[b]WHY LOOK AT THE TIME, IT'S DEBATE O' CLOCK [/b] [quote]It is not sexist in the slightest, I said I was aiming this towards men. Of course there is objectification of men as well, how does that make it any better? To use an old saying, two wrongs don't make a right. [/quote] It is sexist because your OP implies that only women can suffer negative effects from -blam!-. The closest thing you suggested as a negative effect for men would be a terminated relationship, which affects both men and women equally, Much like this entire issue. [quote]Actually quite a lot of the p0rn industry involves people who are forced into it. Plus I am saying that the objectification of the women you watch often means you will objectify your partners. That is where the problems arise. [/quote] Neither of us have shown any definite proof to confirm our opinions on this yet. From Wikipedia, this is quite interesting; "Most male performers in straight -blam!- are paid less than their female costars. Ron Jeremy has commented on the pay scale of women and men of the sex film industry: "The average guy gets $300 to $400 a scene, or $100 to $200 if he's new. A woman makes $100,000 to $250,000 at the end of the year.[9] "Girls can easily make 100K-250K per year, plus stuff on the side like strip shows and appearances. The average guy makes $40,000 a year." I know the top wage mentioned here is not astounding, but for a fairly unskilled profession it is a lot. A P0rn actor/actress with no qualifications can live fairly comfortably on this. So if anything, if we look at payment, men are more likely than women to "get trapped" by this profession if they were forced into it - Women would be more likely to "escape" (I would prefer the term "quit") and take on whatever career it is they would move on to next that they would prefer. [quote] Because filming yourself doing him makes it more enjoyable doesn't it? They do it for money. [/quote] For some people, yes. Say, for example, you are in an extremely long term relationship, across continents, and you get to see eachother barely once or twice per year. A film of the two of you together could prove beneficial and help some relationships. Now, some people get HUGE kinks out of other people watching them do the deed - that is why there are such genres as public secks, outdoor secks, etc etc. If the both of you got a kink out of this, why not put it up for people to see? [quote]I came up with this idea myself, no one told it to me. If anything you have been indoctrinated by the internet says that you can watch p0rn with no recessionals, which quite clearly isn't true. Plus what you said about people watch it for enjoyment not to objectify women, I would say that you don't smoke in order to die from it, it is a result that you have little to no control over. [/quote] We're comparing a form of media that is considered dirty to a past-time that can give you cancer. I understand your analogy but you could have used something more simmilar. Actually, search "Bugchasing" on wikipedia (Not on google for crying out loud!). This is proof that some people do things specifically for the negative effects. (I know it's not the issue at hand but it is related). The recessionals you speak of by all means exist in a minute form - Only people with extremely low (social) intelligence could possibly believe the extremes of prawnography to be acceptable, or even desireable. [quote] Of course I have a sex drive. But the whole "I would" is a sign that our society is objectifying women (and men). If it was a simple basic instinct, then we would naturally want to breed with the most healthy women, which isn't the case. It is because of things like p0rn that we look for women to be perfect, and we think that we can think about having sex with them if we want to. You see yes it is the sex drive, but it has been changed thanks to thinks like p0rn. [/quote] First of all, I'd like to thank you for agreeing that men are objectified as well as women. Okay. Let's define the term "objetification" (or objectifying or what have you) http://www.wordreference.com/definition ; objectification ; verb (objectifies, objectifying, objectified) * 1 express in a concrete form. * 2 degrade to the status of a mere object: a sexist attitude that objectifies women. "A secksist attitude that objectifies [b] women [/b]". WELL BLEEDIN' WELL, it looks like this little definition is in itself seckist, because it implies only WOMEN can be objectified. Ever seen a group of those moronic, pop-culture obsessed teen girls discuss, for hours on inane hours, how much they LOVE Justin Bieber, or how HAWT Edward whats-his-name from the Twilight novels is? Firstly, if objectification is a bad thing, women are just as guilty of it as men. Secondly, WHO THE BUGGERY SAID IT WAS A BAD THING IN THE FIRST PLACE? Why is it so bad to judge people on their looks? We may as well, as looks are an important part of any relationship. Not THE most important, but almost always an initial factor. 90% of people, I assume, base their first impression of people on looks alone, then mannerisms, and then a whole load of other things (Accent, hygeine, friends, money, anything). Looks are important. For example, uniform (in army, police, whatever) is mandatory. Looks, including clothing fashion, hair, makeup, and particularly tattoos can imply a lot about a person. Note I said imply. I don't see why judging women on their looks (AS WELL AS OTHER THINGS) Is so frowned upon when they seemingly do everything to ajust their looks to a way that satisfies them (Or, a way that imitates their favourite celebrity, fashion, or culture). Lets face it, a large number of men don't care about makeup, hair, fashion or accessories when they want a relationship, because all these factors are lies, a facade that women (and men too) hide behind. The vast majority of people want a natural looking, naturally healthy partner, with a personality that suits the suitor. (I find it wrong that anyone should be forced to change any non-dangerous, non-illegal factors of their personality or lifestyle). The point is, there is a balance between biology and cultural perception in attraction of the opposite secks, and it should be pretty even but it is probably more 65% biology - 35% cultural perception. Wanting to have intercourse with someone abstract based on looks is nothing to be ashamed of (eg "I would) - but acting this out is uncouth in a way, but acceptable in modern society. And I do not agree with this - It spreads STDs and causes a general smuttiness amongst the otherwise normal people who practice it (It being casual secks). My argument has probably kind of trailed off in to a rant by this point. Now, to the feller that said in some African cultures, being overweight is attractive, you are correct. BUT DID YOU KNOW, in most Western cultures, as little ago as just 100 or so years, being overweight was attractive to them, too? It implied wealth and a healthy diet. In this modern time western cultures do not find being overweight attractive because it implies the exact opposite. In the West now, an overweight person is more likely to be lower class and unhealthy, because the cheaper foods avaliable are the most unhealthy, fattening ones. What is attractive changes with the time period, not just culture. Also watching p0rnography and actively cheating on your other half are so extremely different I can't even begin to describe. A partner who sees watching p0rn as being unfaithful is a confused and self centered individual who obviously has identity and image issues and is willing to take it out on the other by [b]BANNING[/b] a hobby completely from them. This makes them extremely undesireable.