Pinky's post does not deserve the surprising criticism and rebuke it seems to be getting here. No no no, it deserves outright decimation. It's quite clear pinky that you haven't given the arguments countering yours, which have appeared here and in other threads, even the most cursory perusal. The irony that you would accuse your detractors of delusion then, is simply hilarious when it is you, who is sadly and deeply deluded. In this latest post of yours, which is thoroughly saturated with the most risibly sanctimonious and patronizing piety, you trot out one ludicrous nonexistent myth after another and expect us to somehow in spite of it, take you seriously. Your blithe dismissal of the near third of non-heterosexual-male consumers of porn (women and gay men most notably) suggests these groups present a major quandry for your irrational beliefs and that your inability to explain the for example exceedingly low instance of sexual violence among gay males (who are indisputably prolific porn consumers) underscores the downright antiquated invalidity of your silly convictions.

It is your beliefs madam, about porn being a promoter of rape and other forms of sexual violence and supposed "objectification" that are myths. You purport to want to "play the science game" (a ridiculous statement which in and of itself reveals a gross misunderstanding of how science actually works) in your post yet provide nary a single shred of empirically derived evidence to support your case, only endless Andrea Dworkinesque, misandristic babble. Well here's a few actual scientific studies for you.

1.) Commission appointed by U. S. President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1970 in attempt to prove a correlation between porn and rape or other sexual assault finds NO CORRELATION

2.) A study in Japan http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/japan.htm entitled "Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan" finds a strong INVERSE correlation between sexual violence rates and the availability of pornographic materials. That is to say, after porn was legalized, rape etc. rates plummeted.

3.) A highly controlled study by Todd Kendall at Clemson U "pornography, rape and the internet" found that "liberalization of porn access may lead to a DECLINE in sexual victimization" http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf

In another post on here you told us that you were raped (an unspeakably awful crime to which you are rightly owed an abundance of sympathy for having suffered as a victim) and that afterward during psychiatric treatment, you were told of the supposed "connection" between porn and rape and then you presumably ran with that as a nice neat little explanation that put everything into place. I submit that you were twice gravely wronged, the second time by your pseudoscientific psychologist eager to give you simple explanations and demons to slay no matter the veracity of the claim.

It is not the porn that is dangerous, rather, ironically, it is falsely moralizing people like you who are causing harm. I freely admit that I love porn. In fact, it may have saved my life. When I was in my late teens about a decade ago, I was struggling with the realization that I was gay and felt ashamed and suicidally depressed about it. Going online and seeing gay porn changed all of that. Seeing that sex between males was perfectly natural and indeed in many cases affectionate and loving and yes, harmlessly fun, allowed me to discard the shame and self-pity I once felt and leave my depression behind. Your implicit dismissal of experiences like mine and others which undoubtedly must similarly occur among lesbians and perhaps even the rare heterosexual woman are contemptible, and your eagerness to portray women in particular as brainless dolts incapable of making reasonable decisions for themselves about whether or not to participate in the sex industry is downright demeaning and misogynistic. Shame on you madam.

QI! @Kommie & @thinker247, thanks for your insights (and my apologies to Thinker about having led you onto this repulsive scientific path ;-)). But, then for the ladies/grrrls sifters out there: how would you feel about a hot, steamy vid with George Clooney or Stephen Colbert covered in some other girl's liptstick? Would you fantasise about that being your mark or would you feel jealous?

And what about gay porn (no, I do not mean guys loving girl-on-girl action), is that different?

Gosh, I'm getting so totally absorbed in this discussion, that I haven't done my toe nails yet (and that with the weekend coming up).

I wonder...you certainly speak volumes about the objectification of women through pornography, but what about gay porn?

I wonder what his views on gay porn would be, seeing as they don't have any frail, defenseless, only-have-a-choice-because-men-give-them-one women being degraded in them.

All of his nonsense implicitly assumes that sex is bad---or at least vulgar, that women don't actually enjoy sex on the same (base/animal) level as some men, and that porn is only there for the pleasure of men.

Sexist, old-school poppycock, all of it.


PS: Chomsky, who reads every major US paper daily and has an encyclopedic knowledge of all things America (among other things), has never even heard of Hustler magazine? Larry Flynt? For someone with such a strong opinion on pornography he seems uncharacteristically ill-prepared to talk about it.

Downvote for Chomsky clearly talking out of his ass. He's normally a pretty astute guy but his argument here is just ridiculous. Clearly he hasn't explored the issue at all and is just trying as much as possible to disassociate himself from Hustler magazine.

Some questions for those on here that say porn exploits women: could you clarify what exactly you mean by this? You are aware there is a thriving gay porn industry, correct? Even leaving gay porn aside, there are males participating in the majority of porn films and they have clearly been chosen because of certain *ahem* "physical characteristics." Would you say they aren't being exploited but the women are?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes! I am absolutely against inflammatory and derisive comments about gays on the sift. YES. And the same is true for any other group.

Just a thought: I know I've been focusing most of my comments on straight men and I've felt pretty bad about excluding gay and bi men from my discussions about porn-that-appeals-to-men because I haven't said anything about gay porn. I don't mean to do that but I only do it because straight men watching porn is more personally offensive to me (probably shouldn't be, but it is), although I do dislike all porn.

I've never encountered a gay man who objectified women in any way, but I have known one or two who objectified other men.

I don't mean the following as a stereotype, it's just that I've only been close friends with about 5 gay men and this is just an observation that happens to be true of them. Every single gay friend that I have ever had has made me feel like a million bucks for being a woman. It is a great feeling to have a member of the opposite sex treat you like that, and a smaller percentage of straight men make me feel as comfortable and respected as they do. I can't explain this phenomenon. I love gay men. I swear, I was half in love with a gay friend of mine for a while because he made me feel intellient, powerful, beautiful, and feminine. Though I HAVE met and/or dated straight men who do that for me, too.

Are there any other women who have experienced this, or is it just me? I can't really explain it, but it's wonderful.

^dag:
^ I like to think that we're at least gay friendly (if not bi-curious to judge by many comments)
But I agree that using gayness as a pejorative name-calling joke is lame and officially frowned on - see?
I would be very curious to know if Thepinky's anti-discriminatory feelings extend toward protecting gay people from inflammatory or derisive comments on the Sift. What say ye?

Lesserfool,

I put it like that becasue it seemed like the real argument was getting deflected. I am fully aware and believe that the orders to do these things came from the highest levels of this administration.

QM: If you really believe that all leftists think that this country is bad then it sounds like there isnt much that can be said to convince you otherwise. For what its worth its not true. What if I said that I BELIEVED that ALL conservatives were racist torture hungry bigots? I can only assume that you would say "Hey, thats not true, I know thats not true so how can you possibly believe that!?" So can you understand the frustration of comments like that? It doesnt do any good AT ALL to make such comments. Sure, I bet there are some liberals who think America is a lost cause. I bet there are some conservatives who probably believe the same thing. Couldnt you argue that a conservative preacher who says that he thinks this country is going down moral sewer because of gays, porn, and whatever else is "hateing America" in the same way that you believe that a liberal does? I'm not trying to continue the he said she said crap, I'm simply trying to find some middle ground here.
Its the torture that is the evil and bad here along with those who would approve and use it, not the larger country as a whole. Those who would approve it dont speak for the constitution, bill of rights, or anything else this country trys to stand for.

All this imagery of a man "wrestling" with a "snake" seems to suggest that this is gay porn.

I don't get it. I've seen the movie. It's the longest and best gay porn I've ever seen. Oiled, buff muscle bears in leather speedos do battle with the forces of Ru Paul, spraying each other with bodily fluids and sticking things in each other. How is that insulting to pre-iranian culture?

I'm more confused as to how the Persian leader and messenger ended up being african? I mean, Persia is right around where the Caucasus mountains (hence term caucasian) and the term Aryan comes from. "Iran" literally means "Land of the Aryans"

Anyone else get the feeling they were watching something that, at any moment, could turn into a gay porn movie?