Dark Jedi

That's why you make availiable one of those 'made for couples' films. They get to see naked people, what they do to copulate, and learn tecnique and position...

tronvillain

Jamie_L:
Of course, never viewing pornography can produce attitudes in a male that run counter to all of that - and ultimately can leave the man unhappy and alone later in life, of banging his head against the wall of dysfunctional relationships for all his life. The things is, I'm not convinced that pornography is going to play a huge role either way, at least not any more than watching action movies all of the time is going to make someone a killer. If anything, I would think that movies that unrealistically portray relationships rather than simply showing sex would cause dysfunctional relationships.

Of course, I watch more porn that anyone I know, so perhaps I'm being defensive about it.

scigirl

Hey Jamie,

Not to sound like a skeptic, but,
1. Do you have any proof that this really happens a lot to men? and
2. Do you have proof that it's just from looking at porn (and these same men wouldn't do the same thing, from simply watching Ally McBeal or Baywatch?)

The guys I know all look at porn, but they don't expect their girlfriends to look like porn stars. In fact, they expect, and WANT quite the opposite (because frankly most porn stars are not too attractive! )

I suppose if you started looking at porn as a kid, this may be different, but I'm not convinced your statement is true. I don't mean to pick on you--it's just that the conservative right says similar things (porn makes people do things), and I am highly skeptical that the porn is doing anything, but rather there were personality flaws in the men or women to begin with.

scigirl

WJ

Jamie!

Yes, I too don't mean to pick on you either. But if you could answer that question, I'd greatly appreciate it. Also, like scigirl alludes, her argument reminds me of the general fascination/curiousity with sex. We know in other countries there seems to be less incidence of sexual disfunction as a result of de-mystifying the act itself. However, I have no statistics to prove that.

When you think about, its kind of funny. You have a 'stick' and a 'hole' with hair around it. They both go in-and-out real fast, then you walk away happy. (Well, some people do anyway.)

Anyway, let me know why you think there is more to the human need to get-off other than to make babies and have sex objects, etc... .

Walrus

pepperlandgirl

I'm sorry, I just really can't buy this. My husband is a perfect counter-example. He's looked at porn since the age of 13. His curiosity has taken him to several very disturbing sites, and he's seen more than I have (or want to). Typically though, he likes the standard BJ porn. So, all in all, he's been looking at porn for 10 years.
Our relationship is perfectly functional, happy, and wonderful, in every aspect. He doesn't have a skewed vision of what sex should be(or alternately, we're both equally skewed so it doesn't matter.)

Jamie_L

All:

I can't make any claims about most men. My opinions were created first and formost by the experiences of two people I know, which were only later reinforced by more general claims I read. I have not personally performed psychological studies nor do I keep a handy set of them on my desk for reference.

Of course different people respond differently to these kinds of things, and it probably has as much to do with predispositions as anything else. No one knows who is going to be able to control his drinking, and who is going to become an alcoholic.

I've seen the effects first hand, and in my opinion, the potential benefits are not worth the risks when I am considering my own child's future. This is all a personal choice - with alcohol, for instance, I feel oppositely (each cost-benefit analysis is its own thing).

At any rate, this is not something that is so overwhelmingly harmful that people shouldn't be allowed to make up their own minds about what they let their children do. Everyone has a right to take whatever risks they want, and generally, parents have a right to accept certain risks for their chilren.

Special note to WJ - I think you misunderstand. I've got no issue with sex. I believe that the European model of de-mystifying sex and detatching the taboo is better. Pornography as it is generally created, and used, is a separate issue. I'm not sure why you find my views confusing. Why is it important not to be alone? Well, why are we a social species? The underlying reason is complicated, the practical answer is simple. Most of us don't like being alone. Why is a healthy relationship important? Because it makes us happy (which is generally the definition of "healthy relationship"). I want my kids to be happy. Because I love them, and I have a responsibility to them.

Jamie

WJ

Jamie!

Thanks for the explaination, but I'm afraid it doesn't speak to my question. My question relates to, why must you think beyond 'objectivism' as the role of sex/masturbation/purpose. Your attaching some other meaning to sex when it is not necessary to do so. As a freethinker, going beyond objective ways of thinking (epistemic objectivism-rationalism) would not be appropriate to justify an action/thoughts, in this case, the role of sex. No?

In other words, I'm trying to understand how you, from an objective thinker view (based on your other posts), confuse the thing called love with the sex act? Love seems to be more subjective; feelings, emotions...

Edit...the 'feeling' of being alone....

Walrus

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Jamie_L

WJ

Our topic seems to be drifting further and further off course. But your questions deserve a reply, so...

Nothing has meaning, except what people attach to it. Since we are all people, the meaning we attach to things is important to us. People feel love. People feel lust. People desire companionship. People have relationships based on love, lust, and companionship. People derive happiness from these things. It doesn't matter whether they have origins in blind, naturalist evolution or in divine creation. These are objective truths.

I'm not sure what makes you think that a rationalist shouldn't be concerned with feelings and emotions. Feelings and emotions are real. Happiness is real. These are objective facts. Maximizing our happiness by seeking emotional satisfaction is imminently rational.

I'm hardly confusing sex with love. I am acknowedging the fact that in human relationships, they are often entangled. Sexual attitudes and desires can warp ones emotional desires, and vice versa. The emotions involved can effect the enjoyment of sex. Love can be hampered by sexual attitudes. People often DO confuse sex with love. These are the types of things I have to consider when preparing my children to deal with sex.

My goal is to ensure that my children have the best chance to achieve happiness. Like everyone I care about, that's what I want for them. I want them to be happy.

You don't have to believe in divine morality or supernatural beings to want to be happy, or to want to make others happy.

Jamie

WJ

Jamie!

Thanks for the reply. I don't agree that it is off-course and like you, I think it is worth a closer look. First, an objective truth (despite what I've read what other's say about it) is independent of how people 'feel' about it. For example(s), all fish have fins is true regardless of what anyone feels about it. Similarly, 1+1 is an objective truth because feelings are not germain to its truth. You can perform it without 'feeling' by using a calculator.

Now, you claim that feeling relationships comprise objective truths. Certainly, that would be a dangerous 'proposition' for someone like you because of your beliefs (lack of) in deity (the existence of God). Nevertheless, I'm curious as to how you put together meaning and emotion. One the one hand you say nothing has universal meaning (sex?) then you say feelings are real. You seemingly have no consistency in what you place value on. It is almost as if you're a relativist in a ethical sense.

So, I think it is safe to say that certain guidance you might have about what role sex ought to play is purely subjective in nature because you consider emotions as a 'real' driving force.

Mmmm...did I interprete that correctly? And if I did, for one (and not to mention issues relative to deity) if it feels good, it must be ok to do it[whatever 'it' is]. Now you don't seem to advocate that with your kids. So which is it? Do feelings take primacy in how you think or is it the other way around? Do feelings motivate your decisions? And/or do *you* arbitrarily decide based on your/this convoluted rationale/justification?

In otherwords, if your kids said it feels good(edit ...or makes me happy) to be a porn star, how do you justify any decision or advise you give them? Again, don't mean to pick on you, but I'm trying to follow your logic behind, in particular, issues of sexuality.

Do you see the inconsistency in your approach?

Walrus

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

WJ

Jamie!

Let me offer this clarification/help. If you were to reply to your kids...'its ok honey, you can be a porn star, just think of it as an unemotional, purely objective endeaver, that has no real meaning...' then I can see more consistency with your reasoning in other areas.

But you seem to attach 'feeling' to things on a 'relative' basis. I'm just wondering, relative to what?

walrus