See What Porn Can Do To A Once Respectable Person

[Whaleboy]

The manner of your conception has suddenly become intriguing Thorn...

[Dis]

Originally posted by Thorn
My mom was friends with Ted Bundie. Seriously, she must have not been his type luckly. We lived in Utah then.

none of this surprises me for some reason

[Berzerker]

He reveals his addiction to hard-core pornography and how it fueled the terrible crimes he committed.

Addiction? You mean Bundy never had lustful thoughts before seeing a picture of a naked woman and became "addicted" the moment he caught a glimpse of skin? The guy was full of it and so are these religious folks and feminists who jumped on his "porn made me do it" bandwagon. But what should we expect from "the devil made me do it" crowd? Btw, 2 people having sex inspired Bundy to murder women? Isn't that the "violence in movies and games made me a murderer" argument?

It doesn't, it just offer a visual context of/for your fantasies.

BINGO!!!!!

People fantasize with or without external images. Pedophiles see a picture of a kid and that external image becomes part of their already existing fantasy while non-pedophiles just see a kid (and maybe they think of parenthood).

On the other hand, external images can and have been used to induce bad behavior, even unintentionally. For example, after watching the movie "Mississippi Burning", two young black kids became so angry at the images of injustice they left the theater and beat the hell out of a younger white kid nearly killing him.

But do images of porn translate into the Ted Bundy's of the world? The fact the world saw mass murderers before porn (the Venus de Milo made me do it?) shows that there will always be a segment of humanity who engage in such crimes. Virtually everyone would be outraged at images of injustice, virtually no one (if anyone) sees two people having sex and decides to murder women. And that throws a monkey wrench into the "porn made me do it" argument, if porn made only you and a relative few people out of billions commit such crimes then logic dictates that porn was not the catalyst.

[Q Classic]

the original subject:
i can buy that he was forgiven by god.
i can buy that pr0n, in many ways as it is today, can be harmful.

i cannot buy, however, that ted bundy had an "addiction" to porn, and that's what led him to murder.
i cannot buy that somehow, bundy, a psychopath, might not have murdered those females if he'd never seen porn... particularly since he himself doesn't exactly come out and say it, but rather only hints at it in a vague fashion.

then again, the fire-and-brimstone crowd will always grasp at wisps and present them as facts.

[Last Conformist]

You mean Bundy never had lustful thoughts before seeing a picture of a naked woman and became "addicted" the moment he caught a glimpse of skin?

I don't know about him, but I don't think I had any "lustful thoughts" for years after the first time I saw a picture of a naked woman.

[Agathon]

Serial killers to whale raping in two pages.

It's almost as good as the tech thread that went from the Macintosh interface to bestiality in about five moves.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Dissident
pornography reinforces negative attitudes towards women

You guys are talking as if porn is mostly pictures of men killing raping and torturing women. While material like that is certainly out there (and featuring men, boys, animals as well) most porn is [essentially] just pictures of naked women and their genitalia.

When you talk about negative images of women in relation to porn, what you really mean is that male hetero-sexuality is an inherently bad and evil thing and should not be entertained.

In my opinion there's no reason to believe that someone who is sexualy interesting to someone else is therefore demeaned by that interest, niether do I believe that male sexuality (especially heterosexuality) is somehow inherently hateful, exploitative and wrong.

Psycho's using porn as an excuse for their crimes (not that I could be bothered to read the sick f*cks thoughts) are so far removed from normal human emotions, that they can't see sexuality as anything other then hatred and contempt. Their not comfortable with their own feelings, their like that gay serial killer who hated his sexuality so much, he'd pick up and kill gay men and tell them as they were dying
"You made me do that".
It's all just sooo Catholic.

Mind you, this attitude exists in most Religious societies and America anyway.

[Agathon]

When you talk about negative images of women in relation to porn, what you really mean is that male hetero-sexuality is an inherently bad and evil thing and should not be entertained.

Some mean that, but there are other ways of thinking about it.

One way is that porn is to women as The Black & White Minstrel Show is to blacks. For example, in the pornaverse women love taking it up the arse which according to women I know "****ing hurts".

[Last Conformist]

@pc: The usual argument, where I come from at least, is that even "nice" porn usually depict women as passive sex objects, reinforcing traditonal patterns of male dominance.

[Agathon]

I used to teach a section on the morality of pornography in an ethics course. An excrutiating experience that is, since half the students describe the plots of porn films they've seen.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
@pc: The usual argument, where I come from at least, is that even "nice" porn usually depict women as passive sex objects, reinforcing traditonal patterns of male dominance.

Well, I see that, but doesn't that have more to do with the producers of porn and the industry itself and the nature of capitalism in how it converts nature into commodity... If I take nude pictures of my girlfriend, that's porn. Considering that means lots of pictures of her standing over me and looking like a super-hot foxy executive bossing me around like I'm some sort of life-support system for a living dildo... I'd say it's entirely subjective how porn portrays women, as opposed to how Hustler for instance portrays women.

What is porn, what is sexuality, what is portrayal... it all gets too muddled and 'social sciency' to be able to make hard assertions like 'porn degrades women', it's like... what is Art, what does it Mean? Is some Art also Porn?

The Black & White Minstrel show thing... I'm not sure about that, I wouldn't even know where to begin being offended by something like that.

[Last Conformist]

As far as I know, no-one is claiming that porn necessarily depicts women as passive, only that most porn out there today, in fact, does.

As for what you describe, I can think of other reasons to object to it ... dominatrices too are not PC ...

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
As far as I know, no-one is claiming that porn necessarily depicts women as passive, only that most porn out there today, in fact, does.

As for what you describe, I can think of other reasons to object to it ... dominatrices too are not PC ...

PC! Pah! Who cares about PC? If PC is where one gets ones moral guidance, then one is surely lost. I just like dominant women, I'm not into 'dominatrixes', actually it annoys me, that whole dominatrix thing, it campifies the sexual power that women have over men. Men can be the powerful one in sex, women can be the powerful one in sex, depends on the relationship... do you like surrendering to the hold a goddess has over your very soul... or do you like it when she surrenders to your musky manly potency, it works either way. That whole 'dominatrix' thing just takes one of these two equally reasonable points of view, and for no reason whatsoever makes it into a cartoon, it's ridiculous.

Dominatrixes represent proof that female sexuality is not taken seriously, and that anything other then male dominance is demeaned in our culture. So yeah, porn from our society does tend to demean women... but not because it's pornopraghy, but because of our culture.

At least, that's what I think anyway.

[Last Conformist]

Dominatrixes represent proof that female sexuality is not taken seriously, and that anything other then male dominance is demeaned in our culture.

Huh? Explain again.

[problem_child]

Well, the costume of it, it's like pantomime... whips and leather and chains... a costume, a show. Anything campified like a sexualy dominant female is campified into some kind of well-known cartoon architype, can't possibly be something taken seriously in real life. We don't accept sexual power of women in real life, so we make this unreality-zone of costume and role where women are 'allowed' to be the powerful one... especially if it's some High Court Judge paying the lady to do so for his own enjoyment.

Typically though, a man being quite dominant with a woman doesn't need a costume, or a label like 'Dominatrix' (Doiminator?) to legitimise his role... no need to make a cartoon character and have costumes etc for a man who likes to say 'Down on yer knees...' to a woman.

Male sexual dominance is always seen as natural, female sexual dominance is always seen as a slightly humorous characature, throw in some costume, "here, hold this whip for me, that's it... yeah babe..."

Maybe I'm wrong but, that's what the 'dominatrix' thing represents to me, a need to sanitise something by making it utterly fantasized and cartoon...ized. Essentially to distance it from reality.