Porn, what's your opinion?

[OneNooneKnows]

As long as it's legal, and people don't hold their real-life relationships up to the standards of the porn stars, then I'm more then fine with it.

 

[badgersprite]

What about it?

Oversharing: Eh, most of my experience with porn is reading smut fics, but at some point it clicked in my mind that literally everything I was reading was utter shit so I lost all interest in it. For the most part, I don't really get the point of it as an industry. Like, why do they make boringly long porn films with sex that goes on so long it becomes tedious when all anybody really needs is a couple of minutes to get the job done? And I'm a girl saying this; ***** gotta know her own body and all that. I rarely watch it, but if the mood strikes me, I'm not ashamed to say I go back to some old standards. Mostly amateur stuff, since watching people try to act is painful. I prefer when they don't try to talk at all.

 

[Littaly]

I know I should be critical of it, I should be all like "This is degrading towards women, this is putting the womens rights movement back by decades, it gives young boys a falsely skewed view on sex". But as soon as I click play I'm reminded of why I watch it in the first place, and then suddenly all those issues and all that immorality seems a little less urgent

 

[KafkaOffTheBeach]

I'm sorry, while that's a very interesting view, it is still incorrect.

It is a technical and medical term, it isn't up for interpretation.

Sooooo......emotion, I take it, isn't considered a private activity?
A thought that only the reader can hear isn't considered spying on an intimate moment?
Watching multiple lives intersect from the comfort of a living room isn't considered 'spying on people engaged in intimate behaviour'?

And also - just to point this out - it is fucking up for interpretation.
Saying that it isn't doesn't make it so, and insults the intelligence of everyone reading.
It isn't an 'interesting view', nor is it 'incorrect' - but it isn't necessarily 'correct' either.
What it is is a completely valid view of reality much favoured by psychologists where everything takes on sexual meaning - whether you want it to or not.
Whether you wish it or not, hell, whether you know it or not, you are deriving pleasure and sexual release from watching - hence turning you into a voyeur.
Because, in the end, it all boils down to sex when dealing with the psyche.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I've got no qualms with porn. I consume it pretty much daily.

 

[shitoutonme]

My day doesn't start without pulling down my pants, sitting in front of my computer, and googling "Big Booty White Girls," unless there's a woman around to satisfy my sexual desires instead.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

My opinion towards pornography has never changed.

I watch porn regularly so I have no beef with it.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

the internet is for porn. period.

 

[Midnight Llamaman]

I'm sorry, while that's a very interesting view, it is still incorrect.

It is a technical and medical term, it isn't up for interpretation.

Sooooo......emotion, I take it, isn't considered a private activity?
A thought that only the reader can hear isn't considered spying on an intimate moment?
Watching multiple lives intersect from the comfort of a living room isn't considered 'spying on people engaged in intimate behaviour'?

And also - just to point this out - it is fucking up for interpretation.
Saying that it isn't doesn't make it so, and insults the intelligence of everyone reading.
It isn't an 'interesting view', nor is it 'incorrect' - but it isn't necessarily 'correct' either.
What it is is a completely valid view of reality much favoured by psychologists where everything takes on sexual meaning - whether you want it to or not.
Whether you wish it or not, hell, whether you know it or not, you are deriving pleasure and sexual release from watching - hence turning you into a voyeur.
Because, in the end, it all boils down to sex when dealing with the psyche.

Actually, you are just wrong. The French Root is roughly 'to see' - yes, but the English term Voyeur means "a person who obtains sexual pleasure or excitement from the observation of someone undressing, having intercourse, etc" or, basically someone who engages in Voyeurism. Which means, guess what? Yes! Voyeurism means "the practice of obtaining sexual gratification by looking at sexual objects or acts, especially secretively.".

It's even in the DSM as a paraphilia, not to mention the ICD. You can say what you want; but it isn't going to make you right. What the word means isn't open for debate any more than saying the word Blue actually means Red. It's used inaccurately in common parlance, yes. Does that make that inaccurate usage correct?

No, no it does not.

 

[KafkaOffTheBeach]

No... no. Where are you getting this idea from? It was never originally used (correctly) to describe spying on lives. The definition never changed. The word was invented to describe the act.

The closest possible origin of the term is Scopophilia. You can look that one up yourself.

It was - because it was originally French.
It was derogatory, but not completely sexual, nor technical, nor medical.
That, much like the voyeur himself, came some time afterwards.

 

[Hoagster51]

I dont think it is evil or anything but everything should be enjoyed in moderation and I can imagine it fucking up some peoples lives in excess.

And i really dont get how some women find it offensive. It means they dont get it. I dont think it encourages objectifying women as much as the media claims...

 

[Stasisesque]

No... no. Where are you getting this idea from? It was never originally used (correctly) to describe spying on lives. The definition never changed. The word was invented to describe the act.

The closest possible origin of the term is Scopophilia. You can look that one up yourself.

It was - because it was originally French.
It was derogatory, but not completely sexual, nor technical, nor medical.
That, much like the voyeur himself, came some time afterwards.

I believe you are confusing Voyeurism with the French word "voyeur". Yes, the term borrowed the word, but that you can thank the awful translators Freud hired for that.

Voyeurism is more closely related to Scopophilia, as stated. Freud wrote about it but inadvertently misused the term and ended up referring to anxiety felt when watched, rather than the lustful act of watching.

A Voyeur in English is one who engages in the act of Voyeurism. A Voyeur in French is someone who watches. The words are the same, but the meanings are not, and we are talking about the English term, not the French term.

I'm sorry, while that's a very interesting view, it is still incorrect.

It is a technical and medical term, it isn't up for interpretation.

Sooooo......emotion, I take it, isn't considered a private activity?
A thought that only the reader can hear isn't considered spying on an intimate moment?
Watching multiple lives intersect from the comfort of a living room isn't considered 'spying on people engaged in intimate behaviour'?

And also - just to point this out - it is fucking up for interpretation.
Saying that it isn't doesn't make it so, and insults the intelligence of everyone reading.
It isn't an 'interesting view', nor is it 'incorrect' - but it isn't necessarily 'correct' either.
What it is is a completely valid view of reality much favoured by psychologists where everything takes on sexual meaning - whether you want it to or not.
Whether you wish it or not, hell, whether you know it or not, you are deriving pleasure and sexual release from watching - hence turning you into a voyeur.
Because, in the end, it all boils down to sex when dealing with the psyche.

You changed the meaning of the term. That is what is not up for interpretation.

Gaining sexual pleasure from watching others who are not engaging in sexual activity does not change the meaning of the term, it just adds yet another layer to it or possibly would come under a different -philia. That is what I considered interesting. But you cannot change the term, which was coined as a description of the act. Voyeurism has never meant anything but deriving sexual pleasure from watching others engage in intimate activities.

 

[Crimbo23]

I don't believe that there is anything wrong with porn as long as it is legal. I watch porn, and i enjoy it, it fills a gap when i am single. I understand peoples objections to porn but i think it is a naive point of view from people who don't like porn because they don't want to be seen to like porn due to the stigma it carries.

 

[Rooster893]

Need...More....PRON!!!!!

OT: I love it. I'd just like to find one Hentai that doesn't involve freaking tentacles....

 

[Jake0fTrades]

A basic human pleasure, so long as no one was harmed in it's making, it's fair game.

 

[Klarinette]

I actually get kind of bored with porn. I'm pretty specific about what I like.

 

[KafkaOffTheBeach]

You changed the meaning of the term. That is what is not up for interpretation.

Gaining sexual pleasure from watching others who are not engaging in sexual activity does not change the meaning of the term, it just adds yet another layer to it or possibly would come under a different -philia. That is what I considered interesting. But you cannot change the term, which was coined as a description of the act. Voyeurism has never meant anything but deriving sexual pleasure from watching others engage in intimate activities.

I didn't change the meaning of the term. From the very start I changed the meaning of the reader, viewer, watcher etc. and what the act of 'watching' means to them on the very basest level.
...
Although reading back on it I can see where you might have got the impression that I was trying to change the term.

But even in the original post you keep on trying to refute the fact that the reader is the voyeur.
That is the part that is wrong, and the part that I took particular umbrage at, due to the fact that the reader is, indeed, participating in completely accurate and medically applicable voyeurism from a valid psychological and literary perspective.
Then I started arguing the semantics of the word for no real reason other than to try and show the idea of the reader as the ultimate voyeur - which spiraled into this.
This applies to you as well...

Actually, you are just wrong. The French Root is roughly 'to see' - yes, but the English term Voyeur means "a person who obtains sexual pleasure or excitement from the observation of someone undressing, having intercourse, etc" or, basically someone who engages in Voyeurism. Which means, guess what? Yes! Voyeurism means "the practice of obtaining sexual gratification by looking at sexual objects or acts, especially secretively.".

It's even in the DSM as a paraphilia, not to mention the ICD. You can say what you want; but it isn't going to make you right. What the word means isn't open for debate any more than saying the word Blue actually means Red. It's used inaccurately in common parlance, yes. Does that make that inaccurate usage correct?

No, no it does not.

Because - as a point of honour, I have not used the word or the term incorrectly in this entire 3:02am thread.
Although you've shoehorned the act of 'voyeurism' most inelegantly in a cage it doesn't fit in. The idea of voyeurism was always the sexual observation of intimate behaviours, not the sexual observation of sexual behaviours.
And you've ignored the last, and only, point of my post - that being the change of definition to the idea of the reader.
Which is something that people far more committed than me have written volumes upon.

 

[The Funslinger]

What a bizzare topic...anyway my opinion is that as long it's legal I have no beef with it...To remain tasteful I'll leave it at that.

This, basically. I think that the controversy found with porn in general is best left in the sixties, where it belongs.

 

[Jegsimmons]

as long as porn isnt like "a serbian film" or over the top disgusting, im fine.

 

[Genericjim101]

Quite enjoyable, need much more be said? X D Just as well the OP is only asking for opinions and not fetishes, this thread would take a dive so fast someone would think they'd been linked to /b/.