Is Porn Really So Bad?

What does "decent sex" mean, whiteviolet?

Good question....

Lights out/nightie lifted/missionary position/2 minutes/lie back and think of England/no discussions.

Queen Victoria.(Roughly).She was really decent.

You can lift the nighty? :wink:

"Kiddy porn? S&M with unwilling partners? Hot sex with women as inferiors?"
The above focus on the political dimension of porn: power over sexual "victims." So often, women are depicted as "bitches" who are either the victims of their "filthy" obsession with large penises or bathed in semen, etc.. The power dimension regardingf sex with children and "unwilling S&M" victims is obvious.
But in addition to these problems, I've seen porn in which the woman does seem to be enjoying herself as much as the man. That can be VERY stimulating--when the performance is very convincing. The problem, however, is--to my mind not a question of morality; it's the fact) that porn is SO visual that a person who orients his sexual perspective to porn becomes desensitized to the really more basic and primitive aspects of sex: touch, taste and smell.
Having a woman close to you is SO much more erotic than visual porn. I've never gotten the flush or rush from porn that I can get from the nearness of an attractive woman.

I think that very detachment from reality is appealing to some.

Nothing is new, really.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/pompeii.shtml

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

...the fantasy of doing the things they do in porns that many people won't do for real.

Actually, I think that people who get off on the idea of raping women, for instance, might find an outlet in watching fake-rape porn. Personally I think it is disgusting, but I have talked to women who fantazize about being raped, and who would love to experience the helplessness without the trauma. We are strange creatures, us humans. But keep in mind that it is each individuals right to discover their own identities to the point where it interferes with others doing so.

Something that is much more alarming in my point of view is the way ever younger girl are dressed up to resemble mature women. In fact, among all the things in our societies that might be said to degrade women and the female intellect, porn is probably the least degrading.

The most degrading thing is probably the stereotype that has been created, the very reason girls and young women bankrupt themselves buying make-up, clothes and diets, spend hours on end changing their looks to fit some fantasy that has been imposed on our culture. I would go so far as to say that this fantasy is the number one inhibitor for western females, and indirecly males, to discover their identities and find a measure of peace with themselves.

This is a very interesting point and perspective. I think that porn is more empowering to women than degrading because they are able to CHOOSE it. You can be a porn star or a CEO, that's what womens lib is all about. If people would drop the mentality that anything concerning a women's looks degrades her then we could move into the mentality that the right to choose what we do is what matters.

Agreed. But it seems we are operating under the assumption that porn is something only men watch. That is not so. Many people use porn as stimulation and inspiration to spice up a dying sexual appetite.

And if a woman can get turned on by the stud working a babe on the screen while in the sofa, wich is likely to be the case, then the only person who'll benefit from it is the man next to her, who is inflamed by the hottie on the screen. It sounds like a win win situation if you ask me. Somethimes love outlives sexual attraction, and then external stimuli might be the rescue.

Myself, I think physical attatchments are something to rid ourselves of during our lifetime, and sometime in my life I'll do just that. But for now I am not ashamed to admit that I enjoy a good porn movie now and then, alone or with my girlfriend.

This statement caught my attention. Why? What do you mean by this?

I mean that to ensure a good quality of life, it is important to be a spirit in growth, as a counterweight to the inevitalbe decay of the body. In order to grow as a spirit it is neccecary to shed our attatchments. By that I mean that we must train ourselves to lose that wich we are afraid of losing, because we will inevitably lose it.

Sexual drive is something that all humans lose sooner or later. Those we love are bound to die, and so are we. There is only one inevitable outcome of these attatchments, and that is misery.

To avoid that misery is possible, but only if we realize the inevitable and school ourselves to it.

In an attempt spare his students of this whole problem, Buddha forbid them to love, since love easily leads to attatchment. Only unconditional love is pure, and it cannot be physical or particular.

Cyracuz, I agree with your position in a general sense. At my age I no longer look for sexual stimuli (or at least not as much as I used to). I think that the function of pornography is (aside from making money) to arouse passion. It is a tool of the passionless. I find my declining level of passion not a problem. When I am close to my wife (and even, hypothetically, to another attractive women) passion is awakened. And that's fine. But when it is absent that's also fine. As you know I agree with your buddhist orientation regarding "attachment", in this case the desire to have desire (one of the myriad ways to make a problem out of a non-problem).

JL, I noticed you used the word passion with a very limited definition. But thats fine, I understand what you're saying, and as I see it, it is the best way.

When my passion leaves me I will not mourn it's departure. If I did it would mean that I was so attatched to it that I experienced misery in something that is inevitable.

But I will also not try to banish my passion while it still flares. That leads to another kind of attatchment and misery, attatchment to sense of self and the pride of accomplishment. In this case, the desire to not have desire.

So there are millions of ways to fool oneself. No wonder we're confused

As a Buddhist I feel qualified to answer this. "Attachment" or desire is not something we can eleiminate from our lives. It is an integral part of every living thing. It is only when desires control us that they take on their negative aspect. Love and sex are natural parts of our being and should not be eliminated. If no one loves you and you don't love anyone then you will naturally become bitter, hostile, angry, depressed and live a shallow and unproductive life. Perhaps we need to alter and control our desires to become productive and happy people.

Cyracuz, I did use "passion" in the particular sense of sexual hots, not the more general passion for life. I still have the attachments seen in passion for aesthetic (particularly art and music) experience. But that's fine.
NickFun, I agree that it is wonderful when we "alter and control" (Nietzsche's transfiguration and overcoming and Freud's sublimation) our desires. To me, as well as to Cyracuz (if I understand him) non-attachment has nothing to do with detachment, supression or repression; it's letting life happen WHILE it is happening, as opposed to living in a "past" of regrets and losses and the anticipation of "future" pleasures--among other things, of course.

Nickfun wrote:


To not love anyone is not the same as loving everyone. The attatchement you feel towards your wife indirectly leads you to oppose everything that can harm her. And attatchment is indeed something we can eliminate from our lives. As long as you are attatched to someone or something you cannot love unconditionally. There is a great difference between loving a person and owning a person, though this difference is rarely the focus of our attention.

Also, did you know that a true buddhist would not follow buddhism? It's true.

JL, you understand me correctly. In every life there is a balance between action and effect. As I see it, it is about finding that balance. Sometimes we act upon the world, and sometimes the world acts upon us.

Yes, I am a "buddhist" who does not "follow" buddhism in the sense of it being a doctrine or set of obligatory rituals. THAT would be attachment, an un-buddhist thing. Now here's a paradox: is it a subtle form of attachment to strive for non-attachment?
Yes, I believe so. In buddhist practice one transcends such paradoxes. By means of the subtle practice of meditation one goes beyond striving for non-attachment; one just finds that gradually (or in some cases suddenly) one attaches less to ideas about experience and, instead, experiences more intensely and effortlessly the moving content of one's life.