General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: All men watch porn, scientists find [View all]Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Its interesting that one argument floated about "defensiveness" is, "YUR just like the paranoid gun people!!!!" Ha, no.
For one, you know what? If someone had recently walked into a school and killed 26 people in rapid succession with a DVD of Rocco Does Prague, you're damn right I would be like, okay i am amenable to a discussion on regulating this. But it wouldnt happen- because guns, specifically AR 15s and attendant high capacity ammo clips, are designed for one purpose only- to kill large numbers of humans in a short period of time.
Conversely, Porn - by and for consenting adults, mind you - is a relatively benign diversion for millions, and a stress reliever. And the objections aren't based in science so much as morality and authoritarianism. As such, the "arguments" don't mirror so much the gun debate as the marijuana one. Even down to the "its so much worse than what you used to smoke" tack.
You yourself admit that you're not familiar with the material you claim to be concerned about, but are relying on hearsay and anecdote about how "its so terrible now".
So, yeah, about those usual suspects and my supposed imagination regarding the real agenda? They were against that "better" 70s porn, too. And the 80s. Like the pot war, its always a "much worse crisis now" and as such requires we "do something".
If you ask for a specific example of a graphic visual depiction of a penetrative hetero sex act, or even a naked picture of an attractive woman that a hetero man might get turned on by, that would not "objectifying" and "problematic" and even (here's the kicker) "porn", guess what? THERE ARENT ANY.
The bottom line is, the one umbrella definition of "porn" that constitutes objectionable material? ...anything a hetero man might get turned on by. Period.