Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
theKed
theKed's Journal
theKed's Journal
April 18, 2013
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200904/does-pornography-cause-social-harm
Psychology Today - Does Pornography Cause Social Harm?
The Internet became a major force in everyday life in the late 1990s. Before then, porn was available in adult stores, through X-rated video rentals, and on some newsstands. But with the arrival of the Internet, porn availability exploded. It was just a click away 24-7 for free in tens of millions of homes and offices. In 1997, 16 percent of American adults used the Internet regularly. By 2005, the figure had quadrupled to 65 percent. The Internet has also made porn much more available to impressionable kids. How many kids, ages 10 to 17, have viewed Internet porn? According to a recent report in the journal Pediatrics, 42 percent.
If porn is a significant contributor to social harm, we would expect to see substantial increases in sexual irresponsibility, divorce, and rape since the late 1990s when the Internet suddenly made X-rated material much more available to those who might instigate sexual mayhem, overwhelmingly men.
Guess what. Since the arrival of Internet porn:
* Sexual irresponsibility has declined.
* Teen sex has declined.
* Divorce has declined.
* Rape has declined.
Why would social ills decline as porn becomes more widely available? No one knows. But the one thing porn really causes is masturbation. Internet porn keeps men at home one-handing it. As a result, they're not out in the world acting irresponsibly-or criminally.
I'm not arguing that porn is utterly harmless. Some men consume it so compulsively that it interferes with their lives. They need therapy. Some women become distraught when they discover that the men in their lives enjoy porn. They might benefit from couple therapy. And to the extent that porn is a sex educator, it teaches lovemaking all wrong. More about this in a future post.
If porn is a significant contributor to social harm, we would expect to see substantial increases in sexual irresponsibility, divorce, and rape since the late 1990s when the Internet suddenly made X-rated material much more available to those who might instigate sexual mayhem, overwhelmingly men.
Guess what. Since the arrival of Internet porn:
* Sexual irresponsibility has declined.
* Teen sex has declined.
* Divorce has declined.
* Rape has declined.
Why would social ills decline as porn becomes more widely available? No one knows. But the one thing porn really causes is masturbation. Internet porn keeps men at home one-handing it. As a result, they're not out in the world acting irresponsibly-or criminally.
I'm not arguing that porn is utterly harmless. Some men consume it so compulsively that it interferes with their lives. They need therapy. Some women become distraught when they discover that the men in their lives enjoy porn. They might benefit from couple therapy. And to the extent that porn is a sex educator, it teaches lovemaking all wrong. More about this in a future post.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200904/does-pornography-cause-social-harm
April 8, 2013
So I was wandering through some of the DU Groups, this morning, that I check out from time to time (Cooking & Baking, Science Fiction, and, yes, History of Feminism) and reading a few threads. This one, "When Men on the Left Refuse to See Their Sexism" was new, so I read through it. Somebody named 'sigmasix' posts this:
Strange. Kind of like he didn't realise the article was quoted from elsewhere. Of course, that's because there's no cues that it is: no quotation marks, no excerpt tags, no by-line, nor link, until the very bottom. Not that this is a big problem, but it's clearly confused some people as to the author of the writing. So I posted. The first time I'd ever posted in that group (and, might I add, trying hard to be diplomatic):
Cool. I didn't mention anything about the body of the article, for or against. Inoffensive as I could make it, I thought.
Well, that seemed oddly belligerent. Did seabeyond misunderstand me? Is it some sort of massive affront to suggest a quotation mark at the start of the article, standard procedure when, you know, quoting? So I responded, diplomatically, again, I might add:
Clarifying that it really wasn't my problem, that I was trying to help make it clear that the quote was a quote, and that I didn't think she should alter the text. So what's next?
Ad hominem attacks, obviously. Suggesting a quotation mark at the start of a quote is sexist, somehow. Remember, of course, that I was purposefully avoiding discussing the actual article in question since, well, I don't think my opinion is really valued on such topics 'round there. So...yeah. I was going to respond with this:
But...apparently I have been blocked on, I don't know, orthographical grounds?
Frankly such a blocking is a wild abuse of power, and utterly baseless.
Was this really necessary?
Automated Message: You have been blocked from a group
You have been blocked from posting in the History of Feminism group by boston bean. If you believe this is an error, you may contact boston bean for more information.
You have been blocked from posting in the History of Feminism group by boston bean. If you believe this is an error, you may contact boston bean for more information.
So I was wandering through some of the DU Groups, this morning, that I check out from time to time (Cooking & Baking, Science Fiction, and, yes, History of Feminism) and reading a few threads. This one, "When Men on the Left Refuse to See Their Sexism" was new, so I read through it. Somebody named 'sigmasix' posts this:
I think you probably should edit your post so that it reads "some men" or even "a large number of men"- the way this OP is worded can be taken to mean that all men are this way. I'm sure that isn't what you meant to indicate though.
Strange. Kind of like he didn't realise the article was quoted from elsewhere. Of course, that's because there's no cues that it is: no quotation marks, no excerpt tags, no by-line, nor link, until the very bottom. Not that this is a big problem, but it's clearly confused some people as to the author of the writing. So I posted. The first time I'd ever posted in that group (and, might I add, trying hard to be diplomatic):
theKed
It may help
if you make it more apparent from the outset that you're quoting an article.
I was a good 2 or 3 paragraphs in before I scrolled down to see it there was a link. If you put it in quotations, or even dropped a by-line at the top, it would go a long way to clearing that up. (I would say 'excerpt' tags, but you have them throughout the quote and I honestly don't know if DU does nested excerpts like that).
It may help
if you make it more apparent from the outset that you're quoting an article.
I was a good 2 or 3 paragraphs in before I scrolled down to see it there was a link. If you put it in quotations, or even dropped a by-line at the top, it would go a long way to clearing that up. (I would say 'excerpt' tags, but you have them throughout the quote and I honestly don't know if DU does nested excerpts like that).
Cool. I didn't mention anything about the body of the article, for or against. Inoffensive as I could make it, I thought.
seabeyond
no. i am not playing this stupid ass game. again...
thank you for the suggestion AND no.
no. i am not playing this stupid ass game. again...
thank you for the suggestion AND no.
Well, that seemed oddly belligerent. Did seabeyond misunderstand me? Is it some sort of massive affront to suggest a quotation mark at the start of the article, standard procedure when, you know, quoting? So I responded, diplomatically, again, I might add:
theKed
What game?
I'm entirely earnest and honest. It's not readily apparent that you're quoting somebody, and that might be contributing to at least 2 people not realising and asking you to alter the text.
What game?
I'm entirely earnest and honest. It's not readily apparent that you're quoting somebody, and that might be contributing to at least 2 people not realising and asking you to alter the text.
Clarifying that it really wasn't my problem, that I was trying to help make it clear that the quote was a quote, and that I didn't think she should alter the text. So what's next?
seabeyond
first... this is the way OP after OP is created. title. then article in body
of text.
if you are confused over this ONE piece, you might ask yourself why.
secondly, another form of derailing men use when women speak up... ok, SOME men use when SOME women speak up is having to clarify with a some, many, vast, few, handful, before we can say anything.
the reality and simplicity is, if it does not apply to you (which i would suggest it does apply to you reading your posts) then do not take it as being one of the MEN that the article refers to.
first... this is the way OP after OP is created. title. then article in body
of text.
if you are confused over this ONE piece, you might ask yourself why.
secondly, another form of derailing men use when women speak up... ok, SOME men use when SOME women speak up is having to clarify with a some, many, vast, few, handful, before we can say anything.
the reality and simplicity is, if it does not apply to you (which i would suggest it does apply to you reading your posts) then do not take it as being one of the MEN that the article refers to.
Ad hominem attacks, obviously. Suggesting a quotation mark at the start of a quote is sexist, somehow. Remember, of course, that I was purposefully avoiding discussing the actual article in question since, well, I don't think my opinion is really valued on such topics 'round there. So...yeah. I was going to respond with this:
I really didn't come here looking for a fight
I read the article and, as I said, sorted out that it was an outside article eventually. And I noticed other people maybe not realising it was a quoted article, and offered a suggestion to make that more apparent. It's not a "game" and it's not intended to "derail" anything. It's a " at the start and end of it, to clear up any confusion. If it were anyone else's post and I saw people not getting that it was quoted, I would do the same thing.
I don't want to continue this debate, because it has no bearing on the article in question.
I read the article and, as I said, sorted out that it was an outside article eventually. And I noticed other people maybe not realising it was a quoted article, and offered a suggestion to make that more apparent. It's not a "game" and it's not intended to "derail" anything. It's a " at the start and end of it, to clear up any confusion. If it were anyone else's post and I saw people not getting that it was quoted, I would do the same thing.
I don't want to continue this debate, because it has no bearing on the article in question.
But...apparently I have been blocked on, I don't know, orthographical grounds?
Frankly such a blocking is a wild abuse of power, and utterly baseless.
April 2, 2013
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/01/foolish-not-to-go-with-justin-trudeau
Somebody Check the Thermometer in Hell - Toronto Sun Endorses Justin Trudeau
Put aside everything we have said before.
Reality speaks volumes, and Sun Media, more than any other news organization in this great country, is not afraid to face reality when it starts to stare us down.
In reviewing Justin Trudeau's run for the Liberal leadership, we have come to realize that he cannot be simply dismissed as a Shiny Pony and, although somewhat vacuous in both policy and substance, scientists tell us that all a vacuum needs to break out of its nothingness is a bit of air.
Let's give Trudeau that air, for the time has come to forgive the sins of the infamous father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and realize that some genetic apples do fall far enough away from the tree to not be equally rotten.
Reality speaks volumes, and Sun Media, more than any other news organization in this great country, is not afraid to face reality when it starts to stare us down.
In reviewing Justin Trudeau's run for the Liberal leadership, we have come to realize that he cannot be simply dismissed as a Shiny Pony and, although somewhat vacuous in both policy and substance, scientists tell us that all a vacuum needs to break out of its nothingness is a bit of air.
Let's give Trudeau that air, for the time has come to forgive the sins of the infamous father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and realize that some genetic apples do fall far enough away from the tree to not be equally rotten.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/01/foolish-not-to-go-with-justin-trudeau
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:00 AMNumber of posts: 1,235
