Because it reduces the interaction of the person with the media to the concept of sexuality. As that is normalized it leads to association of people with that. The media=sexualness and because the depiction of the people is sexual is leads to the idea that the people are also objects that are for sex because that’s what they are in the media. Seeing something over and over will have an effect on people. Essentially, objectifying the charecters by association with sex as well as the normalization of objectivity. Obviously, it’s not as bad as traditional “pornography” but that doesn’t mean it’s good
Alright? I struggle to see the conflict here, you are again describing an issue with the viewer rather then the medium.
That is also a massive leap in logic. How will people viewing sex cause them to view the other gender as nothing more then objects of desire? Again, if a person cannot disconnect their reality from a fictional medium, that is a personal issue. Further, of there is nothing problematic being depicted, then what is the negative takeaway in this scenario?
You also run into the issue that the vast majority of humans are inherently sexual. That is how we have literally survived as a species for hundreds of thousands of years. Humans have also been masturbating for hundreds of thousands of years, so how would you magically attempt to cease a base human instinct? Lets say a person did not have access to pornography, would they not just then resort to their imagination which would serve the exact same purpose??? Could people not simply just imagine others in their minds as “objects of desire”?
Again, this seems to be a societal, and educational problem rather then one related to the medium of drawn or written smut.
Because the sex is still the point of the interaction with the media and hence creates an idea where the idea that interaction may solely be sexual and that is what causes objectification. And the difference with the idea of imagination is two differences. One being that it is nearly impossible to regulate and the other one being that the point of imagination is not sexual meaning that it serves other purposes. (And I am sorry if I come off as rude or something, I am trying not be at all but it can be hard to be clear of emotion of phrasing on the internet
I think that the discussion around the abolition of pornography is so difficult for men to talk about as we - most of us - want to see pretty, naked girls; however, for the sake of public harmony, it’s probably something that just has to be accepted.
I do not want to see pretty, naked girls. I’m gay. I want to see big burly men. Well toned and naturally athletic men, pretty naked men.
Me enjoying this on my own time does not lead me to view the people around me as objects of desire. That would be sick, demeaning, and exploitative.
Eradicating porn in the way you describe would be impossible. Further, how are artists going to learn anatomy? Every single art program will teach the nude form. Would those artists practice sketches be considered porn? What if they masturbated to it? Are medical textbooks that show the nude figure sexual? Are historical paintings of people having sex now porn?
This entire concept seems extremely utopian and idealist with no realistic way of being accomplished.
I don’t feel like I want that because I don’t view other people in a sexual way. My goal is that other people ought to be viewed as people but not as “pretty, naked girls”. I think a lot of people care more about their immediate satisfaction than about the general consequences of their actions and the things that their actions promote. I, at this point, don’t really talk about my opposition to it very often because so many other people defend it I find it easier to not talk about. I find it interesting what you say about men not wanting to talk about it because I do think that’s true online. But in person I find most people, if it’s being discussed (that I’m around at least) are very very agaisnt it and openly against the people that consume it.
Because it reduces the interaction of the person with the media to the concept of sexuality. As that is normalized it leads to association of people with that. The media=sexualness and because the depiction of the people is sexual is leads to the idea that the people are also objects that are for sex because that’s what they are in the media. Seeing something over and over will have an effect on people. Essentially, objectifying the charecters by association with sex as well as the normalization of objectivity. Obviously, it’s not as bad as traditional “pornography” but that doesn’t mean it’s good
Alright? I struggle to see the conflict here, you are again describing an issue with the viewer rather then the medium.
That is also a massive leap in logic. How will people viewing sex cause them to view the other gender as nothing more then objects of desire? Again, if a person cannot disconnect their reality from a fictional medium, that is a personal issue. Further, of there is nothing problematic being depicted, then what is the negative takeaway in this scenario?
You also run into the issue that the vast majority of humans are inherently sexual. That is how we have literally survived as a species for hundreds of thousands of years. Humans have also been masturbating for hundreds of thousands of years, so how would you magically attempt to cease a base human instinct? Lets say a person did not have access to pornography, would they not just then resort to their imagination which would serve the exact same purpose??? Could people not simply just imagine others in their minds as “objects of desire”?
Again, this seems to be a societal, and educational problem rather then one related to the medium of drawn or written smut.
Because the sex is still the point of the interaction with the media and hence creates an idea where the idea that interaction may solely be sexual and that is what causes objectification. And the difference with the idea of imagination is two differences. One being that it is nearly impossible to regulate and the other one being that the point of imagination is not sexual meaning that it serves other purposes. (And I am sorry if I come off as rude or something, I am trying not be at all but it can be hard to be clear of emotion of phrasing on the internet
This argument also seems pretty logically sound.
I think that the discussion around the abolition of pornography is so difficult for men to talk about as we - most of us - want to see pretty, naked girls; however, for the sake of public harmony, it’s probably something that just has to be accepted.
It’s the same thing for meatless diets, as well.
I do not want to see pretty, naked girls. I’m gay. I want to see big burly men. Well toned and naturally athletic men, pretty naked men.
Me enjoying this on my own time does not lead me to view the people around me as objects of desire. That would be sick, demeaning, and exploitative.
Eradicating porn in the way you describe would be impossible. Further, how are artists going to learn anatomy? Every single art program will teach the nude form. Would those artists practice sketches be considered porn? What if they masturbated to it? Are medical textbooks that show the nude figure sexual? Are historical paintings of people having sex now porn?
This entire concept seems extremely utopian and idealist with no realistic way of being accomplished.
…jcpenny catalogue porn
All bra advertisements are hereby banned now.
It may be to arousing for the male gaze lmao
I don’t feel like I want that because I don’t view other people in a sexual way. My goal is that other people ought to be viewed as people but not as “pretty, naked girls”. I think a lot of people care more about their immediate satisfaction than about the general consequences of their actions and the things that their actions promote. I, at this point, don’t really talk about my opposition to it very often because so many other people defend it I find it easier to not talk about. I find it interesting what you say about men not wanting to talk about it because I do think that’s true online. But in person I find most people, if it’s being discussed (that I’m around at least) are very very agaisnt it and openly against the people that consume it.