I'd be willing to bet MOST men have porn or links to porn in their computers somewhere.

Most male coworkers.

Most male businessmen.

Most male religious leaders.

Most male politicians.

Most male terrorists.

And--dare I say it?

Most male DU'ers.

All this recent discovery proves is that, while definitely a monster on many levels, underneath it all Osama Bin Laden was just a man.

???

hm.

after all.

...then again, I'm not a religious extremist.

Only a religious extremist would believe their ilk are as pure as they claim to be.

I was more thinking that, too.

I'd be willing to bet a sack of whole wheat honey-glaze donuts that you are into both respiration and digestion. Am I wrong? I thot not.

"Is there pornography on your computer?"

"God, I hope so!" I thought. "I've been downloading it for months!"

a.k.a 'American Exceptionalism', 'Pax Americana' or 'The White Man's Burden'

indeed.

eg. You remember them? However, I doubt it was watching porn that sent them on their murderous rampages in Iraq.

The problem is when you pontificate, then fall short yourself... it's called hypocrisy... and I hope his lemmings get it.

I would agree with what you thinks. :toast:

I have no porn at home, on my computer or anywhere
and find that insulting and stereotyping males.
Some of us have better things to do with our time than
indulge in porn.

i havent found a hint. but we arent allowed to say it cause then i am told hubby is just lying to me.

God help him if he has any porn.......god help him.

but then as i said in my post.... men need that validation that it is all men

....that all women are really anti-porn and that it is only men who force them to watch it?

But that doesn't stop DUers from sniggering behind their hands as though they know your marriage better than you....

25 years married here and I believe my husband when he says he has no interest in it. It wasn't any part of his life before we met nor since we've been together. We're in agreement on its negative affects on women as well, and with two daughters, he's very sensitive to how he models himself as a father and male figure for their own healthy development. Besides, the facts of his computer usage mean he honestly truly has no time to indulge in such a thing even if he wanted to. He races inside only long enough to check his emails and he does that very grudgingly as he LOVES what he does and being outside far more than anything else on the planet (maybe even me!)

We work together 24/7 so "hiding" it is impossible. But that doesn't stop the DU voyeurs who don't have trusting relationships from thinking they "know better".

and *gasp* before the inundation of porn on the net and easy access, men who werent into porn way out numbered men that were. they managed to enjoy life fine with a lifetime without porn. go figure.

there have been a couple occassions where i have had to have hubby bring me to balance and ground me (feet on ground), lol, listening to people on du.

happy saturday to you. consumed enough coffee, time to go play (work in the yard)

I chose my words very carefully... chosing "most" instead of "all" was clearly the right thing to do.

Although the "Christian" polls will tell you it's as high as 72% of men, better sources say it's closer to 54%...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/special/why.html


Some scientists believe that these differences have a biological basis. Evolutionary psychologists argue that ancestral men, to spread their genes, had much to gain from having sex with as many women as possible. In contrast, given the biological limitations on the number of children women could have and raise, they would benefit from being selective -- choosing mates with the best genes. Thus, men evolved a sexual psychology that makes sex with new women exciting both to imagine and to engage in, and this made men especially responsive to visual signals of sex. Porn, a largely visual medium, parades many youthful and attractive partners, and provides physical gratification without commitment or encumbering relationships. There are other social-historical explanations for the gender discrepancy, however, including the fact that, until recently, porn has not been created with the intention of appealing to women.

Does this mean that women are unresponsive to porn? Not exactly. Or, better, it depends. In his landmark interview studies in the 1940s and '50s, conducted with nearly 17,000 men and women, Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues found that 54 percent of men and only 12 percent of women reported being erotically aroused by seeing photographs, drawings, or paintings of nude people. Kinsey also found that during masturbation, men tend to fantasize visually while women generally don't do so. This does not mean, however, that porn does not elicit sexual arousal in women. Laboratory studies have shown that women almost invariantly show physical signs of sexual excitement to porn movies, as indicated by increased vaginal blood flow. Interestingly, this can happen even when women don't like the movies or when they experience negative emotions such as disgust or anger. And studies have also shown that women show stronger physical sexual responses to porn than to more romantic erotic stimuli.



Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/special/why.html#ixzz1MHDaEAXD

lots of assumptions made in evolutionary behavorial psychology that is merely a reinforcement of patriarchy and has a prominate role today for SOME men because they feel they are losing their dominant role and this is one way to get it back

one can argue much of that. spread the seed... is religion. why the hell did they pick up religion. staying with a mate that is impreg with your child ensuring survival makes more evolutionary sense. masturbation is natural, correct? we all say it is. (has to do with number of seeds which is the argument for spreading seeds). women can masterbate without losing ability to get preg. males lose their sperm. they need that number of sperm, not to spread but if they did have limited amount of sperm, well... masterbation goes along the way side not to mention any sex outside of absolute positive of possibility to impregnate.

one can argue that shit all over the place sense it is mostly men hyping this stuff for agenda

visual? they did a study hooking up to the brain instead of relying on an questionaire sheet where conditioning and role play a part.

women where found to be more visual than men. men started at the eyes.... then worked down. women went right to the body and got off on man or women. while men tended to just get turned on by there sexual preference.

so, ya, i have heard it all.

12% women aroused by porn 1940, 50. look what happens to the evolutionary biological theory when female gain their sexual freedom and throw off conditioning. i would say that 12% has skyrocketed. it is no longer biologically relevant women not getting into porn. they also said women didnt cheat. they now cheat as much as men. all kinds of things they put on us as evolutionary biology that was crap....

I think men and women are pretty equal in all those areas now... and I have seen all this stuff used against people, in support of behaviors... and to condemn.

that ALL men HAVE to have it, per being on du so long, lol. then i receive pms from men on du telling me they dont have an interest in it. have a healthy, fun sex life so why? but they tell me on the sly, not willing to be declared a liar by others on du. i have to wonder about the people that demand their porn, but unwilling to allow those that just dont find it that interesting or needed.

saw your poll. gonna be skewed now it is in lounge, lol

....most web browsers do have some sort of incognito mode that shuts down the saving of a history and other browsing data for as long as you are using it. Thus even if you have full access to his computer, he could still very well be looking at it. Mind you this isn't an "accusation" or anything (though I don't understand what is so horrible about looking at some porn in the first place) but I just thought I should point that out.

that married 17 yrs in an open marriage without visible secrets that i am aware of has allowed me a certain level of trust, as bad as some may see that. the way treated, time spent, feeling in interaction.

anything is possible. and being the type of person i am, i readily accept that.

i dont find it necessary to demand, insist that everyone must make my choices though, or they are liars.

your position.

And your need to feel better by trashing others.

as much as it may behoove some men to promote this stereotype that men must have porn, or that it is indicative and defining of who a man is, there are men that are not interested. and it does not make them less men, or sexual, or anything else being implied. they are not allowed to say they dont have interest in porn without being called a liar. i am standing up for men, and you are failing your gender.

addressing the unhealthy of porn is not demanding others not look at porn, or telling them what to do. addressing the less than healthy of porn is not having a moral superiority. it is reality and honesty in discussing an issue.

because you are afraid for whatever reason and an unwillingness to acknowledge that there is negative in porn along with neutral in porn, or even positive in porn is your problem, not mine. but surely in discussion of an issue, we would reject that only one perspective is allowed.

your refusal to allow people to point out other perspectives about porn and judging them with assumptions instead of facts is your own failure.

"there are men that are not interested. and it does not make them less men, or sexual, or anything else being implied. they are not allowed to say they dont have interest in porn without being called a liar."

I'm not doing that. In fact, almost nobody is doing that, despite the one or two obligatory jokers in the threads. But you make it seem like those poor, noble, misunderstood porn-free men are victimized by the evil, filthy porn-watchers. That's your conspiracy theory; it only exists in your mind. Nobody here is saying that, yet you *want* to make it seem like that, because that way you can indulge in your role as morally superior being who's being victimized.

Let me ask you a question: why do you think that men who don't like porn should be awarded, or congratulated, or given a higher, special status, like you continually imply? Are they 'better' than other men? And if you do think so, then isn't it *you* who's doing the trashing?

"addressing the unhealthy of porn is not demanding others not look at porn, or telling them what to do. addressing the less than healthy of porn is not having a moral superiority. it is reality and honesty in discussing an issue."

Oh, so now your opinion is the only real and honest one?!? Well, who could argue with that? If you're so convinced you're right, why bother answering me in the first place? :eyes:

when threads and posts say ALL men do porn?

that has nothing to do with moral superiority though that is what you continue to promote. agenda baby, it is all agenda for you. no thinking outside that ole box.

turly, i have no interest in a conversation with your narrow mind. truly, it is a waste of time for all concerned.

i am off to play

Because you need to glorify the anti-porn men, to put them on a pedestal, to make them look holy. And you need to trash the pro-porn men. Even if that means cooking up paranoid conspiracy theories.

Face it, you need someone to look down upon, otherwise you can't feel good.

but peruse this thread. not to mention often and in the past.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=9689186&mesg_id=9689186

not a new phenomenon.

and once again, you totally make up your own story to point the finger at me. you fail in your arguments because you refuse to listen and continue on your own suppositions.

The fact that you even use words like 'agenda' signals to me that you take this a lot more serious than I do.

The fact that a mere handful of persons have made comments against 'anti-porn men' doesn't mean your victimization-narrative is justified. But I'll let you have it, since you obviously need to think of your no-porn husband as some kind of saint or martyr.

"and once again, you totally make up your own story to point the finger at me. you fail in your arguments because you refuse to listen and continue on your own suppositions."

Now that's the clearest case of projection that I've ever seen.

why should anyone have a serious conversation with you

go away

At least I've never seen a brick wall act so smug, self-righteous and such a holier-than-thou attitude.

Why don't you go away? You're the laughing stock over here already.

go jerkoff to a CMYK (or RGB) :)

I can't see why you are getting all huffy toward people that don't indulge in porn.

it's silly and laughable. go pork away, no one cares what you do.

It's silly and laughable.

But, if you need to look down on people in order to feel good about yourself, more power to you.

I'd say the chances are very good that your husband does view porn behind your back and you just don't know about it.

I wouldn't get to worked up about it though. Most men view porn.

are lying too, that are on this thread saying they are not interested in porn.

why is it so important for you to be so sure that you have created the illusion that ALL men do it. what validation does that give you?

It's entirely possible that your husband does not view porn. But the majority of men do. All I said is that the chances are good that he's viewing it behind your back and you just don't know about it. This is very common.

Of course it's also possible that he doesn't view it at all.

But I think it's safe to say that the majority of men do view it and there's a greater chance that your husband falls into that camp.

my back.

why would you think that i am so naive, that i would need you to let me know.

and do you really think i am going to go thru all the reasons, here on du, why i am pretty sure he does not

and why do you care

Relax. It's not a big deal.

knowledge).

but i wont get into why it is a big deal. to me, the last decade, it seems to be a huge conditioning for both gender. i have always been opposed to societal conditioning.

That definitely exists and it definitely is an issue that should be addressed.

and watching porn when he knows she doesn't like it.

Or seabeyond knows her husband and their relationship, their time constraints, their honesty level, their computer habits (or lack thereof) in a way that you don't, and your insinuations are pretty crappy.

It IS a big deal when there seems to be a lot of people who want to culturally condition "everyone" that "all guys" watch porn and women should be okay with that.

I haven't been on a lot of porn threads but obviously seabeyond has, and her comments about the ASSumptions about porn usage are pretty eye opening for me, this thread alone.

Sorry about that. For the record, I don't think women should be ok with the fact that their spouses view porn if they are opposed. Relationships should be about trust.

on pornography use and unfortunately it is that widespread, but I'm grateful that a minority of men, like you, see it as degrading to women, supportive of exploitative industries, or just plain unimaginative and boring, and don't allow their souls to be hijacked by that crap.

So many young women are reporting that younger guys, raised on this stuff, can't seem to get an erection from anything normal (like normal women's bodies)--that their minds are conditioned by what they see in pornography. Beyond the people exploited in its use, that's the saddest part to me. What a bunch of baggage to put on relationships, on top of everything else we have to deal with. Naomi Wolf has written a lot about this, as have Robert Jensen and Michael Kimmel.

Seems to me men got lots of erections in the millenia before the widespread availability of pornography. But to hear them defend it, you'd think the human race would stop if they weren't able to use it to get off.

I've read all those things in many different reports, and have known men who couldn't do it with real women and only with porn. Sad.

"don't allow their souls to be hijacked by that crap."

"So many young women are reporting that younger guys, raised on this stuff, can't seem to get an erection from anything normal (like normal women's bodies)"

"Seems to me men got lots of erections in the millenia before the widespread availability of pornography. But to hear them defend it, you'd think the human race would stop if they weren't able to use it to get off."

I call bullshit. Major league bullshit. If one were to believe you, porn is about to destruct human civilization as we know it, and society is falling apart because of it. You also seem to imply that, before porn came into existence, there was no sexual violence against and degradation of women. Let me tell you: historically speaking, women have never had it as good as they have it nowadays; women have never been safer; women have never been more respected. Ask any historian; they'll tell you. Doesn't seem to go well with your apocalyptic visions of doom because pornography exists.

and it's effects on real sex in real time...

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

The poster is just opposed to porn. Fine. Her choice. But don't act like the world is falling to pieces because of it.

By the way, I bet there are as much surveys that prove the opposite of what you/her are trying to prove. That's how social sciences work. It all depends on who's doing the questioning, who's getting questioned and how the questions are being formulated.

out there by sociologists and other scientists who are just beginning to understand what the ramifications are of easy access to internet porn.

FWIW, I'm not trying to "prove" anything. You called bullshit so I just posted a counter-argument.

I never denied there are some people who are negatively influenced by porn. But then again, all sorts of people are negatively influenced by all kinds of media! Doesn't mean all, or even most, people are affected in a negative way by it. The poster blew some findings of some surveys (which, as I pointed out, undoubtedly can be countered by as much opposite surveys, because that's how social sciences work) up to astronomic proportions. There's no need to overgeneralize the way she did. Her comments were clearly intended to vilify, insult and smear men who watch porn.

By the way, porn has been around long before the invention of the internet, and, as I pointed out, society has never been as good to women as it is today. Now I know that's not a very popular opinion with feminists/women and it doesn't go over well with the drama-over-facts crowd, but historically speaking, I am right in stating this. And all that in the era of internet porn.

No, I did not.

Next...

No, I did not.
I asked a question 'based on what?'

no answer

next

Then went on to speak as if to prove me wrong... on the assumption I said all... really, try again.

Then all they have to do (when they get caught) is repent and promise they won't do it again....

Yeah, right....

Nothing new there.

Is there something less predictable than that?

I don't disagree with your hypothesis.

All this recent discovery proves is that, while definitely a monster on many levels, underneath it all Osama Bin Laden was still a man.

I'd paraphrase the screenplay to Dr. Strangelove by saying "He may have been a man off Allah, but he was still a man."

You'd think that a guy who brought his flunkies to crash airplanes into buildings to make women wear burkas and see the world through little eyeslits would object to videos of them naked... Guess not.

you don't know whose porn it was or how it got there.

but you think you know obl was a "hypocritical monster".

Those planes of terrified people as missiles. Used to incinerate 3000 people to death,

Fuck the little running fuck forever.

Can you imagine the terror those people in the second plane felt when they seen the first tower burning?

Fuck the sniveling coward forever.

the news of an extensive collection at the Bin Laden compound is BIG NEWS.
This news will help to discredit OBL in the eyes of his followers.

...partly in response to the people who were 100% sure the USA planted the porn there to discredit him.

I think those people are more scared of Bin Laden than anyone else, that they're unwilling to believe the man had any weaknesses.

Too late he's a martyr now. Whatever side of the "killed Osama" fence you fall on there is no denying that we have made him a martyr and it's going to take more than some stupid porn to "discredit" him.

Why should they be any different than us? We don't discredit people. Where are the men who stole hundreds of billions from the taxpayers, cost millions their retirement money, and ran scams up and down Wall Street? In jail? Shunned? Discredited?

I think it applies to most Muslims. It is why some countries with Muslim majorities ban it all together.

If the story is true it wouldn't surprise me about OBL. Terrorists violate most of the teachings of Islam so I don't consider them truly religious. Just criminals. Like how the 9/11 hijackers drank alcohol and went to strip clubs.

... "real Christians". When a fucked-up Christian nut does something horrible, like shooting a doctor who performs abortions, we never say: "oh, he's not a REAL Christian!" No, instead we say: "see what nasty things religion can do?" Yet, whenever a Muslim does something that's completely fucked-up, we say: "oh, don't blame Islam, because he/she wasn't TRULY following Islam."

Why the double standard? Is it only okay for progressives to criticize their 'own' religion? Or do progressives fear being accused of racism or xenophobia when they point out that Islam, like all other religions, is very violent?

there are people who use religion to do good and bad. Christian MLK did a lot of good and often referenced his religious beliefs. I don't particularly blame religion when someone does something bad.

I don't think I have double standards when it comes to this. I think there are probably double standards all over the place. In this country if you tell someone your Christian, most people will think you're good person. If you tell someone you're Muslim you are viewed with suspicion.

Anyways, I don't think it's fair for religious people to be lumped with extremists of their religions.

I suspect anyone who "follows" Bin Laden won't believe anything the US government tells them anyway.

:rofl:

:)

...and use that tiny bit of misunderstood (on your part) info as a basis to judge a man by.

D E V O

A lot of women.

And I love to go out drinking with them. That's how I retain the virtue of my laptop.

Sonoman

I would not bet it was equal to men though. But ask anyone who has worked in distributing gay porn, a lot of women buy it and watch it.

there is something other than DU and porn on the internet? :wow:

But, I am willing to bet that the Seals took out his porn buddy early on in the raid

he had a fully stocked bar......and bacon. There are things that a good Muslim extremist are not supposed to do.

:evilgrin:

First off...Maybe it is true and maybe, just maybe, the US is practicing a disinformation program. To those who think that our gov't would not do that...think again.

Secondly....the self-righteousness of the anti-porn crowd can be soooooo tiresome.

Am I a porn connoisseur? No, but I realize that just as many women enjoy pornography as do men, and many amateur sites exist where no money changes hands. My point being that some folks (actually a lot) find no shame in exposing themselves online. They do not do it for profit, nor are they coerced.

Yes, deep in the nether regions of the net I am sure someone could find sites where the person being exposed was unaware or even unwilling, but that vast majority of pornography is simply adults enjoying being adults.

That whole mass murder thing, you know......

never have, since I became aware of the Internet in 1995.


You are not giving women credit however. That is sad. They have the same needs as most men.....

Did the couriers surf porn and bring it back on the thumbs? Seems unlikely.

jesus h fuckin' christ on a pogo stick.....

that's where OBL diverges.

:shrug:

It's gold medal hypocrisy.

odd, that, since many of his female relatives routinely go about in public wearing something other than a burqa.

This, for example, is a niece:



here's one of his sons' wives (a brit), jane felix-browne:



here she is with obl's son (fourth son omar):



obl's youngest wife:



bin laden sibs in the 70's:



more bin laden females:






none of these women are wearing burka, even his own wife on her drivers' license picture.

That is why the porn story is so unsurprising.

:P

...was the amount we could charge for erotica. :)

Like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeujZtBvMFY

4:14 is when I reach for the kleenex.

I told him, no way, bubba.

They needed something to do when they were hanging out with the old man.
Most likely american porn given to them by the CIA.

I think you missed the point which was that OBL was not practicing what he preached.

“"Every guy has a stash of porn in their house. Not an illegal amount, just enough to get you by." --comedian Chris Rock”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1d-T3ntR7o

I'my typing on his computer right now, as my battery died.

There is NO PORN anywhere on this laptop.

Thank goodness I have a guy that doesn't have porn issues.

But I'm rather sure he looks at it from time to time. Some type of sexually stimulating material, that is - not necessarily crazy wild porn.

Guys are kind of wired that way.

but I choose not to delve into this any further.

Thx for the post...you're a good person. :-)

had been sexualy abused as children make the viewer feel any differently about what they are watching?
That some horrible life events in that person's childhood actually makes way for so many to be entertained because of another's suffering?

Can you tell me what sources or surveys Dines used to come to this conclusion? Did she do research himself? Did she rely on other people's research? Is her research peer-reviewed? I'm not asking these questions to disqualify your post; I always ask these kinds of questions whenever people refer to "a book I've read", because it's almost impossible to check. I find the title of said book highly populist and so I'm curious if the content is better than the dubious title.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The study, carried out by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis measured brainwave activity of 264 women as they viewed a series of 55 color slides that contained various scenes from water skiers to snarling dogs to partially-clad couples in sensual poses. The researchers were interested in the speed, strength, and location of brainwave activity of the subjects as they viewed erotic versus non-erotic images.

As they hypothesized, the brainwave activity of participants was markedly different when viewing erotic images versus non-erotic images. But a finding they didn’t expect was that female participant’s response was similar to men. In a prepared statement, lead author Andrey P. Anokhin explained:

"Usually men subjectively rate erotic material much higher than women," he says. "So based on those data we would expect lower responses in women, but that was not the case. Women have responses as strong as those seen in men."
The authors propose that previous findings from other studies which found men to have a stronger response to erotic images than women may have as much to do with research methods, as an actual response by men or women.

http://sexuality.about.com/b/2006/06/19/new-brain-research-challenges-the-myth-that-men-are-more-visual-than-women.htm

Study Finds, US Women Look at Sex Pictures Longer and Harder Than Men"

Wallen and his former graduate student, Heather Rupp, showed still photos of couples having sex to 30 women and 15 men between the ages of 23 and 28. Each was rigged up with a high-tech eye-tracking device to measure where his or her gaze went first, and how long it stayed there.

Men went straight to the face and lingered for a while, but most of the women were more interested in the sexual activity. How much so depended on whether they were taking hormone-filled birth control pills.

Wallen and Rupp said their study suggests that men's increased attention to faces may be related to higher activation in the amygdala, a portion of the brain that processes emotional information and excitement.

Women can tell by looking at naked men whether they are aroused, Wallen said, but female bodies do not reveal much.

http://www.wtnrradio.com/story.php?story=222

that if he's going to watch porn on my mom's computer over Christmas, he really needs to empty the recycling bin if he's going to bother to delete it.

I got quite an eyefull when I had to go over there and clean up her computer after he and my sister left.

:evilgrin:

But ultimately the proportion comes out to 99.9999999993%.

is that he was a lying hypocrite.

He preached about the pure Muslim way....and that does not include porn. Until driven to ground by the US, he lived a life of excess, with speed boats, fancy cars, etc. He was about power, not religion.



Unfortunately, his 'believers' will probably think that the US manufactured this evidence.

My first son crashed out computer with a "discreet download"...a spread-legged chick that froze onscreen. He was mortified.
I learned to put a kid-block on mine (.
yes,porn is more geared to men. I am bi,but straight porn does not appeal from a female perspective.gay porn made by and for a gay woman at least has some freaking foreplay in it!