Post by Darren Dirt on Jul 20, 2006 15:30:18 GMT -5
I consider this article as containing some amazingly insightful observations... Seriously.
Even "scientific", one could argue...
"Why does porn got to hurt so bad?"
armedndangerous.blogspot.com/2002_06_02_armedndangerous_archive.html#77482059
Don't get me wrong, here. I'm a functioning heterosexual male; I enjoy looking at naked women. It's most pictures of naked women I can't stand. I've found by experience that most of the vast amounts of pornography available on the Internet leave me feeling more repelled than aroused. And not out of puritanism either; I have no intrinsic moral objection to porn, and I judge that the consequentialist arguments against it don't stand the reality test.
No, the truth is that I find most porn subtly and deeply ugly.
Like any good scientist, I proceeded to do some research. I surfed to a well-known porn index site and random-sampled the content, sticking to pictures of single unclad women in order to control some obvious variables. Using my own hypothalamus as a calibration instrument, I graded the samples into "excellent" (I want to keep a copy) "good" (pleasant to look at) "mediocre" (mechanically arousing but unpleasant) and "bad" (just plain unpleasant). There were very, very few "excellents"
...once I corrected for my autonomic biases, a clear pattern emerged, especially in the "bad" category. Many images contained elements that were, at least to me, anti-arousing. Over-styled hair -- especially over-styled blonde hair. Fake pearls. Strappy high heels being worn by otherwise naked women. Feather boas and tacky hooker lingerie. Bloated silicone breasts. Excessive makeup; excessive makeup was, in fact a rule even in most otherwise uncompromised images.
The pattern was not surprising; I had had some insight about this before without thinking it through completely. Bad porn is full of the fetish signifiers of sexual allure, to the point where they crowd out the reality of sexual allure.
NOTE: The article is articulate and thought-provoking, but the 560 comments are (in some cases -- i.e. the non-autospammer ones) even more thoughtful...
Even "scientific", one could argue...
"Why does porn got to hurt so bad?"
armedndangerous.blogspot.com/2002_06_02_armedndangerous_archive.html#77482059
Don't get me wrong, here. I'm a functioning heterosexual male; I enjoy looking at naked women. It's most pictures of naked women I can't stand. I've found by experience that most of the vast amounts of pornography available on the Internet leave me feeling more repelled than aroused. And not out of puritanism either; I have no intrinsic moral objection to porn, and I judge that the consequentialist arguments against it don't stand the reality test.
No, the truth is that I find most porn subtly and deeply ugly.
Like any good scientist, I proceeded to do some research. I surfed to a well-known porn index site and random-sampled the content, sticking to pictures of single unclad women in order to control some obvious variables. Using my own hypothalamus as a calibration instrument, I graded the samples into "excellent" (I want to keep a copy) "good" (pleasant to look at) "mediocre" (mechanically arousing but unpleasant) and "bad" (just plain unpleasant). There were very, very few "excellents"
...once I corrected for my autonomic biases, a clear pattern emerged, especially in the "bad" category. Many images contained elements that were, at least to me, anti-arousing. Over-styled hair -- especially over-styled blonde hair. Fake pearls. Strappy high heels being worn by otherwise naked women. Feather boas and tacky hooker lingerie. Bloated silicone breasts. Excessive makeup; excessive makeup was, in fact a rule even in most otherwise uncompromised images.
The pattern was not surprising; I had had some insight about this before without thinking it through completely. Bad porn is full of the fetish signifiers of sexual allure, to the point where they crowd out the reality of sexual allure.
NOTE: The article is articulate and thought-provoking, but the 560 comments are (in some cases -- i.e. the non-autospammer ones) even more thoughtful...