Rusty: are you open to the fact that you are coming to this discussion with your own biases and logical fallacies?

Use of "I" would pretty much indicate he is explicitly speaking to his own experience, not a universal one.

"Remember, son-
I didn't sell out,
I bought in."

Whatever dude. Whenever you are incapable of explaining your position, you accuse people of dogmatism/flaming/etc. Not. My. Problem.

Wow.

Well, I don't know what to say, Will.

I don't see how I've been "commenting in a way that tries to shut down conversation." If anything, I have been encouraging actual (not speculative) dialogue, or at least that has been my intent.

When someone makes sweeping, negative generalizations that paint me and many of the people I love as universally bad, then yes, I get defensive, and expect them to explain themselves.

It's impossible to have a constructive conversation so long as everyone insists on referring to porn as a gigantic ubiquitous monolith. We've been through this over and over and over again.

Could a photoshoot that depicts someone being forced to do something against their will be a destructive influence? Sure it could. But that doesn't mean that all pornography could be. I don't believe for one second that a picture of two (or more) people engaging in a consensual sex act has the potential to be a destructive force inherently.

The destructive behavior people display ("porn addiction," as it's incorrectly called) is the symptom of deeper problems (lack of communication in a relationship, lack of sexual fulfillment in the relationship, lack of self-confidence, a shaming complex brought on by people who are scared of sex), not the problem itself.

Rusty and Amber - would you admit at least the possibility that porn might be bad for certain individuals, and possibly even society as a whole, and should therefore be regulated or restricted?

*sigh*
Do you understand, Curt, how frustrating it can be when you are saying something but the person you are speaking to refuses to hear you? Have you experienced that before?

What you are asking me (and Rusty) to "admit" is something that both of us have been saying all along (here and elsewhere). Above in this thread, when Rusty said that if Expat Teacher finds that porn has a negative effect on his (EPT's) personal life, then sure, he should refrain from viewing it. Rusty did not use the exact words " porn might be bad for certain individuals," but he didnt' need to. The point is the same, as I think we're all intelligent enough to understand.

Furthermore, on the previous thread about porn, here are some things I said:

Because we're all individuals, with different personality types and experiences, two people may react wildly different to the same neutral stimulus.

My refrain for a loooong time now has been that what's right for Person A isn't right for Person B (with regard to porn and pretty much anything else.)

My opinion is not universal truth. It is MY truth; it is what's right for me.

Per regulated and restricted - I'll cover my thoughts on that issue at another time, so as not to make this comment too long and fragmented.

You seem to be saying that there is no way porn could ever be bad for anyone or for society as a whole.

Please show me where I have said anything of the sort. Saying porn is universally good is just as ridiculous as saying porn is universally bad. Both are ludicrously simplistic and, if I may be blunt, stupid.

More to come, when I get time.

Curt, you wrote:

I think your criticism of Expat is a little unfair as it relates to his use of "I" and his personal experiences. I believe you have both argued in favor of porn from your own personal experiences. That is, you have had a positive experience and therefore think porn is good and should be legal. But, if it is fair for you to argue in favor of porn based on your personal experiences, then it is also fair for Expat, or anyone else, to argue against porn based on their own personal experiences.

Of course it is fair for EPT to argue against porn based on his personal experiences. But when he, or anyone, moves into the territory of trying to legislate - or shame - it out of existence for everyone, well, that's called imposing his experience onto everyone else, and that's not acceptable.

Your contention, Amber, that someone in this thread has painted you as universally bad doesn't seem to be borne out by the exchange I read.

Not speaking for Amber, as she is fully capable of doing that on her own.

For me, this gets back to porn-as-monolith and porn-as-disease, both of which are concepts that are oversimplistic and offensive to me. In this thread, as I pointed out earlier, Expat referred to porn in terms of immunity and exposure, both of which are terms associated with disease. If that's not clear enough for you, in the last thread Will referred to porn viewing as being like using crystal meth.

When The Monolith Porn is referred to in those terms, judgment is being passed about me, Amber and many of our friends. So, we get hostile and defensive, and will demand that those passing judgment defend their statements. And I expect that we will continue to do so.

And, because I don't think I was very clear about this in my last comment, sure, watching porn could be bad for some people. And those people shouldn't watch. But they also shouldn't ruin it for the rest of us just because they can't handle it.

The analogy breaks down, because the danger of speeding is such that one driver's reckless driving very clearly (and, as importantly, very DIRECTLY) endangers the physical security of other people. Since the state's job includes (if anything) protecting us from being physically harmed by others, then it's OK for it to prevent reckless driving (although I've seen a few recent studies that show great increases in driver safety when road rules are removed, rather than enforced).

Porn doesn't pose that kind of threat; at least, it hasn't been shown to pose it. Most of the arguments against it are that it's obscene and/or has detrimental effects on the ethical character of those who view it. Even if true, that's not a sufficient justification for brining the force of law against it. The better analogy, then, is the one in which alcoholics try to get alcohol outlawed. Sure, it has contributed to the alcoholics' problems, but it's not fair to those of us who can drink moderately to deny us the pleasure of a good drink.