I totally don’t understand how my above post got posted… that was my brain-diarrhoea, pre-edited. I thought I posted my less vitriolic version. I apologize for the inflammatory bits—pick your own, it was all a first draft.
I’m all for academic discussion. Is that what this screening was about? The original question asked if porn should be screened as an event. An event, in my mind, is usually associate with beer, ice cream, or flag-waving. People tend to enjoy events. Such was my reading of the question.
What I conveyed in my unseen-second version was that men need better sources—living women—to gain their sexual education from. Porn hurts women in a very literal, physical sense, besides the effect on the psyche of repetitive exposure. That is what I am opposed to. I’ve wound up bleeding profusely due to foreplay “techniques” men have learned from watching porn. It’s really sad what is out there, and the perception it breeds of what is “pleasurable” to women’s bodies.
Please don’t talk about what’s normal for guys. If you’re talking norms, I understand the sentence. But it’s too late in civilization to pretend that the word “normal” has not taken on connotations that leave many people feeling like there is something wrong with them. It is no more the norm for guys to sit around watching hardcore pornography (we’re not talking softcore) on a consistent basis than it is for them to not sit around watching hardcore porn. Of course, compulsive viewers are obviously out there. Again, talking about specific effects of porn and not generalizations, I dated a man who had been addicted to hardcore pornography and coke for 12 years. Lost his wife. Lost his kid. Tried to kill himself three times. I broke up with him after he asked me to pee on him. Normal to watch porn, and normal to act it out? How bloody unfortunate for those of us who actually see the effects firsthand.
I do not believe the governor (?) was right in threatening the withdrawal of funds, but I’m sure everyone here must understand that he was put in a very difficult position by this issue, especially in the eyes of his constituents. He may have been acting against his personal beliefs, for all we know.
“The amendment would have made exceptions for films shown in a classroom for a course such as cinematography.” (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1639999)
I believe that a showing as part of a classroom lecture conjures a completely different set of circumstances—that is, educational circumstances—than a student “event” viewing of porn. That reads as prurience. Could have something to do with the perception of this event. Were the events in Cali, etc, screened in class, or by students on campus? Just curious.