Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
with a campaign called... FAPZ and a load of youtubers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeI1qAojCr8
two more episodes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyXwqMUzQWc & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZsB7uwepII
youtubers doing content for childline about porn:
hard to believe bloody esther rantzen's childline has a campaign called Fight Against Porn Zombies
I'm having quite a good month, but I have a deep sense of foreboding about next month. Dunno why.
Do you think there is a problem with highly misogynistic porn being seen? That said, I remember seeing some stuff when I was in my teens but I totally understood that sex wasn't going to be like this in reality.
As with video game violence, most people even at a formative age understand that it's a fantasy and is nothing like how it is in real life. Those with pathological tendencies, or the intensely lonely and anti-social, will have more difficulty making that separation.
Most teens expect to have sex at some point in their lives [insert your own DiS joke here], but I assume most teens don't expect to murder/rob banks/fight aliens/whatever in the future.
for our young teens repeatedly trying to launch themselves into space.
fantasies because in a lot of ways that's arguably easier to separate from 'real life interactions' but more generally how sex is displayed/approached.
i did enjoy that video of anne robinson watching porn for the first time though
That's just wrong.
may as well be pounding pastry
and treating them like they're packing meat, thats where I draw the line
The line of spunk up my belly
But it actually was very sober and sensible.
I'd normally mock Anne Robinson, but she seems very sensible here.
Plenty of tales of adults about who can't actually get aroused with their partners anymore because pron has infiltrated their expectations about what intercourse actually is. Couple of my mates struggle with it for instance.
without lube or consent?
just stick a bit of anusol on the tip so my roids can get some benefit out of it
"Having banned porn from my own computer in the last few days, this article is very relevant.
What's striking about a life without porn is, even after a few days, how much more satisfied I feel about not having sex with anyone right now. The article is correct, it created unrealistic expectations. But not just of the act, also of my expectations of frequency of access to sex too.
Porn turned sex into a commodity that I could have whenever I want…"
Not heard that reasoning before myself but there are many facets to it of course.
with her tits exposed but bound by rubber bands with clothes pegs on her nips and a hole torn in her crotch with a tampon string visible and a swastika shaved into her mons, and has me chained to the bed I find it impossible to become interested
so it melts a little onto my balls and squeezes them even tighter, 2 dildos up my bum on jackhammer mode, hog tied in a bath of beans
I think this a very important step. Not only to discuss what the kids are watching, but also discuss issues such as consent and child sexual exploitation.
Think the time has come to go full whack on sex ed to be honest. Too many issues are ignored in conventional sex ed. I barely had any. Didn't even do the whole johnny on a cucumber stuff.
What I do know is tha I didn't need to use any of it for a VERY long time after.
idk i have a weird thing about sex ed
in that i think it's pretty hard to do it properly unless you are to make very specific presumptions about the default sexuality of pupils, which obviously is bad
but then to do it without assuming this, you would have to cover anal, blowjobs, cunnilingus, double dildo-ing, artificial clitoral simulation on top of plain old ready salted penis-in-vagina sex. and idk how easy it would be to get teachers who could cover all that
there's also a bigger problem that pupils won't take any sex-ed class seriously. it's more of a cultural issue that needs to be explored outside the classroom (i.e. with parents, on children's tv, through social media (?) somehow) imo
Haven't given it too much thought to be honest - I'm just starting from the base of thinking `the way young people are educated about sex seems incredibly substandard` and just troubleshooting from there.
yeah i agree with that maybe
i think maybe the problem is that people's sexual experience is highly subjective and that kind of thing doesn't lend itself well to the tried and tested methods of traditional pedagogy, and is better explored via art or something
seems like maybe i should read some eve sedgwick to try and understand this better.
I'll stick to space raiders, cheers.
Can't believe I broke off from wanking off into my cats face for this
no harm done
hate hate hate hate the phrase "normal sexual behaviour"
pretty sure every anti-porn argument i have ever heard presumes that all porn is a straight guy banging a straight woman up against a wall or something, which is like.... no
it's probably fair enough to say the majority of porn is still made for, if not necessarily consumed by, straight men.
same with the majority of all media though, right?
to be honest I'm not really objecting to the anti-porn line more that the arguments I've heard are more nuanced.
of campaigners trying to ensure that women aren't forced into doing anything they don't want to do, while simultaneously trying not to look like pearl-clutching prudes about it.
Also, you end up with this odd implication that it’s empowering for a woman to be into non-'normal sexual behaviour', but it’s somehow highly sinister for a man to be into it.
so i don't thin you could accuse him of trying to GIVE you a complex.
If your were to analyse yourself and realise the complexes that you have then it may assist you in removing complexes from yourself.
Parsefone is trying to be helpful by holding up thr mirror, for you.
I thought you were a robust poster who was sort of adopting a construct to argue a devils advocate sort of point of view
Too slow, no bikini lines, no money shot, it's a no from me.
and the only place kids learn about sex is via tinternet, that could fuck it up for some. But surely it only takes about 30 seconds into your first encounter to realise it isn't like that in real life?
If people took it really literally the birth rate would drop dramatically, as it would all go on the ladies' face.
In terms of:
- how often people masturbate (and to what) if they're in relationships
- how often people have sex
- how satisfied people are with their sex lives
... and how this has evolved over time.
I don't know. like wwwwo said, it's an argument that has its nuances.
Predisposes people to having fucked fucked social relations, ban all adverts.
Not only does she look about 38, but her dress sense, voice and mannerisms all seem to belong to the bitter, middle-aged lady of the manor from some 80s soap opera. Not someone who was born around the time The Lion King was released.
Wasn't even aware anyone on DiS was even paying that much attention to me.
of this good little video.
You have chosen to focus on shallow superficial visual aspects which it is not appropriate to be rating given the context.
Your shallow focus is symptomatic of the sorts of results that can stem on shallow internet and media.
You also seem to be irrationally anti this young woman, but because you do not have the abiity to criticise what she is saying you criticise here appearance.
Hence you are a cunt.
I found it very odd how the girl in the Guardian video seems like a specific type of antiquated fictional character. Maybe it’s just a youth subculture that I’m not aware of. Maybe there are loads of university-age people dressing and acting like characters from Dynasty now. Are there?
There have been popular DiS threads about much more contentious subjects, so I find it baffling that a handful of you have singled me out as a cunt. I mean, there was recently a long thread about people who don’t look their age. By your logic, everyone who posted on that thread was a cunt, right?
way over the top in my describing you as such, for horrible humours sake......not only in that it is an over-reaction towards you, but in that it is also something that is atypical from me (mostly)
I am sorry if I have misjudged that, I did think that you were one of the more robust posters, but we all have self doubt and I am sorry that my ill aimed humour has resulted in upset in you.........
BUT I do think that you do deserve criticism for your mentioning of the womans appearance, when that is a shallow aside from what should have been the less shallow context of viewing the video she made.
By being shallow and missing the correct context, you invite that others perhaps think that you yourself are either a) genuinely shallow or b) humourously shallow , if it is the latter then please take my over the top insult as being towards the artificial construction that you have created to be humourous......if it is the former, then please do accept my criticism, but please do not think that I intended to insult you in such an over the top way.
Hope we are now good and that you are not upset. Please PM me if you are still upset and I am sure we can work this out.
I think, ultimately. DiS just isn’t for me. I’ve never quite got on-board with the many layers of misanthropic sub-Stewart Lee irony often present on this site (for instance, I can’t tell whether or not UnicornPorn is genuinely defending me upthread, or just piling on but being really arch about it).
Though the Guardian video creates more questions than answers, I probably agree with the crux of what it’s trying to say, insomuch as I don’t think porn is having a great effect upon society. You can agree with someone, and yet still find his or her presentational style bizarre (remember ‘the rent is too damn high’ guy from a few years back?). I don’t think there’s anything especially shallow about that.
.....but It did make me think and then I read your post and then I thought it was wrong for me to have assumed that your were robust and making as sort of joke response. I only meant to lob a little pebble of criticism, so erm, sorry again....I feel really guilty now, if thats any consolation.
The bizarrest style that i found about the video, was that it poses the question...why did i ask ancient Anne Robinson....and then the video answers this perfectly.....becuse although shes an internt por newbie, she is also a journo and is totally sober and non dramtic in any criticism or surprise she expresses. I think the style/format works well
was how mature/sober it was for a 20 year old (with my expectation that it Might be more shallow/superficial)
Maybe thats why she wears older clothes styles, because modern 'sexy' styles prevent people from taking her words/ideas as seriously.....but probably not
I don't do 'arch' and i'm not clever/funny enough for stewart lee levels of triple bluffing irony.
you are clever/funny enough....but you are also too genuine and sensible....triple stewart lee levels are fine if you are happy to 'do' yourself.
I did see the thread about where media reports seemed to think that it was always necessary to include such things as 'age' when it is largely irrelevant to the story. In a way, by you focussing on the superficial about the video maker you are displaying similar 'missing the most appropriate focus'
If this was just a thing that happened occasionally in media, then it is of little consequence, but it isnt, it is a very very common thing, if not The most common approach most people have to media, or so it would seem judging from the results.
Visual objectification is at the heart and soul of this matter, and I hve gone on about this lots of time before......I do not single you out, you were merely there at the time, and you also seemed to be 'asking for it' by displaying exactly the same sort of objectifying focus on the visuals of something, when it is obvously the concepts and ideas that are designed to be the content of this womans video.....I therefore thought your post was parodying the style that was actually part of the content that was being discussed......i.e. shallow visual evaluation......Anne Robinson (for once actually not being annoying) actually wondered how people could be 'convinced' by similar superficiality.
But to address your elabourated point, her style.....why is it not something that is so common that you would not notice it.....hmm perhaps we could ask people on here why we dont all just follow the chart stuff....because it is our taste....which may change......
I interpreted you harshly, because you did not just innocently mention that her clothes looked from a past age, you even managed to get in a human value into your description......"bitter".....now Im sorry for jumping to conclusions....but it did 'smell' to me as if you were criticising her appearance negatively.
I was alluding to something like this; www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7o8FbGCR9U
I found it particularly jarring that she should look/sound like that, given that whole milieu happened before she was even born, and I wasn't aware it had undergone any kind of revival recently.
If The Guardian ran a video wherein a 20-year-old who talks/moves/dresses like an Edwardian music hall compère talked about battling climate change, I’d still have to say ‘why does this 20-year-old look like an Edwardian music hall compère?’ (and I’m someone who worries massively about climate change).
your intent, for which I unreservedly apologise, not only for being over the top, but for also having accused you falsely.
Sometimes I am very bad, it is good you have called me out on this...I can get too cocky by half.
I owe you......dont feel bad about dis, please.
Fidel and Parsefone are know for being cunts on here...Fidel with some humour and (Im just saying that to make you feel better)....Parsefone in the otherhand really is one (he deleted one of my user accounts when I asked him to do so....later on i regretted this)
About an hour ago, I was drafting a rambling takedown of you. Now, I think you’re being a tiny bit hard on yourself.
maybe a bit, but the same could be said about anything that we get from the internet/ instant graitificatoin type blurb.
My only concern (and I think it is suggested upthread) is that the kind of people most affected by this (or by analogy, the kind of people who find it hard to separate reality form Gaming) are the kind of people who maybe have certain issues which make them susceptible- thw loners and people with pathological tendencies tat parsefone touched upon. That worries me- they are precisely the sort of people whe should worry about. But I don't suppose you can have one rule for the well adjusted who can process this stuff and realise it's not 'real life' and another rule for the people with these issues who are affected by it adversely.
we all know boys watch it, I doubt many girls deliberately seek it out regularly, but it would certainly be around. Could they grow up thinking a bloke can just bung it in anywhere they like at any angle at a moment's notice? Could lead to them having some serious issues if that is their expectations of normal. This does apply to boys as well of course, but they aren't on the "receiving end" so to speak.