5 ms·

Oh god, not this old chestnut again (admittedly wrapped in some stylish writing). The horrid fallacy is that pornography doesn't really tell you all that much

by ErrantX 16y ago

Oh god, not this old chestnut again (admittedly wrapped in some stylish writing). The horrid fallacy is that pornography doesn't really tell you all that much about male sexuality and how they act in the real world. Take another example; how people act in anonymous online forums. Often pretty douchy right? Does that tell us anything dark about how they are in the real world; well, probably a little, I could guess that a really awkward guy on a forum is likely a bit awkward in the real world. But not as bad as he is when arguing random nonsense over the latest and best video game. The internet emphasises those darker aspects of our personality; do men watch porn that humiliates women - sure. Do they want to humiliate their lovers in real life? Probably not. It gets even worse because the assumption is that the style of porn created and posted on the internet is representative of the desires of most men. Of course, it isn't really. It represents the desires of a subset of men - for whom internet porn is often their sex life. Other men may use the content, but is it about convenience and fantasy, not a critique of their bedroom desires. Look at it another way; lots of people adore fantasy films - say Lord of the Rings. Would you actually, in reality, want to live a fantasy epic? Probably not, the reality wouldn't be all that fulfilling (no internet for one thing! :)). Same applies to porn, I think. And what of female sexuality? When I'm poking about in peoples computers (legally, for work) women's computers don't usually contain porn. They contain idealised erotic stories about alpha males who also have a soft sensitive side. Their internet history is usually crammed with hunks with their tops off. It's still "pornography" (in how it is used); it's just that some people prefer the sexuality of the unknown (i.e. clothed). There are dark fantasy aspects to female pornography too; the male is often a love slave, dominated by his desire for the woman. Bottom line is: Sexuality is not simple. And the internet is not a good way to make broad judgements about male or female sexuality.

randallsquared 16y ago
Does that tell us anything dark about how they are in the real world; well, probably a little, I could guess that a really awkward guy on a forum is likely a bit awkward in the real world. How people act when they're completely anonymous is, in some sense, how they really are. Once you tie some traceability or accountability to their words or actions, words and actions change to manage image and status.
- derefr 16y ago
  There's this thing in game design called the "magic circle": the "barrier" between what is socially understood to happen inside a game, vs. outside. It's entirely a social construction, and therefore entirely a voluntary agreement entered into by the players, for the explicit purpose of detaching consequences inside a game from those outside. The reason people seek to create such a construct, is that, when you don't have to worry about consequences "leaking" from the game, you're free to adopt an entirely different utility function within the circle, or even a variety of different utility functions, to explore the game rules' (and the other players') reaction to the particular mode of play. Through this, we can learn, in a safe environment, what the consequences are to adopting various roles (such as that of the "griefer" or the "twinker".) We evolved in an environment where there was no separation between the ideas of "action stripped of identity" (i.e. anonymous interaction) and "action stripped of consequence" (i.e. game-play). Thus, most socially-adjusted humans learn to see all anonymous interactions as game-play, and thus to apply their knowledge of in-game interactions: agents who seem sociopathic are really just Playing to Win (http://www.sirlin.net/ptw http://www.sirlin.net/ptw), agents who keep repeating the same stupid actions over and over are likely looking for exploitable bugs in the game rules, etc. This even crosses over into what most would term "real life": children on a playground who haven't integrated the idea that they're playing a semi-consequenceless social game 100% of the time they're at school, will usually report being bullied (by someone who does understand the concept, and is exploring the position-space in the game.)
  - randallsquared 16y ago
    This even crosses over into what most would term "real life": children on a playground who haven't integrated the idea that they're playing a semi-consequenceless social game 100% of the time they're at school, will usually report being bullied (by someone who does understand the concept, and is exploring the position-space in the game.) I do not know how I can politely convey the depth of my feelings about what you have said, here.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]

by ErrantX 16y ago

randallsquared 16y ago

Does that tell us anything dark about how they are in the real world; well, probably a little, I could guess that a really awkward guy on a forum is likely a bit awkward in the real world. How people act when they're completely anonymous is, in some sense, how they really are. Once you tie some traceability or accountability to their words or actions, words and actions change to manage image and status.

derefr 16y ago
There's this thing in game design called the "magic circle": the "barrier" between what is socially understood to happen inside a game, vs. outside. It's entirely a social construction, and therefore entirely a voluntary agreement entered into by the players, for the explicit purpose of detaching consequences inside a game from those outside. The reason people seek to create such a construct, is that, when you don't have to worry about consequences "leaking" from the game, you're free to adopt an entirely different utility function within the circle, or even a variety of different utility functions, to explore the game rules' (and the other players') reaction to the particular mode of play. Through this, we can learn, in a safe environment, what the consequences are to adopting various roles (such as that of the "griefer" or the "twinker".) We evolved in an environment where there was no separation between the ideas of "action stripped of identity" (i.e. anonymous interaction) and "action stripped of consequence" (i.e. game-play). Thus, most socially-adjusted humans learn to see all anonymous interactions as game-play, and thus to apply their knowledge of in-game interactions: agents who seem sociopathic are really just Playing to Win (http://www.sirlin.net/ptw http://www.sirlin.net/ptw), agents who keep repeating the same stupid actions over and over are likely looking for exploitable bugs in the game rules, etc. This even crosses over into what most would term "real life": children on a playground who haven't integrated the idea that they're playing a semi-consequenceless social game 100% of the time they're at school, will usually report being bullied (by someone who does understand the concept, and is exploring the position-space in the game.)
- randallsquared 16y ago
  This even crosses over into what most would term "real life": children on a playground who haven't integrated the idea that they're playing a semi-consequenceless social game 100% of the time they're at school, will usually report being bullied (by someone who does understand the concept, and is exploring the position-space in the game.) I do not know how I can politely convey the depth of my feelings about what you have said, here.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]