4 ms·

Porn != Masturbation

by knocte 10y ago

13of40 10y ago
I beg to differ. (Since we're all talking frankly in this thread about masturbation.) Masturbation is what makes porn porn. Without the threat of masturbation, porn would just be boring medical images. (I say this without wandering into the subject of whether the porn industry has side effects like human trafficking or objectification of women, etc. Those are bad, but it's a different question. The question at hand is whether it medically harms the "self-abuser".)
- jgrahamc 10y ago
  Masturbation may be a necessary condition for porn, but not the other way round. People have been masturbating without external stimuli for a long, long time: the imagination is a very powerful thing.
  - michaelbuddy 10y ago
    Yeah not as powerful as hard core porn of every category and fetish available instantly on your smart phone under the covers. Porn is definitely causing multiple problems in young people.
atomical 10y ago
Only if you are doing it wrong.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Do we have high-quality research showing that porn regularly causes long-term damage?
- amelius 10y ago
  There is lots of research to be found on http://www.yourbrainonporn.com http://www.yourbrainonporn.com
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Sure is tendentious inference from n=20 psych undergrads around there. Edit: And by the mind behind the Stanford Prison Experiment, yet! Tendentious inference from n=20 psych undergrads is more or less his claim to fame and life's work, so it's no real surprise to see it here. But you want to approach this kind of thing with a somewhat critical eye.
justratsinacoat 10y ago
Indeed! I'm slightly shocked by the casual implication that our masturbatory world is the same as that of our ancestors -- excluding my Dad, who can indeed use the internet, I think that the argument could be made that I have seen more boobs than nearly all my ancestors put together. Further, access to this infinite-boob parade is trivial, requiring neither the acquisition of a new skin-mag nor spending resources on wining and dining a lady. People have been masturbating since time immemorial, but I don't think it's unreasonable to see the rise of internet porn as a new development. Nor is it unreasonable to cast porn in the role of refined sugar or mindless TV -- an exploitation of our natural drives, a concentration of 'value' impossible on the savannah.
- 13of40 10y ago
  > I have seen more boobs than nearly all my ancestors put together > an exploitation of our natural drives It's too bad we can't go back and ask any of your ancestors from, say 100K years ago to a few hundred years ago, because I think you might find that being super obsessed with boobs isn't actually a natural thing. It might, in fact, be a product of the same Victorian culture the original article was about.
  - justratsinacoat 10y ago
    Eh, an interesting comment. I assume you merely skimmed mine, because I was only using the term 'boobs' to refer to getting to see a naked lady without any of the usual cultural impediments (wooing, dating, even tracking down and negotiating for the services of a hooker). It seemed very clear in context. I'm well aware that fixation on breasts isn't natural in the context of human anthropological development, yet the fetishization of boobs is common enough today that I thought it an appropriate metaphor for 'faux sexual contact that's good enough for the lizard-brain yet functionally "free"'. The thrust (if you will) of your comment is either an extended triumphant riff on my poor choice of the concept 'boobs' (and possibly trying to shame those who do fetishize boobs), or it's an attempt to distract from my comment's thesis -- namely, that the profusion of modern free porno might actually be having an effect on us. I don't think that's ridiculous. I'm well aware that many a society has had pornographic materials under varying aegises, but many were furtive and socially, if not legally, prohibited. I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that our society has the lowest barrier to access, the highest quality, and the largest diversity of pornographic materials in the history of humanity. Further, this profusion of porno is comparatively recent. Are we supposed to believe that this can't be having an effect on us? I presume you have a stronger argument than merely implying that I'm super obsessed with boobs (and that some Victorian aspect of my maturbatory habits are to blame).

Porn != Masturbation

by knocte 10y ago

Porn != Masturbation

I beg to differ. (Since we're all talking frankly in this thread about masturbation.) Masturbation is what makes porn porn. Without the threat of masturbation, porn would just be boring medical images. (I say this without wandering into the subject of whether the porn industry has side effects like human trafficking or objectification of women, etc. Those are bad, but it's a different question. The question at hand is whether it medically harms the "self-abuser".)

jgrahamc 10y ago
Masturbation may be a necessary condition for porn, but not the other way round. People have been masturbating without external stimuli for a long, long time: the imagination is a very powerful thing.
- michaelbuddy 10y ago
  Yeah not as powerful as hard core porn of every category and fetish available instantly on your smart phone under the covers. Porn is definitely causing multiple problems in young people.

atomical 10y ago

Only if you are doing it wrong.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

Do we have high-quality research showing that porn regularly causes long-term damage?

amelius 10y ago
There is lots of research to be found on http://www.yourbrainonporn.com http://www.yourbrainonporn.com
- throwanem 10y ago
  Sure is tendentious inference from n=20 psych undergrads around there. Edit: And by the mind behind the Stanford Prison Experiment, yet! Tendentious inference from n=20 psych undergrads is more or less his claim to fame and life's work, so it's no real surprise to see it here. But you want to approach this kind of thing with a somewhat critical eye.

justratsinacoat 10y ago

Indeed! I'm slightly shocked by the casual implication that our masturbatory world is the same as that of our ancestors -- excluding my Dad, who can indeed use the internet, I think that the argument could be made that I have seen more boobs than nearly all my ancestors put together. Further, access to this infinite-boob parade is trivial, requiring neither the acquisition of a new skin-mag nor spending resources on wining and dining a lady. People have been masturbating since time immemorial, but I don't think it's unreasonable to see the rise of internet porn as a new development. Nor is it unreasonable to cast porn in the role of refined sugar or mindless TV -- an exploitation of our natural drives, a concentration of 'value' impossible on the savannah.

13of40 10y ago
> I have seen more boobs than nearly all my ancestors put together > an exploitation of our natural drives It's too bad we can't go back and ask any of your ancestors from, say 100K years ago to a few hundred years ago, because I think you might find that being super obsessed with boobs isn't actually a natural thing. It might, in fact, be a product of the same Victorian culture the original article was about.
- justratsinacoat 10y ago
  Eh, an interesting comment. I assume you merely skimmed mine, because I was only using the term 'boobs' to refer to getting to see a naked lady without any of the usual cultural impediments (wooing, dating, even tracking down and negotiating for the services of a hooker). It seemed very clear in context. I'm well aware that fixation on breasts isn't natural in the context of human anthropological development, yet the fetishization of boobs is common enough today that I thought it an appropriate metaphor for 'faux sexual contact that's good enough for the lizard-brain yet functionally "free"'. The thrust (if you will) of your comment is either an extended triumphant riff on my poor choice of the concept 'boobs' (and possibly trying to shame those who do fetishize boobs), or it's an attempt to distract from my comment's thesis -- namely, that the profusion of modern free porno might actually be having an effect on us. I don't think that's ridiculous. I'm well aware that many a society has had pornographic materials under varying aegises, but many were furtive and socially, if not legally, prohibited. I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that our society has the lowest barrier to access, the highest quality, and the largest diversity of pornographic materials in the history of humanity. Further, this profusion of porno is comparatively recent. Are we supposed to believe that this can't be having an effect on us? I presume you have a stronger argument than merely implying that I'm super obsessed with boobs (and that some Victorian aspect of my maturbatory habits are to blame).