Quote: Marc P @ November 9 2009, 4:43 PM GMTOn a related subject - women apparently buy ninety percent of the fiction in this country. I like women.
I don't buy that, Marc.
Things you like, but know you shouldn't really... Page 21
This thread is locked. No further replies can be posted.
Is that truuue?
I would believe maybe 65%.
Quote: Aaron @ November 9 2009, 4:28 PM GMTYou're really not doing anything for your "I understand porn" case, Dolly.
I must have imagined those articles and studies I've read then.
Compare mainstream porn from the 50s to that that is easily available today and see if there's a difference.
It's a well known fact that today's porn is far, far more graphic and far, far more accessible. That's because tastes become numbed. Human sexuality is often tied up with the forbidden and prohibited, because many people's earliest sexual experiences are tied up to being made to feel that it's dirty or wrong. Hence as soon as images become so familiar they do not arouse as much, more graphic or 'deviant' images are needed to have the same effect.
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ November 9 2009, 3:22 PM GMTGive it a few more years people....ask yourself if you'd want your daughter involved in pornography.... and you might realise one day.
What about our sons?
Quote: zooo @ November 9 2009, 4:45 PM GMT
Is that truuue?I would believe maybe 65%.
I read it today in the Bookseller magazine so it must be, I will see if I can find a link.
Quote: Aaron @ November 9 2009, 4:42 PM GMTNo, we just see that you have a very strange view of how and why men use porn.
Er? So it's not for wanking over....?
I don't know whether I believe that familiar things stop being as arousing.
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ November 9 2009, 3:23 PM GMTMany violent rapists are heavy porn users.
Most burglars or cycle thieves are probably 'heavy porn users' too.
Quote: Moonstone @ November 9 2009, 4:45 PM GMTWhat about our sons?
Most people wouldn't probably be that bothered. 
Quote: Moonstone @ November 9 2009, 4:46 PM GMTMost burglars or cycle thieves are probably 'heavy porn users' too.
Sorry, but why does everyone have to keep denying this link? It's been proven - that might make you all feel bad - but it's a fact!
On a side note, I would really like to see some genuine 1950s porn.
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ November 9 2009, 4:45 PM GMTI must have imagined those articles and studies I've read then.
Compare mainstream porn from the 50s to that that is easily available today and see if there's a difference.
It's a well known fact that today's porn is far, far more graphic and far, far more accessible. That's because tastes become numbed.
What about films, TV and music that's more explicit, more challenging, more graphic? They're not 'more' because people are desensitised as such; they're 'more' because of the liberalisation and cultural revolutions over the past few years have given people more opportunities, and producers will always push it further in order to have something new beyond their competitors, regardless of whether there is already an established demand for what they are making.
Quote: zooo @ November 9 2009, 4:46 PM GMTI don't know whether I believe that familiar things stop being as arousing.
Well if you think about it, it makes perfect sense - especially if the arousal is tied in to the images being 'naughty'. An average victorian would have been turned on by a girl in a bikini (if they'd existed), porn not being as prevelant then, that doesn't have much effect nowadays.
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ November 9 2009, 4:46 PM GMTEr? So it's not for wanking over....?
Sorry, but the fact that you immediately jump down to such a level says a lot.
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ November 9 2009, 4:48 PM GMTSorry, but why does everyone have to keep denying this link? It's been proven - that might make you all feel bad - but it's a fact!
I don't think they're exactly denying the link, just that it doesn't really mean anything. Like when they found through studies that there was a link between people who used deodorant and people who developed cancer.
Everyone uses it, so it means nothing.
Quote: zooo @ November 9 2009, 4:45 PM GMT
Is that truuue?I would believe maybe 65%.
Here you go.
Towards end of an interesting article.