Is porn sexist? Yes, but so what?

peruvianskys

New member
Jun 8, 2011
577
0
0
Mycroft Holmes said:
Which does not make it sexist unless you want to levy the argument that women never masturbate to porn.
I don't understand how I would need to argue that at all.

And if that isn't your argument, then sex even healthy sex does not always have to be about love. It can be about two people mutually using each other for enjoyment. Is that really such a bad thing?
Quite a few psychologists, anthropologists, and sex therapists would argue that purely utilitarian sex outside of a respectful relationship is not only not optimum but dangerous, usually for the woman.

Also we relate to people all the time through a screen. It's why the end of Saving Private Ryan with an old Ryan in a graveyard can make people who have never seen war or known hardship: cry. It's why when a cartoon lion loses his father, in a horrific way we can feel bad about it.
But those forms of media get their value through characterizing and humanizing the individuals involved, whereas porn requires exactly the opposite. Porn succeeds because it reduces while SPR or the Lion King succeed because they produce.

Rape porn is between consenting adults reenacting something as dictated by rules in a legally binding agreement signed by both parties. Child porn is the abuse of minors unable to give consent legally, emotionally or intellectually. They are not the same at all
Of course they aren't - I'm just saying that the argument, "Might as well make depictions of it if people will do it anyway" is a really weird one.

The legal definition includes being drunk while having sex as mutual rape. So that does not surprise me at all, and I would hardly call it rape in most cases.
Actually it doesn't, but if it helps you to believe that, then okay.
 

Mycroft Holmes

New member
Sep 26, 2011
850
0
0
peruvianskys said:
Mycroft Holmes said:
Which does not make it sexist unless you want to levy the argument that women never masturbate to porn.
I don't understand how I would need to argue that at all.
Because it sounds like an argument you're making and it's patently untrue and a sexist generalization.

peruvianskys said:
Quite a few psychologists, anthropologists, and sex therapists would argue that purely utilitarian sex outside of a respectful relationship is not only not optimum but dangerous, usually for the woman.
Yes and quite a few chemists, biologists, and doctors would argue that macroevolution is a lie against God. And there's a reason I can say 'quite a few' but I can't say a plurality or majority or 'most.' Because most everyone disagrees with them. Just like the vast majority of psychologists, anthropologists, and sex therapists would disagree with your 'quite a few.'

And the only way such a relationship could be 'dangerous' is if you were out in a seedy bar picking up random dudes/women. You can have an active sex life without picking up strangers. Some people are stupid and swim out into rip tides and then drown. That does not make swimming a super dangerous idea. There are smart ways to do things and there are stupid ways.