Friday, 11 March 2011


This one's going to get you lot going, but it might take our minds off the Tsunami that is just about to hit the Pacific Coast - good luck all of you down there.

Sarah T. has just removed her self-confessed 'rant' on pornography and replaced it with pictures of upturned boats. Much nicer, I feel, though - as a man (the primary target for ordinary porn) - I did tend to agree with what she said about it, despite feeling resentful at being made to feel so guilty.

To get it straight right from the start, I have never been into pornography - I find it ridiculous and utterly divorced from reality. It has always been reality that has turned me on, ever since I first got interested in girls at the age of 5 or so. Having said that, pretty much every man that has ever existed has been interested in porn - it's just the way we are programmed. Even those who do not actively seek it out may find themselves lingering over it for a second or two, if they accidentally come across it (sorry) whilst innocently looking for something else. Anyone who says they have not is just a downright liar.

If this were not the case, then all those cynical marketeers who exploit both men and women would not make so much money, would they? Even perfume adverts deploy a soft-porn approach which sometimes oversteps the bounds of public acceptability.

The main issue is about exploitation, and who is exploiting who.

People who regularly pay for pornography might argue that it is them who are being exploited, and that the models who pose for it are handsomely paid to do so. You might think that those who like looking at pornographic pictures would only need to buy one set in a lifetime, because - since the models are almost always completely naked - the changing fashions in clothing would have no effect on the market, and the human body changes little over the course of generations.

The main changes in the presentation of pornography might necessitate buying about 4 different copies of the same sex-act in one life time, so that the old glass slides are replaced with paper photographs; the 16 mm projector is replaced with a digital one, then upgrading it to a flat-screen, H.D. version, etc.

The changes in the law regarding pornography have now allowed images that could best be described as medical, so - short of turning the model inside-out - further graphic detail is impossible. Many women think that the prevalence of shaved women in the photos is an attempt to emulate pre-pubescence, but I sincerely believe that it is simply the final stage of maximum possible exposure, and not necessarily anything more (or less) sinister than that.

So why does the porn-addict require a constant flow of fresh images to keep him happy? Because the industry exploits the most damaging effect that pornography has on the human psyche - it jades people who look at the stuff. Eventually, it jades the way he looks at women in general, and his wife or partner in particular.

I know a few people who are pretty much addicted to porn, and they seem to have lost track of the reality of the situation regarding how they relate to people who they find sexually attractive. They laugh at me when I warn them how damaging it is to look at, and many of them live on their own. They think they need porn because they live on their own, and cannot see that it could well be the reverse situation. They think I am talking about the damaging effect that a hidden virus can have on their computor when visiting some of the more exploitative sites.

The genie is out of the proverbial bottle, and - like most activities which are potentially damaging to all parties - it is down to personal responsibility as to how you protect yourself as you make your way through life. If you're over 18, you have just as much right to look at the stuff as you have to star in it.

Here's a good idea - let's make it illegal for any woman under the age of 50 to take part in the making of pornography. Then everyone will be happy.


  1. so it is ok for men to be victimized?

  2. Funny you should ask that, Grouch. Here in Britain, it is illegal for a male to take part in the making of pornography under the age of 21, and I think that the limit is 18 for girls (though the law might have changed since I last checked). This would imply that men need more protection than women. An interesting notion.

  3. Actually, I think the law has changed, and that it's 18 for both parties. Difficult to enforce though, and there have been a few prosecutions of people who have been proved (after enquiries) to own videos starring 16 year-old boys.

  4. P.S. I think the old British idea that being gay is a mental disease might explain the disparity of the regulations aimed at males and females. Many people still think that you can 'catch' gayness.

  5. I wish I had "caught gayness" from Steve McQueen!

    Non the less.....I am always complaining of the spam email I get! Jesse looks at me suspiciously as if I'm doing nasty stuff on the web. Fact is, it is all Bible class adds (church porn) and coupons for cheap food (fat porn). That's what I get for buying him an electronic book from Amazon!

  6. You can 'catch gayness' from public toilets here in the UK, Grouch - it's called 'cottaging'. This is the reason why I am now forced to piss in the bushes when I'm in the park these days - they've closed down all the lavs. The few that remain open are lit with blue lights so that junkies cannot find the veins in their arms. Talk about 'frightening the horses'.

  7. odd you mention drugs. Drugs and porn go hand in hand, they say.

    I follow a blog of a heroin addict. Very bright man. But he cries to be released from heroins hold.

    He says London is the heroin capital of the world.

  8. Well said Tom...A great post.

  9. I know its an old arguement...victim vrs self determination.....

    I guess porn is like drugs, prostitution and the like......some people enter these worlds fully informed and with full autonomy and many others are victimised and exploited....

    I see saw between supporting one and defending and protecting the other!

    and as for your comment
    "let's make it illegal for any woman under the age of 50 to take part in the making of pornography"

    ........would bother me at all lol

  10. that should read
    would NOT

    have a nioe weekend!

  11. To be absolutely honest Tom - this kind of postcard was on every stand at the seaside when I was a kid - and until recent times I really didn't see any harm in it (I shall no doubt be castigated for that by womens' lib) - I have never felt discriminated against. As for pornography - it is alright for men and women to earn their living that way if they so wish - the trouble is that it is then available for young people to see. It won't ever go away.

  12. I agree with Raz and everything you've said Tom. While I'm typing this the Japanese tsunami and earthquake is going on, on the television and I just feel shocked silence and cannot contemplate everything's that going on!

  13. I didn't mention drugs, Grouch. I was thinking of them, but I didn't mention them.

  14. Thanks for this post Tom, eloquent!
    I do agree with you that porn jades. I think too much of it destroys anything real and good about sex. Such a shame.