce the risk of getting STDs.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

There is always the risk of the condom breaking or having an undetected hole. It makes easier to have "unprotected sex" when oral contraceptives are used.

You overestimate the rate of failure of condoms.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It also more readily facilitates infidelity because as I mentioned earlier, there is alway the risk of the condom having a hole ore breaking.

Condoms neither increase nor decrease the risk of infidelity. They do, however, protect all three or more partners from STDs in case someone cheats.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

My assertion is with people for whom an important aspect of sex is intimacy, non-intimate sex is psychologically damaging.

That's a non sequitur. Again, performing in porn ≠ watching porn, and not wanting to perform in porn ≠ not wanting to watch porn. Voyeurs don't want to be exhibitionists. And sadists don't want to be masochists. Why do you insist on this illogical leap? Do you have any data or so to back up your arguments?

Originally Posted by subego 

Psychologically damaging someone to turn a profit is exploitative.

The question becomes how many people are there in the industry for whom non-intimate sex is psychologically healthy. This is opposed to those for whom it isn't, those who are in denial about the psychological effects, or those who only feel that way because their psyche has already been damaged beyond all recognition.

How is sex work different from other unusual and perhaps dangerous jobs? Working in high altitude construction or on oil rigs isn't for everyone either. And some people find that out on the job. I don't see any reason why sex work should be treated differently. People have a right to make their own choices, and in all other areas of life we don't mind if people sell their bodies (in the form of muscle or grey matter) for money. It's an unhealthy obsession with sex, the assumption that sex is something holy and special.

How do you know that porn damages people's psyche ”beyond all recognition”? Is the porn business measurably worse than other forms of show biz (e. g. the movie business or the music industry)?

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not even getting into homemade porn found on the Internet, where it's generally being distributed against someone's will.

That does not pertain to the discussion here, we are talking about consensual activities here.

[starman]

It's amazing to read how people feel about porn. First, if you don't like it, don't watch it.

But this "psychological damage" really makes me laugh. What about women that watch porn? Are they damaged?

[Laminar]

Yeah, and if you don't like murder, just don't murder anyone!

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That does not pertain to the discussion here, we are talking about consensual activities here.

My original statement (paraphrased) was "porn may become something else, but in my lifetime it has mostly been exploitative".

Hence, the discussion pertains to porn. There is homemade porn. It gets widely disseminated. This makes it part of the discussion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's a non sequitur. Again, performing in porn ≠ watching porn, and not wanting to perform in porn ≠ not wanting to watch porn. Voyeurs don't want to be exhibitionists. And sadists don't want to be masochists. Why do you insist on this illogical leap? Do you have any data or so to back up your arguments?

I believe this is a misunderstanding.

I'm not claiming for those who value intimate sex, watching porn is psychologically damaging.

I'm claiming for those who value intimate sex, having non-intimate sex is psychologically damaging. Like the non-intimate sex one has when it's in front of a camera and crew.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

How do you know that porn damages people's psyche ”beyond all recognition”? Is the porn business measurably worse than other forms of show biz (e. g. the movie business or the music industry)?

This is definitely a misunderstanding. The claim wasn't porn damages people's psyche beyond all recognition, though I'm sure it does.

I listed reasons people are comfortable with having non-intimate sex. One of those reasons is a previously damaged psyche. As in from being sexually abused before entering the industry.

[starman]

I'm sure getting into porn means that there was a few screws loose with those people in the first place.

[subego]

Originally Posted by starman 

I'm sure getting into porn means that there was a few screws loose with those people in the first place.

I think if one plays the numbers, this is going to be the case with many.

The question is are their screws loose because we're an uptight and prude society, or something else.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

To claim that the use of condoms and other contraceptives led to “STI infection rates going through the roof” is factually incorrect.

What the? Where did I say that? NOT using condoms in porn is leading to an epidemic in the porn industry, and leading to expectations that condoms are unnecessary. That's what I was saying.

You are conflating several problems: infections becoming resistant to a broad range of available antibiotics is not peculiar to STDs. This is a huge problem going forward, but something that needs to be handled comprehensively and not through the lens of STDs. Secondly, getting an infection is a work hazard that can be minimized but not entirely eliminated with a strict testing regiment. If you don't want to take the chance, don't enter the adult industry.

Show me other occupations that are so impacted by incurable bacterial infections. Dental hygienists? ER orderlies? If condoms had been enforced a decade ago, the adult film industry wouldn't be in the state it's presently in.

You should talk to women in real life rather than put too much stock in what you hear regurgitated on Youtube. Most women don't know the difference between intersectional feminism and differential feminism — they don't care.

and you should talk with gender studies students currently in university, because that's the way >90% of them are now. Any of them can quote you the differences, because intersectionality is the direction the movement has turned, and it's been that way since the early `00s. 2nd wave feminism is dead in academia, and where it leads, Progressives follow.

(I'm sure they're out there, but they are not representative for the bulk of women.)

Just the bulk of young feminists: the hair-dying, bell hooks-reading, Marxist-inspired variety, who believe the entire adult industry is a type of modern female slavery fostered by "the Patriarchy".

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Nowadays I'm sure there are more women-owned porn companies, woman directors etc who hopefully take better care of their performers.

You'd like to think they would. But...

[besson3c]

All I know is that there probably should be a MacNN porno, and I should obviously be the star.

[starman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

All I know is that there probably should be a MacNN porno, and I should obviously be the star.

THAT would cause mental instability, for sure

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

My initial argument was about reproductive freedom, and all forms of contraception help here. The most common form of contraception are condoms. Shaddim claimed that there was an outbreak of STDs due to a more lax attitude towards sex. The data doesn't bear that out. Other forms of contraceptives do not prevent STDs, but they can help couples decide when to have children and when not to. Both have helped women — and hence, men — to have sex for fun, because they not only prevent pregnancies (all forms of contraception), but also, in the form of condoms, significantly reduce the risk of getting STDs.

My understanding is condoms were originally used to stop pregnancy, but had the added benefit of helping to prevent STDs. As soon as other reliable methods of contraception became available, men the world over breathed a sigh of relief as they could stop using the things. Since at the time, all STDs were curable, men didn't really care enough about contracting them to keep using condoms. The 70's was a creepy-crawly festival in boomer naughty bits.

This only changed with the onset of HIV and AIDS. IOW, the only thing which brought the condoms back to the forefront was the risk of death. I mean, look how much effort needed to be put into getting the gay community on board with condoms. There's a connection with gay guys not needing to worry about getting pregnant.


As an aside, before HIV and AIDS, there was IOW, as in "I... OW!!!!!"

[Cap'n Tightpants]

AIDS isn't even the scariest of the STIs anymore, there are others that can kill within a week and have no cure.

WARNING: New Deadly Disease Worse than HIV that Condoms Can’t Stop

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

AIDS isn't even the scariest of the STIs anymore, there are others that can kill within a week and have no cure.

WARNING: New Deadly Disease Worse than HIV that Condoms Can’t Stop

Well, I guess the bright side is if you keel over so quickly, you aren't infecting people anymore.

[Waragainstsleep]

Nice website.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

It was either them or Gawker, so...

[subego]

Never Gawker without a condom.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I don't Gawk anyone but my wife, so...

[subego]

Abstinence is the best policy.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Abstinence is the best policy.

Except that, statistically speaking, it doesn't work.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I don't Gawk anyone but my wife, so...

Is it me or have you been referring to a singular wife for some time now? What happened to the other one?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Is it me or have you been referring to a singular wife for some time now? What happened to the other one?

Jesus Christ, it's none of your business.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Except that, statistically speaking, it doesn't work.

Whoosh!

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by subego 

Abstinence is the best policy.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Except that, statistically speaking, it doesn't work.

Originally Posted by subego 

Whoosh!

I don't think he missed the joke.

He was just making sure that noooooooobody forgets that abstinence isn't an actual option.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I don't think he missed the joke.

He was just making sure that noooooooobody forgets that abstinence isn't an actual option.

I feel there's a happy(ish) medium somewhere in here.

I think there's a valid argument for abstinence from casual banging, which would cover the most important territory.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I don't think he missed the joke.

He was just making sure that noooooooobody forgets that abstinence isn't an actual option.

If you want to make policy by looking at anecdotes, it's a great policy. If you want to actually look at numbers, it's a terrible policy.

Want abortions to not happen? Great! Support comprehensive sex ed and remove the culture of shame around sexual activity before marriage so that when kids have sex (like they ALWAYS HAVE and ALWAYS WILL) they are both educated and prepared for it.

If you reduce unwanted pregnancies, you reduce abortions. There are tried and tested EXTREMELY effective methods for reducing unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, they require acknowledging that a fairly significant number of people will have sex before they're married.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/sc...cess.html?_r=0

Abortions dropped by 42%. FORTY-TWO PERCENT. What's the success rate of holding protests and shouting at helpless people already in fragile condition? What's the success rate of defunding Planned Parenthood? Oh that's right, doubled maternal deaths.

I've said it before - what do you want: Abortions to be illegal? Or abortions not to happen? Those are different goals with different strategies and if what you REALLY care about is reducing the number of abortions that happen, you'll have to rethink your strategy.

edit: Sorry for the rant, I just watched a terrible "Abortion argument destroyed in six minutes" video one of my Facebook friends posted last night and I've been fuming over how as Christians we're totally missing the mark in this whole debate.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I don't think he missed the joke.

He was just making sure that noooooooobody forgets that abstinence isn't an actual option.

In other news have I told everyone how great it is being a vegan? Also I own a Prius.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

In other news have I told everyone how great it is being a vegan? Also I own a Prius.

your car?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Except that, statistically speaking, it doesn't work.

It does when you're married, ask J.W. Bobbett.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Is it me or have you been referring to a singular wife for some time now? What happened to the other one?

Damned when I do, damned when I don't.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Jesus Christ, it's none of your business.

Gee, what crawled up your ass? Oh wait, I guess thats none of my business either. Come to think of it, I have no inherent right to know anything and therefore ask any question ever at all. I guess I should just shut up altogether until Dakar says its ok to speak again.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Damned when I do, damned when I don't.

Not trying you damn you at all. Passing curiosity, nothing more. Please forget I asked.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It does when you're married, ask J.W. Bobbett.

What's the modern equivalent of naming your kid "John Wayne"?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

What's the modern equivalent of naming your kid "John Wayne"?

Is it just because he is the consummate tough guy or does it matter that he has two first names?

I guess Chuck Norris would be a more modern successor. Channing Tatum? Its hard to imagine JW would have agreed to make Magic Mike but the times they are a changin'.

On an unrelated note, is there a rule for which punctuation comes first when you have an apostrophe at the end of a sentence? Neither looks quite right.

[subego]

I'm sure both the tough guy and the names are a factor.

But I wasn't thinking so much in terms of a direct replacement for John Wayne specifically, more is there some celebrity who it actually happens with now?

Will we get serial killers in 20 years named "Daniel Radcliffe Jones"? Are there ones now named "Axl Rose Kent" just about to get their williectomy?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Gee, what crawled up your ass? Oh wait, I guess thats none of my business either. Come to think of it, I have no inherent right to know anything and therefore ask any question ever at all. I guess I should just shut up altogether until Dakar says its ok to speak again.

Because people have a tendency to get personal with him in a manner I don't see with people in more conventional situations. And because 99% it's not come by from a place of genuine concern or empathy.

That's what crawled up my ass.

[starman]

Didn't this thread used to be about porn?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I guess Chuck Norris would be a more modern successor. Channing Tatum?

I know a 2-year-old named Tatum.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Because people have a tendency to get personal with him in a manner I don't see with people in more conventional situations. And because 99% it's not come by from a place of genuine concern or empathy.

That's what crawled up my ass.

I don't think I've ever been one of those people.
I'd say curiosity more than concern or empathy in my case anyway.