Regarding porn
#1
Saw this cool post on /g/:

Quote:Retarded, gullible traitor whining about drawings of titties while your race is being deliberately displaced out of your own country, media, language, art, values, institutions... which was happening before this anti-porn fad too and you said and did nothing about it, and would be TERRIFIED to criticize in public for fear of being called an -ist word. All of the porn in the entire world, including the shit that's actually demonic jewish propaganda like trannies and blacked shit, combined is less harmful than you apathetic, mindless followers

I can live without porn and a world where people didn’t have porn would probably have positive externalities like more vigorous youth. However, it is a big red herring for wignats to pretend to be right wing. The real problem with society is slavish moralists, people who get enraged by attempts at rational conversation, whether they portray themselves as left wing, right wing, Christian, or groyper, or whatever. In reality a ban on porn would also be heavily weaponized by the left. Any sort of banned ones and zeroes is an excuse to destroy privacy and an easy method to frame people for crimes. Remember that libertarians are always right about everything.
#2
I'm like 99% sure most anti-porn polemic is written 30 seconds after a guy blew his load into a tissue and alt-tabbed back to twitter.
#3
people have innate biological urges, sexual desire is no different from hunger and thirst. to have a normal marriage as God intended these days is vanishingly rare, so it's quite natural that something else is needed to satisfy said urge. as far as that goes, porn in itself is anodyne. i wouldn't criticize anybody for not abstaining, such self-control is to be admired, not expected.

what i think is really being complained about though, is the "normalization" of sex in popular culture and parlance. what was once a taboo subject not to be broached in polite company is now impossible to avoid. sex is vulgar, its carnal details are disgusting and i really do not want to hear about it, ever. discussing it is genuinely degrading, and i have no control over whether i'm subjected to such indignity at any given moment, much less any potential children of mine. of course, porn informs a lot of this discourse, and as a result normal people have become sexual deviants. even if you find a girl who's still a virgin, it is nigh guaranteed she has been exposed to porn at some point. with that in mind, it's understandable that people would point to porn as a big evil, because it is not easy to identify what is a root cause and what isn't.

footnote 1: the type of porn itself also makes a difference. there's a world of difference in dignity between tasteful drawings of hallerian beauties and the vile stuff normgroids watch.

footnote 2: here too is a hormonal aspect; estrogen levels, which are elevated by just about every aspect of our modern world, induce r-selective/lascivious tendencies.
#4
Didn't someone else make a porn thread yesterday? Do I need my meds?
#5
NO SEX BITCH I ONLY WANT THE NECK BITCH
#6
Attacking porn is a vector for attacking men, and insinuating that sexual dysfunction in the libidinal economy is attributable singularly to male habits. This is why the target is shared between both feminists and Christian conservatives*. Naturally, the libidinal dysfunction of our time is at once systemic and irreducible - but it can at least (in part) also be traced back to the failure of these self-same movements.

This isn't to deny that there aren't valid concerns about pornography and its consequences on the psyche/spirit - but the question is a sleigh of the hand. The 'porn addicted coomer incel' is just an easy target.

*(This is an old alignment that has been rediscovered every generation - in the 1970-1980s, they likewise aligned for a failed attempt at pushing the age of consent to 21 --- though the radicals of both sides wanted it at 25)
#7
(11-12-2022, 02:28 AM)Guest Wrote: NO SEX BITCH I ONLY WANT THE NECK BITCH

Dumb nigger
#8
Wignats and lumberjacks treat porn as if it's a cause, not an effect.

(10-29-2022, 05:23 PM)parsifal Wrote: people have innate biological urges, sexual desire is no different from hunger and thirst. to have a normal marriage as God intended these days is vanishingly rare, so it's quite natural that something else is needed to satisfy said urge. as far as that goes, porn in itself is anodyne. i wouldn't criticize anybody for not abstaining, such self-control is to be admired, not expected.

what i think is really being complained about though, is the "normalization" of sex in popular culture and parlance. what was once a taboo subject not to be broached in polite company is now impossible to avoid. sex is vulgar, its carnal details are disgusting and i really do not want to hear about it, ever. discussing it is genuinely degrading, and i have no control over whether i'm subjected to such indignity at any given moment, much less any potential children of mine. of course, porn informs a lot of this discourse, and as a result normal people have become sexual deviants. even if you find a girl who's still a virgin, it is nigh guaranteed she has been exposed to porn at some point. with that in mind, it's understandable that people would point to porn as a big evil, because it is not easy to identify what is a root cause and what isn't.

footnote 1: the type of porn itself also makes a difference. there's a world of difference in dignity between tasteful drawings of hallerian beauties and the vile stuff normgroids watch.

footnote 2: here too is a hormonal aspect; estrogen levels, which are elevated by just about every aspect of our modern world, induce r-selective/lascivious tendencies.

Anti-pornography isn't implying that you should neuter yourself or block out all thoughts of sex or romance, it instead implies that when you consume porn, you're no longer enjoying these fantasies of sex and romance (which are undeniably natural) but instead memeing yourself into enjoying the act of masturbating to porn. Gooning, the logical conclusion of watching porn, is a great example that shows nobody really enjoys pornography. Nofap people don't understand this and thus are still pro-pornography.
#9
Billy's right that anti-pornography is often used as a way to signal being "based" with little substance. It's very easy to blow the issue out of proportion, treat it like it's a chemical addiction, and say that the path to ultimate happiness is to break the bindings and become a new man (it isn't, and you don't). The "schizo" right is full of dumb people who can't articulate a positive worldview and have to resort to single-issue fads like sneed oils and porno.

Nofap is mostly a meme. Pornography is not a chemical addiction for the vast majority of consumers. Only ~4% ever end up with anything close to a sex addiction in the proper sense of the word. The reality is much more mundane that pornography consumption is a habit that is comparatively easy to break if you feel motivated to do so. The deleterious effects of pornography are also exaggerated. Probably the reason that young men get caught up in these fads and then eventually end up "deradicalized" (see: turned into a communist faggot) is because much of contemporary conservatism is based on pseudoscientific horseshit. Pornography is a disgusting and degenerate industry that promotes and amplifies a distorted view of sex but you will not turn into a mindless zombie just by consuming it. All that being said, you shouldn't consume it.
#10
(11-12-2022, 09:33 PM)Corvid Wrote: Billy's right that anti-pornography is often used as a way to signal being "based" with little substance. It's very easy to blow the issue out of proportion, treat it like it's a chemical addiction, and say that the path to ultimate happiness is to break the bindings and become a new man (it isn't, and you don't). The "schizo" right is full of dumb people who can't articulate a positive worldview and have to resort to single-issue fads like sneed oils and porno.

Nofap is mostly a meme. Pornography is not a chemical addiction for the vast majority of consumers. Only ~4% ever end up with anything close to a sex addiction in the proper sense of the word. The reality is much more mundane that pornography consumption is a habit that is comparatively easy to break if you feel motivated to do so. The deleterious effects of pornography are also exaggerated. Probably the reason that young men get caught up in these fads and then eventually end up "deradicalized" (see: turned into a communist faggot) is because much of contemporary conservatism is based on pseudoscientific horseshit. Pornography is a disgusting and degenerate industry that promotes and amplifies a distorted view of sex but you will not turn into a mindless zombie just by consuming it. All that being said, you shouldn't consume it.

Yes.
Instead of attacking real problems like the exploitation of vulnerable women, the promotion of deviant fetishes and a distorted view of reality, I feel most of these "based influencers" just attack the so-called "psychological mind virus" theory or whatever of porn usage.

I don't look down upon coomers principes not because of how they are "against God" or whatever, I look down on them because they obviously didn't get into it (and more importantly didn't have the will to stop) for no reason. They were degenerates before they got into pornography and they will most likely be degenerates afterwards without proper correction. That's why they become "communist faggots" as Corvid said. Because nothing has really changed.

It would be like me telling troons that the reason they don't get sex is because they are (usually) into programming, and if they stopped coding they'd get more game, rather than the actual truth that it is because they are troons and should stop being degenerates.

Many of these people will zero in on Jewish influence on pornography as if it is the sole factor in modern degeneracy. No, it's but one brick in the pyramid, it is neither the corner stone nor the final piece. Pornography has existed before Jews and will after.
Pornography doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is obvious that the use of pornography is connected to either marital dissatisfaction or the inability to find a spouse. If both of these issues were resolved I'd doubt there would be much demand for pornography.
#11
I think the act of watching other people copulate is absolutely perverse and should be avoided in a sane society. Everyone has a voyeur mindset now.
#12
(11-19-2022, 08:01 AM)Illustrious Wrote: I think the act of watching other people copulate is absolutely perverse and should be avoided in a sane society. Everyone has a voyeur mindset now.

Where do you draw the line on observation of others becoming voyeurism? Are novels not voyeuristic?
#13
Novels are voyeuristic in the same degree that observing a painting is. If using our eyes at all is voyeurism then everything is. Obviously I don't think they are. A novel is a piece of art and/or knowledge. It leaves many things to the imagination. It can build character. I can't say this is the case with porn. A true voyeur act only satisfies morbid curiosity.
#14
(11-19-2022, 08:29 AM)Illustrious Wrote: Novels are voyeuristic in the same degree that observing a painting is. If using our eyes at all is voyeurism then everything is. Obviously I don't think they are. A novel is a piece of art and/or knowledge. It leaves many things to the imagination. It can build character. I can't say this is the case with porn. A true voyeur act only satisfies morbid curiosity.

What if the painting is of copulation?
#15
(10-29-2022, 11:26 AM)BillyONare Wrote: In reality a ban on porn would also be heavily weaponized by the left. Any sort of banned ones and zeroes is an excuse to destroy privacy and an easy method to frame people for crimes. Remember that libertarians are always right about everything.
Indeed. Pixiv is coming for my lolis, and it's almost too much for a self-respecting aryan man to take!

Now, on a(n even more) serious note: Billionaire is obviously entirely right that the push to 'ban' porn is mostly going to be utilized by leftwingers more than right-wingers at this point in time, and in the near future, simply because they hold power over the institutions that would engage in said censorship in the first place. You could maybe point to one or two 'conservative' victories on the issue, but as far as I can see these really don't amount to much. So some underaged Thai hooker that's already selling herself for money can't upload it on pornhub to make a few extra bucks: "Amazing work"? I guess she will just have to service a few extra sex tourists to make up for the lost money. Meanwhile leftist activists are cracking down on oriental drawslaves crafting teen pussies on mspaint. This doesn't really seem like a fruitful avenue to explore.

I could launch into some diatribe about how I as a Good Christian don't watch porn and all that, but there's really no point to bring Christian moral arguments into this right now. Ultimately the more secular issue I see with porn is just that it ends up being a time waster, or even a money-waster depending how far down the rabbit hole you go. The guy who clicks on a porn video for a couple minutes during his onanistic act isn't the kind of person I'm talking about here necessarily. As far as I'm aware, porn is a thriving industry, with millions of dollars in profits. Someone is watching those hour long videos, and buying them too. Someone is spending their money on all those retarded OnlyFans whores and buying premium access to those porn sites. All of that I can only see as a monumental waste, and the actions of rather sad men: some guy is out there paying for personalized messages from E-Whores, and for all they know, these messages could be written by some fat Indian guy living in a tin hut in Uttar Pradesh.

(11-19-2022, 08:01 AM)Illustrious Wrote: I think the act of watching other people copulate is absolutely perverse and should be avoided in a sane society. Everyone has a voyeur mindset now.
I tend to agree with this opinion. The idea of watching other people have sex and getting off to it is voyeuristic, and I'd even argue that it's rather cucked. You're getting off while watching another woman fuck a man; maybe it seems less gross because you're doing it through a screen, but it's ultimately not much different if you were in the room there yourself watching it happen without the cameras. The principle is pretty much the same. 

(11-19-2022, 08:06 AM)anthony Wrote: Where do you draw the line on observation of others becoming voyeurism? Are novels not voyeuristic?
I think as it's commonly being used in this discussion, a key element is not just the act of watching but the sexual arousal produced by watching. Of course, voyeurism as a general term isn't inherently sexual, someone who likes to watching people doing mundane tasks from his house is by definition a voyeur. But when someone in a sexual context says they're a voyeur, obviously the 'dividing line' would be the presence of arousal with the voyeurstic act. So when we get to novels, that's what we should be looking at. 

Now as far as I can tell, to call reading smut voyeurism would be an issue simply because the term relates to watching, not reading, but it's an interesting question and I'm not a pedantic ass. Lady Chatterley's Lover is a novel that contains a fair amount of sex. Personally I myself was never aroused while reading it, but is it possible other people were? Sure, I don't see why not. And is it possible that some people use it as material for sexual stimulation, and maybe even go back to reading it and use it for fantasizing? Sure. I guess it would be okay with me to call that voyeurism in a rather loose sense. 'Literary Voyeurism' seems to be a term people have used in the past, as a number of blog posts confirmed when I searched the term.


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)