Posted by:
blindguy
(
)
Date: April 23, 2019 11:00AM
Free Man's first sentence reads:
"The OP question depends on how you define porn."
That sentence is absolutely true. Per Playboy back in the 1980s and 1990s, whether or not a movie or book is considered pornography under law depends on whether or not the work has artistic merit outside of assuaging lascivious and prurient desires. The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart got so exasperated trying to define artistic merit that he once classically wrote about porn: "I know it when I see it."
The LDS church and most other evangelical religions view any material of sexual nature as being pornography, but most of the rest of U.S. society now considers publications such as Playboy not to be pornographic.
As a totally blind person, I've had access to the braille version of Playboy since the late 1970s (with a few years taken off when a Republican Congress refused to fund its production because of its "pornographic" content). While there are no pictures in the braille version, one should check out the Scratch and Sniff pages (just kidding--I like to say that to get a rise out of people). Not only does the braille version of the magazine not include pictures, but because of postal regulations regarding third class mailings, it doesn't include any advertising either. Even without the pictures and the ads, each month's issue comes in anywhere between three and six braille volumes.
Until I got a computer, I never viewed any of the harder-edged stuff. However, since I've had my own computer, I've occasionally gone in and listened to some of the more X-rated material, hoping to hear what I used to hear from my parents' bedroom when my father was alive. Yes, it's boring, but there are times when I need a release...
Going back to the subject of the OP, no, not all people have viewed pornography. Most women have no interest in it, and there are males, even in modern U.S. society who just don't have the means available to view it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The OP question depends on how you define porn.
> Generally it is considered to be what most men
> like.
>
> It should also include what most women like to
> fantasize about in men. Most nights, my wife
> watches 5 hours of cop shows and home shows and
> shows about the rich and famous. Then she reads
> romance novels before going to bed.
>
> The cop shows have her fantasy tough guys - alpha
> males, with lots of violence. One show on
> primetime ABC - open the frig and there's a head
> on the top shelf. Another show with someone
> shooting a guy at point blank range and blood
> splattering all over the window. Not considered
> obscene, of course, because no female areola
> visible.
>
> The romance novels have the same strong mystery
> guys she likes.
>
> The home shows have fancy houses and furnishings
> she dreams of, and the construction guys that can
> make that happen.
>
> And she likes the rich and famous and powerful -
> fantasize about having all that.
>
> All of which makes her husband pale in comparison,
> which is supposedly the problem with the other
> kind of "porn" - it makes women feel inadequate.
>
> And the standard porn supposedly takes away from
> relationships, but somehow 5 hours of TV fantasy
> doesn't?
>
> The porn men look at supposedly objectifies women,
> but so does the fantasies women look at - men are
> but a source of money, status, power, homes,
> muscle or whatever.
>
> The divorces I've seen are the wives being
> dissatisfied with the money their guy made.
>
> Anyway, we live in a gynocentric, misandrist
> society, so porn is defined as a primarily male
> problem, in order to give women more power and
> monopoly control over men's sexuality. Which is
> why so many women consider such images as
> disgusting. As stated above, "i don't and never
> have. admit i am female but still think it's
> sick."
>
> If men were smart, we'd start labeling women's
> fantasies as sick, smut, filth, disgusting, and
> use the law to make them obscene. No more
> advertisements for nice furniture, etc. Women
> would have to hide shopping flyers under their
> mattresses, and seek counseling from the bishop,
> with potential disciplinary action, public
> shaming, and divorce if caught looking at such.
>
> That would force women to beg from her man anytime
> she wanted something, like men have to beg for sex
> (and get wacked whenever his eyes stray, which is
> considered funny).
>
> I doubt the hate and bigotry against men will end.
> Misandry everywhere by haters. We are to "be
> a man" and take it.
>
> I expect the misandrists will now chime in.