6 ms·

But why do people differentiate porn and Sex? When we look at a professional football player play football, we never call it fake football. So why when it come

by Viker 9y ago

But why do people differentiate porn and Sex? When we look at a professional football player play football, we never call it fake football. So why when it comes to sex we choose what is real and what is fake. I understand that very few people can have Sex like porn stars and very few women have the ability to look like porn starts. But why do we look down upon them and call them fake.

elorant 9y ago
Because porn objectifies women. Today's porn doesn't have to do anything with sex, at least not the sex most people are used to do. There's no intimacy. Women look artificial with all these cosmetic surgeries. The whole thing looks artificial. Not to mention that it gives youngsters a very distorted view of how sex should be which is a whole other story by itself.
- draugadrotten 9y ago
  > Because porn objectifies women Gay porn invalidates your argument.
  - dagw 9y ago
    This isn't math. A counter-example doesn't invalidate the whole argument.
    - tallanvor 9y ago
      It does if the argument is being made in absolutes. You could say "some porn objectifies women", or even "most porn targeted at straight men objectifies women", but making the claim that porn in general objectifies women is patently false.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >It does if the argument is being made in absolutes Casual talk is not dealing in absolutes. We're not speaking in theorems and axioms. Even if someone says "people are idiots" they don't mean "X, for every X where X a person, is an idiot". Note how they didn't even say "all porn": just "porn objectifies women". In casual speak even saying "all X does Y" is not necessarily intended to convey "absolutely all X". Just saying "X does Y" even less so. >You could say "some porn objectifies women", or even "most porn targeted at straight men objectifies women", but making the claim that porn in general objectifies women is patently false. No, it's perfectly OK (if a little beyond the point, see my other answer). Here's how to read the phrase of the parent in casual conversation: Porn objectifies women (when there are women in it -- DUH!). Most porn, that is -- some special snowflake outlier porn with women in it might not objectify them, and that's ok (DUH!). I'm talking about what generally happens, and what people actually get to see most of the time when they watch porn, not what some Peruvian feminist porn might show (DUH!). I also know there's animal porn, which obviously doesn't objectify women (DUH!) In general, if how one interprets a conversational statement can be taken down by the addition of a few "DUH!", then probably this is not the interpretation intended by the original speaker. That's the "principle of charity".
        Chris2048 9y ago
        > if someone says "people are idiots" they don't mean "X, for every X... It can do, it depends on context. When a statement is ambiguous, you have to infer meaning from context. > That's the "principle of charity". What about the "principle of unambiguous speech"? If a conversational statement can be taken down with a few "DUH!", people will try harder to be precise in their communication.
        coldtea 9y ago
        >It can do, it depends on context. When a statement is ambiguous, you have to infer meaning from context. That's the whole art of casual conversation -- or any conversation for that matter, even the most rigorous scientific paper depends on millions of context-based assumptions.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Because porn objectifies women That doesn't make sense as an accusation, as that's the whole point of the activity: to objectify women (and men). Porn, like casual sex, is about seeing the other person, and being interested in them, for a single dimension: sexually. Which is totally fine. Who said you should be interested in the whole package deal every time? Maybe not have sex unless it's a relationship/marriage either? Men AND women do enjoy casual sex without any further purpose all the time. Employment also sees the other person in one dimension: professionally. Traffic cops see the person in one dimension: how well they drive. Credit card companies see a other person in one dimension: what they do with their bills. All of those are objectifications: the other is a means to something. It's just because of being prudish and/or misunderstood feminism that specifically seeing the other in terms of sex (for casual sex, porn, flirting, etc), is considered especially heinous. >Women look artificial with all these cosmetic surgeries. The whole thing looks artificial. Not to mention that it gives youngsters a very distorted view of how sex should be which is a whole other story by itself. That's more like why it's "fake" -- not the objectifying thing.
  - elorant 9y ago
    Between having sex only if you intent to marry her and having sex without even kissing her once there is a whole world of difference. I don't know about you, but I can't have sex without kissing my partner, even if it's a one night stand. I mean come on, women aren't just objects of pleasure. They're human beings. What's wrong in treating them like so? Does it degrade the whole experience? I think not, quite the opposite. Treat women with respect. And then go and have sex as bizarre as you like or whatever. In porn women are just objects. Or at least, in the mainstream str8 porn.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Between having sex only if you intent to marry her and having sex without even kissing her once there is a whole world of difference. A world which is nobody's business between consenting adults. >* I don't know about you, but I can't have sex without kissing my partner, even if it's a one night stand. I mean come on, women aren't just objects of pleasure.* Is this based on the false premises that: (1) kissing isn't pleasurable as well, or (2) they don't kiss in porn? >I mean come on, women aren't just objects of pleasure. They're human beings. What's wrong in treating them like so? What's wrong is that it doesn't mean anything. Wanting to fuck someone (and just that) doesn't mean you treat them inhumanely or that there's no respect. What would respect entail? Asking about their life story?
- briandear 9y ago
  Porn objectifies everyone.
- notyourday 9y ago
  > Because porn objectifies women. Being sexually harassed at work objectifies women.
- lagadu 9y ago
  > Because porn objectifies women. Next time I open a porn video that features no women at all, I'll be sure to take a moment to appreciate how it's objectifying women. Regardless of your false statement, porn objectifies everyone involved. That's the point of porn in the same way that hooking up with someone for a night and going about your business the following day objectifies both of you. There's nothing wrong with being sexually interested in someone else and nothing else.
rootlocus 9y ago
I wouldn't equate porn actors with professional sports players. The large majority of online porn is repetitive, degrading and banal. I believe the quality of sex comes from intimacy and mutual pleasure / respect. The porn industry seems to think quality means harder, faster, longer, whatever. Also, found on the website linked on the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV8n_E_6Tpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV8n_E_6Tpc
the_stc 9y ago
Because it's staged and directed? If it was just recording people having sex, you'd be right. But there's a lot of editing and other work going on. If you watched a football game where directors came on and had the players redo a certain takedown then it'd be a closer comparison. Maybe compare to WWF wrestling?
- honestoHeminway 9y ago
  So if a video is uncut- Alfonso Cuarón style - its real?
  - dagw 9y ago
    If the people are actually having sex, because they want to, and reacting to each other spontaneously according their desires, rather than according to a script or external direction, then sure.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Well, nobody calls leaked amateur/celebrity sex tapes "fake sex" in the sense they call porn that.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
coldtea 9y ago
>But why do we look down upon them and call them fake. For the same reason we call don't consider a role an actor portrays as "real". Not only is the guy in the porn video not an actual plumber, but he probably could not care less about having sex with the lonesome busty housewife -- and especially not in front of a crew of 10, and following a specific formula until the final money shot.
cnorthwood 9y ago
But people do differentiate between sports like WWE wrestling, and professional football.
- dspillett 9y ago
  They are different. No one argues that the participants in WWE are not physically impressive (it takes considerable strength and control to perform some of their moves) but it isn't sport in the same sense as football or "real" wrestling because it is largely choreographed rather than truly competitive. I tend to think of it as ultra-violent ballet. It is still a perfectly valid sport (caveat: depending, of course, on how you define sport itself which can be a subjective matter) but if categorising things is your bag then I think it belongs more with synchronised swimming than it does with professional football. (personal context: I've never been a WWE fan, though recreationally I do partake in catch wrestling from which WWE can claim some heritage)

by Viker 9y ago

elorant 9y ago

Because porn objectifies women. Today's porn doesn't have to do anything with sex, at least not the sex most people are used to do. There's no intimacy. Women look artificial with all these cosmetic surgeries. The whole thing looks artificial. Not to mention that it gives youngsters a very distorted view of how sex should be which is a whole other story by itself.

draugadrotten 9y ago
> Because porn objectifies women Gay porn invalidates your argument.
- dagw 9y ago
  This isn't math. A counter-example doesn't invalidate the whole argument.
  - tallanvor 9y ago
    It does if the argument is being made in absolutes. You could say "some porn objectifies women", or even "most porn targeted at straight men objectifies women", but making the claim that porn in general objectifies women is patently false.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >It does if the argument is being made in absolutes Casual talk is not dealing in absolutes. We're not speaking in theorems and axioms. Even if someone says "people are idiots" they don't mean "X, for every X where X a person, is an idiot". Note how they didn't even say "all porn": just "porn objectifies women". In casual speak even saying "all X does Y" is not necessarily intended to convey "absolutely all X". Just saying "X does Y" even less so. >You could say "some porn objectifies women", or even "most porn targeted at straight men objectifies women", but making the claim that porn in general objectifies women is patently false. No, it's perfectly OK (if a little beyond the point, see my other answer). Here's how to read the phrase of the parent in casual conversation: Porn objectifies women (when there are women in it -- DUH!). Most porn, that is -- some special snowflake outlier porn with women in it might not objectify them, and that's ok (DUH!). I'm talking about what generally happens, and what people actually get to see most of the time when they watch porn, not what some Peruvian feminist porn might show (DUH!). I also know there's animal porn, which obviously doesn't objectify women (DUH!) In general, if how one interprets a conversational statement can be taken down by the addition of a few "DUH!", then probably this is not the interpretation intended by the original speaker. That's the "principle of charity".
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        > if someone says "people are idiots" they don't mean "X, for every X... It can do, it depends on context. When a statement is ambiguous, you have to infer meaning from context. > That's the "principle of charity". What about the "principle of unambiguous speech"? If a conversational statement can be taken down with a few "DUH!", people will try harder to be precise in their communication.
        coldtea 9y ago
        >It can do, it depends on context. When a statement is ambiguous, you have to infer meaning from context. That's the whole art of casual conversation -- or any conversation for that matter, even the most rigorous scientific paper depends on millions of context-based assumptions.
coldtea 9y ago
>Because porn objectifies women That doesn't make sense as an accusation, as that's the whole point of the activity: to objectify women (and men). Porn, like casual sex, is about seeing the other person, and being interested in them, for a single dimension: sexually. Which is totally fine. Who said you should be interested in the whole package deal every time? Maybe not have sex unless it's a relationship/marriage either? Men AND women do enjoy casual sex without any further purpose all the time. Employment also sees the other person in one dimension: professionally. Traffic cops see the person in one dimension: how well they drive. Credit card companies see a other person in one dimension: what they do with their bills. All of those are objectifications: the other is a means to something. It's just because of being prudish and/or misunderstood feminism that specifically seeing the other in terms of sex (for casual sex, porn, flirting, etc), is considered especially heinous. >Women look artificial with all these cosmetic surgeries. The whole thing looks artificial. Not to mention that it gives youngsters a very distorted view of how sex should be which is a whole other story by itself. That's more like why it's "fake" -- not the objectifying thing.
- elorant 9y ago
  Between having sex only if you intent to marry her and having sex without even kissing her once there is a whole world of difference. I don't know about you, but I can't have sex without kissing my partner, even if it's a one night stand. I mean come on, women aren't just objects of pleasure. They're human beings. What's wrong in treating them like so? Does it degrade the whole experience? I think not, quite the opposite. Treat women with respect. And then go and have sex as bizarre as you like or whatever. In porn women are just objects. Or at least, in the mainstream str8 porn.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Between having sex only if you intent to marry her and having sex without even kissing her once there is a whole world of difference. A world which is nobody's business between consenting adults. >* I don't know about you, but I can't have sex without kissing my partner, even if it's a one night stand. I mean come on, women aren't just objects of pleasure.* Is this based on the false premises that: (1) kissing isn't pleasurable as well, or (2) they don't kiss in porn? >I mean come on, women aren't just objects of pleasure. They're human beings. What's wrong in treating them like so? What's wrong is that it doesn't mean anything. Wanting to fuck someone (and just that) doesn't mean you treat them inhumanely or that there's no respect. What would respect entail? Asking about their life story?
briandear 9y ago
Porn objectifies everyone.
notyourday 9y ago
> Because porn objectifies women. Being sexually harassed at work objectifies women.
lagadu 9y ago
> Because porn objectifies women. Next time I open a porn video that features no women at all, I'll be sure to take a moment to appreciate how it's objectifying women. Regardless of your false statement, porn objectifies everyone involved. That's the point of porn in the same way that hooking up with someone for a night and going about your business the following day objectifies both of you. There's nothing wrong with being sexually interested in someone else and nothing else.

rootlocus 9y ago

I wouldn't equate porn actors with professional sports players. The large majority of online porn is repetitive, degrading and banal. I believe the quality of sex comes from intimacy and mutual pleasure / respect. The porn industry seems to think quality means harder, faster, longer, whatever. Also, found on the website linked on the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV8n_E_6Tpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV8n_E_6Tpc

the_stc 9y ago

Because it's staged and directed? If it was just recording people having sex, you'd be right. But there's a lot of editing and other work going on. If you watched a football game where directors came on and had the players redo a certain takedown then it'd be a closer comparison. Maybe compare to WWF wrestling?

honestoHeminway 9y ago
So if a video is uncut- Alfonso Cuarón style - its real?
- dagw 9y ago
  If the people are actually having sex, because they want to, and reacting to each other spontaneously according their desires, rather than according to a script or external direction, then sure.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Well, nobody calls leaked amateur/celebrity sex tapes "fake sex" in the sense they call porn that.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

coldtea 9y ago

>But why do we look down upon them and call them fake. For the same reason we call don't consider a role an actor portrays as "real". Not only is the guy in the porn video not an actual plumber, but he probably could not care less about having sex with the lonesome busty housewife -- and especially not in front of a crew of 10, and following a specific formula until the final money shot.

cnorthwood 9y ago

But people do differentiate between sports like WWE wrestling, and professional football.

dspillett 9y ago
They are different. No one argues that the participants in WWE are not physically impressive (it takes considerable strength and control to perform some of their moves) but it isn't sport in the same sense as football or "real" wrestling because it is largely choreographed rather than truly competitive. I tend to think of it as ultra-violent ballet. It is still a perfectly valid sport (caveat: depending, of course, on how you define sport itself which can be a subjective matter) but if categorising things is your bag then I think it belongs more with synchronised swimming than it does with professional football. (personal context: I've never been a WWE fan, though recreationally I do partake in catch wrestling from which WWE can claim some heritage)