Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Snuckles
Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers

Quote:
Americans may paint themselves in increasingly bright shades of red and blue, but new research finds one thing that varies little across the nation: the liking for online pornography.

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

"When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different," says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," Edelman says.

Edelman spends part of his time helping companies such as Microsoft and AOL detect advertising fraud. Another consulting client runs dozens of adult websites, though he says he is not at liberty to identify the firm.

That company did, however, provide Edelman with roughly two years of credit card data from 2006 to 2008 that included a purchase date and each customer's postal code.

After controlling for differences in broadband internet access between states – online porn tends to be a bandwidth hog – and adjusting for population, he found a relatively small difference between states with the most adult purchases and those with the fewest.

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says.

Number 10 on the list was West Virginia at 2.94 subscriptions per 1000, while number 41, Michigan, averaged 2.32.

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.

 

Read it [url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservative...

jas

Utah, the Mormon state.

 

saga saga's picture

Snuckles wrote:

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," Edelman says.

This conclusion is not warranted. Even in a Republican state, there are Democrats. Another explanation of the data is that there is something about living in a conservative state that leads the Democrats there to watch more porn. hahaha

But really ... they have not proven that conservative people watch more porn. They have shown that more porn is consumed in conservative states, but they have not shown that it is conservatives doing the watching.

Lousy research. Unsupported conclusion, and people's credit card data used for a purpose other than the intended purpose. yuck!

 

Acadieman

At the end of the day, no one is perfect, I guess conservatives have a societal standard they want everyone to strive for, despite everyones failings, and try to enforce it; while liberals acknowledge the failings but don't try to enforce any standard.

 

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Such hypocrisy is hardly new. You're right, saga, the study didn't provide a definitive link between the conservative consumer and higher rates of consumption, but the link is there. 

The classic paternalistic conservative "father knows best" credo is "Do as I say, not as I do". This is why Newt Gingrich can get divorced and still say that marriage is the foundation of society, bla bla, divorce is evil and sinful, bla bla, one-man one-woman, bla bla. This is why a conservative can consume porn in a classic back-door, skeezy-alleyway kinda way, then go and repent on Sunday. The hypocrisy is built right in!

Once one rids oneself of the power of the "father knows best" bullshit, then one can see through the lies.

The consuming of porn isn't the issue for me, it's the hypocrisy. There's a parallel here to the vocal rabid homophobes, who are all on the right and far right, who then get busted for being (*surprise*!!!) gay. 

remind remind's picture

I agree with maysie.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Interesting passage from the report:

Quote:
U.S. consumers also receive substantial adult entertainment from firms in Montreal, where zoning and immigration laws tend to facilitate production of adult entertainment. Through 2004, Canada issued visas to would-be adult entertainers. Applicants had to demonstrate their skills through, among other visa requirements, "stage photographs" of their prior work in adult entertainment.

 

Doug

I'll just repeat here what I said in the other thread on this:

I did have a second thought that the study perhaps reflects some other things beside a difference in porn consumption. Less availability of sex shops in conservative areas forcing more purchases on the net or perhaps just general backwardness of those areas - who actually buys porn anymore? So while it's fun to talk about this study might not reflect anything real. 

Trapper

Why would anyone be surprised that Conservatives like porn as much as everyone else. We're human first, and then Liberal or Conservative second. I love porn, and everyone else I know loves porn. Doesn't matter if they're left or right leaning - we're hardwired.

Maysie Maysie's picture

We are absolutely *not* hardwired to enjoy porn.

 

remind remind's picture

Apparently you failed to realize the findings say YOU like it more than anyone else!

And no I do not think you are hardwired.

Tommy_Paine

I think there are ideologues on the left who are as ardently anti-porn as any on the far right-- and probably for the same ultimate underlying reasons.

It'd be interesting to see the cookies on those left wing throbbing and thrusting hard drives.

 The conservatives may have honed hypocricy into an art form, but they by no means  have a monopoly in that market place.

Trapper

remind wrote:

Apparently you failed to realize the findings say YOU like it more than anyone else!

And no I do not think you are hardwired.

Yes we are. You can resist looking at porn, but even the most conservative, devout person in the world cannot help but be aroused by pornography. That's probably why so many deny themselves the pleasure of looking at porn - because they get freaked out by the fact that they get turned on by it.

Instinctively, we are attracted by images we find sexually attractive. Instincts override religious, moral, or political beliefs.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Trapper wrote:
Instinctively, we are attracted by images we find sexually attractive.

But *which* images we find sexually attractive, and the finding of *images* attractive rather than, say, sounds or textures or words/text or smells, are completely socially constructed. 

How do we know this? Images have changed over time, from body sizes, body types, the racial backgrounds of the subjects, cross-culturally, need I go on?

Modern western society is very visual. So of course preferred modalities of porn and erotica will be visual. That has SFA to do with instincts. 

Many many things about our lives are taught to us (ie not instinctive), and of all the things taught to us, sexuality is by far the easiest to demonstrate how culturally-bound and contextualized it is.

Look at homophobia. Look at masculinity (if you must). Look at femininity. All constructed, all of them change over time, all completely made up. Poof! Think of it like the Easter bunny. If you believe, then it's real. Until you realize it isn't. You still can enjoy the chocolate eggs, though. 

Wink 

Trapper

Studies have shown that babies respond differently to photos of attractive people. Again, we are hardwired to respond to images of attractive objects. Yes, you can see that standards of what is attractive have changed over the ages - e.g. body type. But, even during the Renaissance, full figured, attractive women were depicted in art, not full figured, unattactive women.

Same thing with porn. Erotic imagry appeared at about the same time that our ancestors started to mix their first pigments and smear it on rocks. Call it porn, or call it erotic imagery - it's all the same and as a species we like it. We have a strong sex drive and it's only natural that we enjoy looking at erotic imagery.

jacki-mo

In agree with Trapper: It is Nature, not Nurture, which causes an attraction to porn. Same as people enjoying it when they see a  fight in public, or taking a quick glance at a car accident.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Oh Trapper. This will be my last post on the topic.

There is a *huge* difference between babies "responding" (whatever that means) to photos (link? reference?) and sexual response in adult Western humans. If you can't see that, then your entire argument falls apart.

Not all humans have strong sex drives.

Not all humans respond to visually "erotic" images. (What about people who are blind or with visual impairments?)

Sexual response is not coded and is not hardwired. It's taught.

P.S. Your ancestors and my ancestors are probably not the same. Careful with the "we". 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

If there is one thing that is hardwired in the human (and very other animal that reproduces sexually) genome it is sexual response - the single most important factor that assures the survival of the genes.

Blind people have just as strong sex drives as sighted people.

And we all have the same ancestors. 

It's Me D

As Doug says, this study shows more about online piracy than porn consumption; apparently people in Utah are big supporters of intellectual property and don't want to see the good people of the porn industry robbed of the proceeds from their labour of love.

I agree with Maysie that "porn" can only be defined culturally; I agree with Spector that no mater how, we WILL define it. 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Did I say that?

remind remind's picture

Maysie wrote:
Sexual response is not coded and is not hardwired. It's taught.

You're absolutely correct, and it sickens me that some people believe otherwise, and the false belief  that people are hard wired I am sure is behind many a sexual abuse action.

remind remind's picture

It is a fact, unlike your contentions. And BTW, children do not respond to "beautiful faces" they respond positively to symetrical faces.

Trapper

Maysie wrote:

Sexual response is not coded and is not hardwired. It's taught.

So, you're saying that someone raised in isolation, without any exposure with any form of sexuality at all, will not develop a sex drive? OMG, that is so funny. Thank you for my Thursday afternoon chuckle!

Trapper

What's a fact, that we all get turned on by porn?

Trapper
M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I'm amazed that people who consider themselves feminists could be so ignorant about human sexuality.

jacki-mo

Sexual response taught?  Ah yes, I can see it now. A man shows his son a photo of a naked girl. Says "OK son now make your thingy rise and get hard" What nonsense.

remind remind's picture

Porn is not sexuality!

remind remind's picture

M. Spector wrote:
I'm amazed that people who consider themselves feminists could be so ignorant about human sexuality.

What an ass hat comment, but then again you think you are a "progressive" so....

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

Conservatives : redefining family values and Friday fun n games night

jacki-mo

remind wrote:
Maysie wrote:
Sexual response is not coded and is not hardwired. It's taught.

You're absolutely correct, and it sickens me that some people believe otherwise, and the false belief  that people are hard wired I am sure is behind many a sexual abuse action.

So are you two implying that homosexuality is taught??

Michelle

Could we please not personally attack each other in this thread?  I'm looking at you, M. Spector and remind.  We could have an interesting conversation and even manage to disagree with each other without turning it into an attack on each other.  Thanks!

jacki-mo

I think that the beginning posts on this thread were uncoveirng some very interesting aspects of drawing simplified conclusions from statistical studies. To conclude anything about who watches what based on credit card fees and how states vote is ludicrous. There are always hidden dimensions; if we desired, for whatever reason, to evaluate viewers of porn and their political leanings can only be accomplished through a direct poll. This would be very difficult though since I doubt that people, of any political stripe, would answere such a question.

 Furhtermore, what was the motivation for publishing the supposed reult anyway. To identify hypocracy among conservatives or what? I don't see any value in that. We are all hypocrits to varying degrees (except for me of course  )

remind remind's picture

You are correct Michelle, I should not have ridsen to his ugly and nasty feminist baiting, my apologies. But I guess feminist baiting is acceptable here to now.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Michelle wrote:

Could we please not personally attack each other in this thread?

 

Michelle

All right, you got the last word, remind.  Now, let's continue with the thread.

NorthReport

I remember visiting with my family doctor, who was also a friend, and one time he showed me his new palm pilot. Doc told me he had made the mistake of giving his address to a buddy of his, who sent him some porn on it. Doc said to me that what could have happened is that while checking for the side effects of a medication, for one of his patients on his palm pilot, he might of pushed the incorrect button, and might have been displaying porn on the screen in front of a patient.

Anyway Doc told me that as soon as he realized he had received porn, he hit the delete button. Then he added that sex is for doing, and not for watching. I couldn't agree more with him. 

 

The porn industry reminds me of the deregulation industry. There is way, way too much of it.

al-Qa'bong

remind wrote:
Maysie wrote:
Sexual response is not coded and is not hardwired. It's taught.

You're absolutely correct, and it sickens me that some people believe otherwise, and the false belief  that people are hard wired I am sure is behind many a sexual abuse action.

 

Some people are hard wired; others are, I suppose, soft wired.

Can people go from hard to soft-wired, and vice versa?

 

I don't know, but this thread could make a decent comedy skit.

thorin_bane

I think it is more of whether you feel pornography is distasteful for a particular reason. I know people of both sexes and all political stripes that both oppose it and seek it out. Sexual response is most definitely normal ask any priest.(Many spent their entire adolescence and early 20's in all male setting yet once in the parrish had a hard time not taking advantage of the females that came very trusting to them.)  The thing is what do you find to be sexual? If you are a bit of a voyeur than am I sure watching people have sex would appeal to you.

 Lets just examine how some people enjoy "golden showers" and some don't. This isn't a judgement call. If I watch porn and it's golden shower time I turn it off, not my thing. I like to read erotic literature more than watch...my mind can usually do more for me than anything they can do in some Malibu spot they rented for the afternoon. So while I can enjoy reading or watching or even listening to people having sex including my partner, It doesn't mean everyone will. Even those that are opposed to pornography in the visual carnal sense, some may indeed enjoy a harlequin novel and feel guilt free. They they are not entirely as far apart as some may think.

The only qualm about porn is some of the people fall into it and have a hard time getting out.  I don't think too many people are forced into porn, at least the regular stuff, not so with child porn obviously. But for most it was an initial choice for them. They might be exploited, but in todays day and age it has been well documented what the business entails. It is pretty much their choice. So I don't buy into the exploited arguement. Which is also why I can see why people enjoy watching as much as I enjoy reading.

 I also don't put stock into being a con=prude. If anything they are more willling to do more(it's forbidden you know) but the hypocracy is rather funny like the toe tapping anti-gay senator guy. Or that evangelical calling on gays to stop being gay while hiring male prostitutes.  Funny the sheep (don't know why strikout isn't working), flock faithful spoon it up all the while doing the same thing while denouncing it for their neighbours ears. My one friend is hard core conservative, but she always talks about anal being her place of choice. She doesn't see it that way as she is libertarian but sides with the so-cons because they help get her people elected.It is rather slective and labels like liberal and conservative don't have a place exactly when it comes to the bedroom. I am rather prudish myself, but if what floats your boat doesn't hurt anyone(unless they want it to :) ) then I don't have a problem with it.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

First, a little perspective.

The OP mentions that conservatives enjoy online pornography, which, I would hope that any progressive could agree, is vastly unrealistic, often misogynist, and issues from a corrupt and exploitive industry. Trapper turned around and said that it is normal to enjoy pornography because humans are hardwired to enjoy it. Maysie and remind disagreed with this statement, because it is obviously not true: we are not hardwired to enjoy cartoonishly inflated breasts and abusive, dominating sex acts--women are certainly not 'hardwired' to enjoy this. Then, somehow, Maysie's comment was construed as anti-sex. I don't speak for her, but there is a big difference between being anti-porn industry (which was the context of the discussion before her remarks) and anti-pornographic images in general. In fact, I think I recall other threads where Maysie  posted links to consensual, indeed, feminist, pornography. I would question the motives of those who chose to misconstrue her remarks. Actually, no, I wouldn't question them. I would call them vindictive, petty and disingenuous.

I don't know if sexuality is biologically hardwired or not. It's not a very useful statement at any rate. Certainly, humans harbour some biological predisposition to have sexual responses to visual, oral and tactile stimulations, but this in no way defines sexuality. What images? What touches? Wherefore, God, and when?

I can also say that the way babblers have chosen to interpret 'taught' sexual response is again crude and disingenuous. This doesn't mean that adults sit us down and teach us which kind of breasts, calves and pectoral muscles we find attractive. We learn sexuality the way we learn language: by accident. Or rather, it learns us. You see, sexuality is cultural, and like language, it's always pre-human. That is, it exists before we are born and we're kind of dropped into it. It inhabits us and colonizes us. I suppose this could mean we're biologically hardwired, but that's not really the way it works. I remember when I was ten or so and I started noticing the bottoms of my female classmates. I'd say to myself 'I like that.' I don't know whom I was trying to convince.

As for this nonsense about symmetrical or comely faces, well, I don't know what to say. I could point to a recent study and article in the New York Times that showed, in fact, there doesn't seem to be much correlation between biological impeteus and arousal. Women, both heterosexual and homosexual, for example, reacted more to an 'attractive' woman than to a man attractive according to the same conventions. I'm not sure what this has to say about so-called 'hardwiring', but it does question it as a scientific certainty.

I'll finish by only commenting that on a purportedly progressive website, there seems to be an awful lot of apologetics for the capitalist pornography industry, which, like any capitalist enterprise, distorts social relations, dehumanizes the actors, and relies on exploitation, oppression and blood to earn its keep. Those posters who generally have a pretty good handle on such things when it comes to economics should perhaps question why they have such a blind spot when it comes to pornography. Indeed, all topics touching on pornography should be in the feminist forum for precisely this reason.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Wow Catchfire. Just wow.

Many thanks for that summary of the thread, and your thoughts and insights. 

It's Me D

That was a great post Catchfire I agree.

Maysie & Catchfire (or anyone else I guess), how do you feel about the word "porn"? I'm curious as to whether you'd apply the term when referring to sexually stimulating material without the exploitation, without its portrayal of women, without the abuse. I guess what I am wondering is, if we can agree porn as it is defined and produced in this culture is bad, how can we go about re-defining sexually stimulating material so that we don't confuse "porn is bad" with "sexuality is bad"... as so many conservatives (and over the years many leftists as well) have done; and as Catchfire points out many in this thread are doing as well. Afterall we can all agree sexuality isn't a bad thing right?

Maysie Maysie's picture

It's Me D, first, a joke that I've posted to babble in the past:

"Erotica is the healthy depictions of sexuality that I enjoy. Porn is the disgusting filth that you watch."

Smile 

Okay, now that the merriment is over, if we look at anything that is illegal, exploitative, degrading as "not good" (I hesitate to use the word "bad") and everything else as "okay", then we still won't be anywhere, since there is, for example, depictions of degradation in BDSM porn in which very nasty things are happening with the full consent of the actors. And the viewers.

(Aside, some may say that all BDSM, etc sexuality/sexual expression is bad and not healthy, etc. I'm not one of those people, and I'm a feminist. Check out the book How to Get Terrible Things Done to You by Wonderful People by Dottie Easton. Or, you know, buy some handcuffs.)

Can there be depictions, visual and otherwise, of people having various kinds of sex, depictions which are not degrading, exploitative and misogynist? Yes there can. But again, I doubt that 10 random people would agree on what those images involve. So we sure as hell aren't going to agree on that here in this thread!

And, heading into murky territory, images/scenarios that a given person may find arousing might not necessarily jibe with their politics. Is this hypocrisy? Maybe. Just fantasy? Maybe.

Dan Savage, whose politics around sexuality are very good, has some great things to say about this topic every week through his advice column and his podcast. He's not so great with other politics (sexism, racism, bisexuality), but in terms of accepting and enjoying "what turns you on" in the absence of illegal and exploitative behaviour, he's excellent. I've changed some of my opinions of sexuality and relationships based on his very realistic and practical advice.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=1162752

(Beware, language is NSFW and the third letter this week is extremely gross) 

It's Me D

I enjoyed that joke; I know a few who wouldn't consider that statement a joke Wink

I also enjoy Savage Love, its carried by Halifax's weekly free paper The Coast and as such Haligonians have the chance to read it regularly; living there for a decade I followed his column as well, I still read it online from time to time.

Maysie wrote:
Okay, now that the merriment is over, if we look at anything that is illegal, exploitative, degrading as "not good" (I hesitate to use the word "bad") and everything else as "okay", then we still won't be anywhere, since there is, for example, depictions of degradation in BDSM porn in which very nasty things are happening with the full consent of the actors. And the viewers.

Well thats just the point though, opposition to "porn" takes two forms, opposition to sexuality and opposition to exploitation; I think its obvious to all of us which is the opposition of the right and which is the opposition of the left. Its a fine line for too many though, as you're correct that "bad" porn is often defined by the (dangerous) sexuality it expresses; even on the left there's always been a surprising willingness to write-off all porn as degenerate, and not for the despicable norms of the industry. All too often opposition to porn is about marginalizing the different.

Maysie wrote:
Can there be depictions, visual and otherwise, of people having various kinds of sex, depictions which are not degrading, exploitative and misogynist? Yes there can. But again, I doubt that 10 random people would agree on what those images involve. So we sure as hell aren't going to agree on that here in this thread!

Thats certainly true! Still rather than falling into opposing porn in all forms I'm interested in re-defining the "good" and "bad" in it, even if its an impossibly difficult task for this thread alone!

Maysie Maysie's picture

It's Me D wrote:
 rather than falling into opposing porn in all forms I'm interested in re-defining the "good" and "bad" in it, even if its an impossibly difficult task for this thread alone!

Good luck with that. Laughing

 

But seriously, what city are you in, It's Me D? Do you know Toronto has had Feminist Porn Awards for the past few years? I've never gone but am planning to this year. They are organized by the pro-woman pro-feminist sex store Good For Her. 

http://www.goodforher.com/Feminist_Porn_Awards.html 

P.S. I've had a very loose definition of pornography for a number of years, and it doesn't just apply to sex. Here it is: The depiction, usually visual, of an image or images that are created to invoke a particular emotional/physiological reaction or response. However, after repeated viewing the response quickly fades and the watcher then requires more, new images depicting virtually the same sentiment. This can apply to those "cute" calendars with kittens in pots with flower hats on their heads, to what can be called "home improvement porn" t.v. shows, etc.   

It's Me D

Maysie wrote:
Good luck with that. Laughing

Thanks, I know I have my work cut out for me!

To answer your other question I am in no city, I live in a tiny rural town in Nova Scotia; thats about to change however, due to work, and I will be finding myself somewhere bigger with (hopefully) more prospects very soon. In all likelihood I will be back in Halifax; far from all those interesting events which only seem to take place in TO! There's a good pro-woman sex store in Halifax called Venus Envy, I don't know whether they do anything like those awards but I'm sure they support the efforts in TO. I'll certainly check out that website when I have a chance (thanks)!

ETA: I just read your PS, interesting... I mostly agree, for example about the "home improvement porn" etc. That also touchs on the "can't have" element of porn, since I'm assuming the most evocative home renovations are also unattainable for most of their audience.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Ack, pardon my city-bias. I had originally written "Where are you, It's Me D?" and thought that sounded rude. I guess I'll always be a big city kinda gal. Smile

Now we've got some thread drift going on. Let's try to restrain ourselves shall we? (heehee) 

remind remind's picture

Thanks catchfire excellent post!

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Catchfire wrote:

The OP mentions that conservatives enjoy online pornography, which, I would hope that any progressive could agree, is vastly unrealistic, often misogynist, and issues from a corrupt and exploitive industry. Trapper turned around and said that it is normal to enjoy pornography because humans are hardwired to enjoy it. Maysie and remind disagreed with this statement, because it is obviously not true: we are not hardwired to enjoy cartoonishly inflated breasts and abusive, dominating sex acts--women are certainly not 'hardwired' to enjoy this. Then, somehow, Maysie's comment was construed as anti-sex.

You left out the part where Maysie vastly overstated her position as follows:

Quote:
Sexual response is not coded and is not hardwired. It's taught.

She wasn't talking "sexuality" as you define it. She was talking sexual response. And she was wrong. Scientifically wrong.

Catchfire wrote:

I can also say that the way babblers have chosen to interpret 'taught' sexual response is again crude and disingenuous. This doesn't mean that adults sit us down and teach us which kind of breasts, calves and pectoral muscles we find attractive. We learn sexuality the way we learn language: by accident.

We don't learn language by accident. We are deliberately taught language, most of us, by adults, and we are also born with brains that have evolved to be particularly adapted to learning and using language. No other animals have such brains. Read [url=Stephen">http://www.amazon.com/Language-Instinct-Steven-Pinker/dp/0060976519][col... Pinker[/url]. Our brains, uniquely among animals, are hard-wired for language.

Catchfire wrote:

You see, sexuality is cultural, and like language, it's always pre-human. That is, it exists before we are born and we're kind of dropped into it.

It exists before we are born not only in the culture but in our own genome.

Catchfire wrote:
I remember when I was ten or so and I started noticing the bottoms of my female classmates. I'd say to myself 'I like that.' I don't know whom I was trying to convince.

I'm pretty sure nobody taught you to like the bottoms of your female classmates. You were exhibiting a hard-wired sexual response.

I wonder where you think animals get their sexuality. Does someone teach them to respond to sexual cues? Of course not. Sexual response was hard-wired into our ancestors when they were still walking on all fours, and it is part of our genetic inheritance.

thorin_bane

That was my point about priests. I heard an interview on CBC latenight about a priest in seattle and he talked about eing in thr priesthood from the age 14 till about 25 when he was put into a parish. Despite being in a non female no sex environment he found he had longings for women. He had a few affairs and eventually left the priesthood to marry one of the parishioner.

That is taking out of the equation as much nurture as possible but yet he liked women. So how do you explain this. Do you guys think he had a porn website back in the 70's he liked to visit? NO it's part of the animal portion of the brain that gives us chemical responses to phermones and symetry. Or in otherwords, hardwired stuff that we can choose to accept or ignore. But it is real and is present in most everyone. Even if some like to  supress those basic instincts.

thorin_bane

I'll finish by only commenting that on a purportedly progressive website, there seems to be an awful lot of apologetics for the capitalist pornography industry, which, like any capitalist enterprise, distorts social relations, dehumanizes the actors, and relies on exploitation, oppression and blood to earn its keep. Those posters who generally have a pretty good handle on such things when it comes to economics should perhaps question why they have such a blind spot when it comes to pornography. Indeed, all topics touching on pornography should be in the feminist forum for precisely this reason.

Or in other words all men are pigs, good job! Who gets paid more in the porn industry? Do actors that portray people that are mentally disabled like Tom Hanks did in forest gump also get a taste of your vitriol?If no why not, it's exploitation of the "slow" isn't it.  Does anyone seriously think that is normal sex? I don't know anyone that likes 2 dicks in any location. And maye some do...does that make it unreal at that point? But no continue on your morale high horse trying to use capitalism as the straw man arguement.

Pages

Topic locked