Korean Job Discussion Forums

[TheUrbanMyth]

[Fox]

[bacasper]

[bacasper]

This article, which was a winner of a 2009 Sex-Positive Journalism Award, is apropos here.

The Great Porn Misunderstanding: Pornography Is Mostly About Fantasy, Not Reality

By Michael Bader, AlterNet. Posted October 28, 2008.


Robert Jensen writes about pornography like someone who doesn't know the code. He seems incapable of differentiating fantasy from reality. He keeps mistaking the reality of the sexual enactments depicted in gonzo porn with their meaning in fantasy to the men masturbating. If the woman on the screen is having 4 penises shoved into her, something that would demean and degrade any real woman reading Jensen's article, he automatically infers that the degradation must be the source of the male viewer's arousal. It isn't.

Jensen and other feminist critics of porn seem unable or unwilling to admit to the presence of an unconscious mind. This is the mind that animates our imaginations, that confers personal meanings on perceptions and events, and that ultimately is responsible for sexual arousal. I'm not talking about some Freudian mumbo-jumbo, but the fact that we interpret the world; we don't just objectively read it like we would a thermometer. When a woman sits at a caf� and gets turned-on by a big hairy biker standing at the cash register, she is inferring something about him, perhaps that he's tough, sexual, aggressive, and/or selfish. She's unconsciously interpreting the image. For reasons that have to do with her personal psychology, reasons about which she may well be unaware, these traits trigger her libido. In reality, this man might be gay, easily frightened, passive and solicitous. It doesn't matter. At that moment, her mind transforms a three-dimensional being into an object that stimulates her desire. She objectifies him.

This is what happens to each of us when we get aroused by an image, a body-type, a situation, or a story. Arousal happens in our minds, not out there in so-called reality. I might get aroused by the thought of being the President of the United States getting fellated under my desk while talking to a congressman on the phone, while you get turned on by the thought (or enactment) of a couple inviting discovery by having a hot "quickie" in a doorway. A woman I treated used to masturbate to the fantasy of being held down and sexually ravished against her will by the janitor in her office building, another by group sex with Mick Jagger. If these fantasies became realities, however, the fantasizers would likely feel something on a spectrum from uncomfortable to traumatic. Reality, however, doesn't matter. Our unconscious minds creatively interpret scenarios and perceptions that help us get aroused.

full article at link

It was just a fantasy. No victim.

[Fox]

[conrad2]

[Fox]

[Old Gil]

Scott Ritter was not acting out a fantasy. He was under the impression he was ejaculating, on camera, in front of a minor. That's illegal.

On the other hand, 15,16,17 year old girls are sexually (not psychologically) mature individuals, not kids, and these guys are not pedos and should not be lumped in with them in a legal sense.

Personally I think it's a bit 'predatory' for guys in their 40's, who have lived a lot longer and know the game a lot better, to go after these girls, and I'm think it should be illegal. But these guys aren't the pedophilic monsters they get made out to be. He should do his time but should not have to register as a sex offender.