http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXxyTPUQiVY

What I like about this is that they suggested she be filmed with her husband. Like you, Dr. Strokes, I'm into porn of coupes... it's so much more realistic. Heather Brooke's stuff is good in this area, though otherwise fairly generic.

— FFL | Unregistered, Swarthmore

"Right, I replied, because sexual harassment is suddenly negated when you add racist tropes about caricatured black men. I’ll stick with my Hitachi Magic Wand, thank you very much."

Oh yeah, 'cause the Hitachi Magic Wand doesn't perpetuate any racial stereotypes. Come on, it's Japanese, it's a soulless and mechanical, emasculated and non-threatening, and it's taking a job that a good, hard-working American could be doing!

:)

— FFL | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I think you would enjoy a few articles about this subject. I really recommend "reflexivity in the pornographic films of Candida Royalle," a critical analysis of the ways in which Royalle uses perspective to question traditional porn motifs. It's available in the gender studies database, under Gender and Women's Studies within the Tripod links. Royalle is a really cool director; she's pretty cerebral and her films are aimed at women, so if reading about porn doesn't do it for you, I think you'd really enjoy her films, based on your columns.

A couple other pieces are available on JSTOR, but I haven't read them yet: "positive, powerful pornography," by Marlene Wasserman, and "Porn in the USA" by Royalle herself. Or, instead of reading the academic literature on porn, you could go just watch some. Either could be rewarding.

— Ari | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

"I can’t condone speech in which a public figure is explicitly sexualized without their consent."

Really? I completely disagree. I think once you go in the public eye you're opening yourself up to much more than might be acceptable for a regular person, and in this case they're not even hassling the real celebrity, as the paparazzi is want to go overboard doing. Finally, I haven't seen seen it but I've seen clips (she doesn't even look that mnuch like Sarah Palin...), and this clearly has a satiric component as well. I think satire about a political figure should certainly be acceptable, despite its tasteless/classless form. Oh, and about attributing racism or sexism to any of this (and not the more likely reason that these candidates are much more attractive than your average politicians), I can't IMAGINE that a Bill Clinton porn doesn't exist...

Oh, and no Alice in Wonderland porn on the list?

— Peter '11 | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Thanks for the mention!

— Tony Comstock | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

...

wait, seriously?

— FFL | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Porn entirely fucked up my mum's idea of what sex is. I learned this over the summer, when she explained to me that porn, as a general rule, is the most realistic depiction of sex that one may obtain. My attempts to argue otherwise were met with anger...really frustrated anger, which isn't at all surprising considering.

I have never found porn that I can take even slightly seriously. Though this is not surprising either, given that my porn collection consists of Pirates XXX and Beast in Heat.

You know what's good? Erotic calculus. I don't know exactly what it is, but if I ever find out, I am sure it will be awesome.

Smut and trash, hooray!

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

First of all, I'd like to point out that Nailin' Paylin is one of the best political satires of our era. It is not sexual harassment to satirically portray somebody in such a manner (i.e. becoming "good friends" with two Russian men). The witty writing makes Nailin' Paylin second to only South Park, in my opinion, in recent political satire.

Besides, having seen the film, I can say that it features quite a "grand finale" and I would encourage anyone with a sense of humor to enjoy the film as well, possibly the best thing since Pirates (seriously who else can't wait for the sequel? I'm totally excited).

— Dr House | Registered, Swarthmore

House: You've clearly been deprived of decent political satire if you think this is even relatively good. I don't know what your definition of 'era' is, but even if you excluded everyone prior to the making of this film...
You at least read The Onion, ya?

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

The Onion has its good articles and its bad articles, but it is by no means the bar I would set for good political satire. Yes, The Onion can make me laugh unlike any other publication from time to time, but those gems of articles are few and far between.

You clearly can't see past some minor flaws in one of the greatest productions of political satire. It isn't so much the quality of the film, as it is the mere existence of it that makes it so great.

— Dr House | Registered, Swarthmore

The Onion is not the standard by which I judge satire. "A Modest Proposal", or maybe some of the old essays in "Punch" would be a more reasonable bar.
I find it impossible to fathom that political porn is new. It probably comes and goes with every election, coronation, violent coup, etc. That we've noticed this bit of porn is just indicative of the exponential increase in info transmission speed.
In other words, 'Nailin' Paylin' is probably not remarkable in its existence. Hustler has to work harder than this in order to impress me.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I agree with your approach to porn. Most porn, even what I watch, creeps me out in deep ways (I avoid the worst).

But how do you find "good porn?" I'm sure those DVDs are great and I'm glad you mention them, but what if I add practical requirements like "available online," "free" and "varied?" Is that too much to ask?

There's certainly passable <a href="http://literotica.com/">erotica literature</a> that can be found for free online (not to say that I don't find much of that troubling), but the youtubes of porn seem have entirely professional "amateur" stuff. I hate feeling guilty about watching something that turns me on.

Maybe I just need to let go of more of that internalized shame of watching porn and do more open eyed googling.

— SH | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

@ Dr. Strokes You are aware our films have been banned in countries like Australia, UK, Canada, Italy, right?

@SH If it's free, who will spend the money to make it?

— Tony Comstock | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

I guess I'm looking for "open source" porn.

— SH | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

"I hate feeling guilty about watching something that turns me on."

lol, that's so very Swarthmore. I bet you say it's "problematic."

And no, to reply to Strokes, I don't say it's getting all of its satire from making her an object. Again, I haven't seen all of it, but even from the one clip I have seen, the concept of her inviting the Russians from next door to her house is clearly deriving humor from her political positions (if you can call a talking point that ridiculous a political position) and not just from making her an object (there's definitely a "positions" pun to be made here.

Either way, I stand by notion that she put herself in the public eye, and I don't think "sexually threatening" speech should not be free unless it is actually threatening the person sexually, as in, "Hey everyone, my sources say Sarah Palin will be leaving her Alaskan home at 11pm tonight. Let's wait outside and have our way with her."

I ESPECIALLY disagree with not seeing it as worthy of being free speech because it's not high quality, because the problem with that is...who judges the quality? I'd certainly prefer to just let anything through. That said, you're free to criticize it for being terribly made, all the same.

— Peter '11 | Unregistered, Swarthmore

i think, Dr. Strokes, that whether it's "good satire" is pretty irrelevant to the core issue of whether it's ok to objectify famous people, or for that matter, anyone. I think the subject is more complicated than you initially suggest. You write that "Whether it's good satire or not, it's turning somebody into a pornographic object against their will" and that the film "a disgusting symptom of a culture in which objectifying people is OK."

Do you really think that objectifying people is never ok? For me, objectifying activities can be placed on a scale of acceptability, from an imaginative sexual fantasy, which is fine, to watching someone in their home, which is not. It's just a matter of degree, and making what, for you, are acceptable boundaries.

So for instance, is it ok to masturbate looking at a non-erotic picture of someone you know? How about making a second life avatar who exactly resembles a celebrity and having them have sex (before you laugh, that actually happens)? What about making porn which plays on a large part of the population's attraction to a famous person? My answers to those questions are no, yes and yes, but I could understand how you would feel differently about any of them; it's just a matter of where you draw the line. Some degree of objectification is harmless and even healthy (in bed, at least, I totally like to be objectified), and too much violates the right to personal sanctity. But it's not a categorically evil thing.

And this porn doesn't place high on my list of concerns. I'm much more worried about how celebrities get constantly followed by paparazi. If I were superfamous, I'd rather have the concept of me turned into a porn than cameramen constantly following me around, looking to get a glimpse up my skirt or just generally intruding on my personal space. Being famous kind of sucks, and "Nalin Paylin," in my opinion, is a lot less unpalatable than a lot of the other crap that happens to the people we want to be.

— Ari | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

I should clarify: by "putting someone in porn" I mean especially putting a *woman* in porn.

— SH | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

I think it's interesting that no one has responded to the "I’ve never thought of watching porn as somehow being unfaithful to my partner" comment. I realize that it's not the subject of this article, but maybe it should be. If I found my boyfriend watching porn, I would be deeply hurt. I think there is a reason that many people feel guilty when they watch pornography. I don't believe it's a part of a healthy sex life... I guess it would be more accurate for me to say that I don't think it's part of a healthy LOVE life. I'm sure there are a lot of people who disagree with me, but for the few students who don't, I wanted to speak up.

— Random Girl | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Have you watched mass media porn? It's a really fucked up version of sex. (To be fair, I've only seen a very limited subset of mainstream porn, but I think it's a more or less representative sample.) At best it glosses over issues of consent, but more commonly revels in a lack of consent, and uses that as a source of appeal. It's usually not explicit rape but playing with power imbalances -- in the sex, plot and cinematography -- that puts women very much subservient to me in ways that I don't find sexy.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with you if this stuff turns you on, and clearly mainstream porn does turn a lot of people on. It will even turns me on. Nor would there be anything necessarily wrong if this is how you had sex in a completely consensual way. But we need to recognize that there's a link both ways between your desires and what you see. And mainstream porn is generally not driving our sex lives in a healthy direction.

This is the core of the feminist argument against porn. Some would extend this by calling pornography fundamentally misogynist (I think Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin would be examples?), but I think that is going too far.

Obviously this is quite controversial, but psychology research does support these connections as at least plausible. Actually showing a causal relationship between porn and violence is extremely hard, but psych research has shown, for example, that watching violent media turns kids more violent. More generally, the principle of "catharsis" -- that indulging undesirable thoughts can work them out of your system -- has been shown to be dead wrong in nearly every case. (Yay Social Psych and Andrew Ward!)

The "implicit threat of violence" comes from the norms of mainstream porn and the way people are conditioned to watch it.

— SH | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Thanks for your response SH. I agree that there are serious issues surrounding the portrayal of women in mass media; this definitely includes pornography, but also the more subtle and insidious ways in which women are treated as the lesser sex. I don't feel, however, that you've adequately connected pornography and violence. That connection seems a bit tenuous.

Also, you write that porn "usually" doesn't portray "explicit rape" but instead plays "with power imbalances." But what if it did? Dr. Strokes's last column was about rape fantasies; why that not be ok in porn too?

I don't mean to be too harsh. I think I understand your point, and I understand it a lot better having read your most recent comment. Basically, as I see it, it's not the specific acts in porn that are objectionable. If mainstream porn is offensive for the reasons you've listed, i.e., women being subservient, not much effort at demonstrating consent, then BDSM porn, by implication, is 100% unacceptable and should be illegal, and I doubt you feel that way. Rather, the fact that degrading tropes are so widespread in porn, without any kind of context or reasonable balance (i.e, portrayals of women as dom), is potentially harmful.

But it isn't violence that I'm worried about. it's unreasonable expectations about love and sex that can develop. Most of us who have been in relationships can watch MSP (it's kind of like the MSM)and say "that's ridiculous; people don't say that kind of stuff in bed." But as a former 13 year old boy, I can fully testify that most adolescent males with computers encounter porn far before they are ready to be sexually active (at least, all my friends did). I know that in my first relationships, I knew a lot more about the loud noises women are "supposed" to make than I did about, say, foreplay.

So I think that porn is seriously unrealistic and perhaps the most obvious example of a larger societal disregard for women, but I don't think the claim to violence holds very well. (Dworkin and MacKinnon had a stronger case; the main actress in "Deep Throats," for example, was being beaten by her then boyfriend to make her stay in the movie. I think they went too far with it, extrapolating too much, and I tend to identify much more with the sex-positive feminists, but this comment is getting long enough as is). I just think that when kids discover porn, instead of mildly freaking out and implying it was wrong to like porn (like my parents did), I plan to talk to my kids about it, emphasizing

1) don't masturbate with too much pressure because then it will be harder to orgasm with softer manipulation later in life
2) it's ok to be turned on by whatever the hell you like; porn is there to show your fantasies, and you don't have to tell anyone what you watch (no one really wants to know)
3) The people, anatomies, expressions, behavior and attitudes expressed by porn are totally non-representative of real sexuality.

— Ari | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

"1) don't masturbate with too much pressure because then it will be harder to orgasm with softer manipulation later in life"

Word. Similarly, don't masturbate with too much vibration, for the same reason.

"2) it's ok to be turned on by whatever the hell you like; porn is there to show your fantasies, and you don't have to tell anyone what you watch (no one really wants to know)"

Yes. Catharsis doesn't stop you from thinking about something, but knowing that it's ok to be turned on by what does turn you on tends to let you accept it, rather than be driven to more extreme and secretive fantasies. Self-loathing is bad.

"But as a former 13 year old boy, I can fully testify that most adolescent males with computers encounter porn far before they are ready to be sexually active(at least, all my friends did). I know that in my first relationships, I knew a lot more about the loud noises women are "supposed" to make than I did about, say, foreplay."

Totally. Being a future Swattie (and being more turned on by the psychological rather than the visual or physical aspects of sex), I actually read a lot about sex before I found porn, and so at least I knew a little bit about foreplay. But it's really, really bad to learn about sexual stuff on your own at an age where you have to pretend not to be interested in it, and don't have an outlet for exploring it (at least I didn't, didn't even kiss someone until I was 17). Seeing porn before ever doing any kind of sexual activity sets high expectations for your partner (are they hot enough, are they loud enough, are they good enough, do they give head and why is it not as amazing as it's supposed to be), and puts a lot of pressure on you (for guys, am I hard enough, am I cumming soon enough or late enough, am I mechanical enough, am I showing too much emotion, am I supposed to be wearing sunglasses?).

I still think Porn is great and can be enjoyed with your partner or alone even if you're in a relationship... but we need a better way to learn about it in the first place.

— FFL | Unregistered, Swarthmore

"am I supposed to be wearing sunglasses?"

Yes

"(at least I didn't, didn't even kiss someone until I was 17)"

That sadly puts you ahead of a good number of Swatties.

— Dr House | Registered, Swarthmore

"Rather, the fact that degrading tropes are so widespread in porn, without any kind of context or reasonable balance (i.e, portrayals of women as dom), is potentially harmful."

Yes, I this is what I was trying to suggest.

And yes, the violence thing may very well not be the most messed up part about porn. I just didn't focus on those issues that you flesh out well.

----

So here's a question for the crowd: how does the mainstream porn one finds online differ from what one finds offline? Obviously there are differences due to the medium, but what about in terms of style or content? I've seen hardly any porn that wasn't downloaded from the internet, so I'm honestly curious...

— SH | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

I mean, I've never seen any porn that wasn't found on the internet and I don't think most Swatties will have. There is good stuff on the internet, you just have to look a little harder for it.

I think one of the difficulties of porn is that it is kind of numbing, and as a result it has to be extreme in order to be stimulating. Similarly, the more you watch it, the less it does for you, so you seek slightly more hardcore stuff, like chasing the high. In the words of Randy Marsh, "Once you jack off to Japanese girls puking in each other’s mouth, you can’t exactly go back to playboy." Anyway, that's probably why you don't see a lot of regular couples' porn. As for femdom, if you can't find femdom porn on the internet you're clearly not looking in the right place.

— FFL | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Okay, I'm going to stop talking out of my ass. Obviously I haven't looked very hard.

— SH | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

I hope you didn't take offense. It's true that the only femdom or non-mainstream porn I've found on the internet is either pay or "sample clips," and free seems to be a caveat of most of Swarthmore's porn viewership. The only only full-length porn I've seen has been "borrowed" from other Swarthmore students and it's all mainstream M/f or f/f (or M/f/f or M/M/f). I don't know why these students only download this, maybe it's all they can find for free. I'm cheap and I don't illegally download so all I really know are the sample clips, and you can find a free sample clip of pretty much anything.

— FFL | Unregistered, Swarthmore

This has been a really interesting discussion, and I'm happy to say, very polite, in contrast to certain others like the deer cull article. I'd like to throw in a few final points.

SH I found free porn by going to Alexa, looking up the most popular sites, and then going to the top three that were porn (if I recall, redtube.com, pornhub.com, and youporn.com, all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porn_2.0). I don't know why that would make you feel guilty. youporn has even gotten some praise because it portrays real couples having sex without the ridiculous staging; wikipedia says it can be a good guide for couples (so I think we can all agree it must be true).Personally I prefer youporn the absurd staging and cheesy dialogue of MSP totally turn me off; I just want to see sex. Or an actually good plot, and for that, I turn to Candida Royalle.

Lastly, freeones.com has a message board which sorts it all out by specific thing you want to see. So happy fapping!

I'm sorry Tony Comstock; I don't think that the pre-internet revenue model is going to work any better for porn than it did for music in an internet era. Between Bit Torrent, sidereel.com, youporn.com, playlist.com and wikipedia, we have grown up expecting files, tv shows, movies, music and information to be free (or at least with no direct investment in an individual purchase). I don't know what a better revenue model would be. That's a tough road you're walking.

random girl, I think Dan Savage covers the issue of your partner looking at porn pretty well: https://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/articles/6227/columns--savage-love

FFL, another solution to the increase need to get more and more hardcore is to, say, take a day off or two or even a week. With a little recharge my need for extremity goes way down.

It also turns out there is some research linking violent porn to less sympathy towards domestic abuse survivors. The violence/porn link is something I need to think about more. it's troublesome. I also still don't know what to think of Nailin' Paylin.

— Ari | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Oh you children have so much to learn about the wonderful world of porn if you think googling will get you the good stuff.

You also seem to forget rule 34 of the internet, "if it exists, there is porn of it." An amendment to that rule at this point should be "and it is free."

Anyone with any preferences, enough know-how, and some decent bandwidth can find whatever they want nowadays, however the amount that exists of different types of porns is simply proportioned to demand. It shouldn't surprise you that the majority of porn is geared towards straight men since they consistently have formed the backbone of the pornconomy.

Also, if you think watching porn is unfaithful to your partner, you have the maturity of a girl in middle school. Honestly, I don't even know where to begin with this. The Dan Savage article linked to by Ari pretty much sums it up: GET OVER IT. Every guy is going to watch porn, the author he quotes flawlessly compares watching porn to looking at a nice car. Also, by the same argument, don't be upset if he takes a peek at a lady walking past you two on the street. These are healthy, harmless avenues to keeping a man from growing insanely bored of you and cheating on you.

— Dr House | Registered, Swarthmore

Dr. House,

If you consider porn and checking out other women "healthy, harmless avenues to keeping a man from growing insanely bored of you and cheating on you," I feel a little sorry for you. When you run out of hot strangers and exciting pornography, I guess you'll just be forced to cheat on your boring, faithful wife.
And for the record, not "every guy" watches porn.

To everyone else,

I realize many people find it impossible to understand how pornography could hurt their partner. Maybe when you've seen it destroy a marriage, you will understand. If not, just know that there are many people in the world who feel the way I do, and we don't all "have the maturity of a girl in middle school." We just don't see anything healthy or beautiful in our partners jacking off to fake bodies and disturbing imagery.

— Random Girl | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I consider myself a pretty liberal person, but I am definitely with Random Girl and always will be, and no, I am not insecure or immature in the least bit. Also, anyone who thinks that you can adequately ("flawlessly")compare women to cars doesn't deserve to be in a serious relationship.

— L | Unregistered, Swarthmore

First, I love that you automatically assume that I am a man based on my opinion. This may be due to my use of logic and being reasonable, but I would like to know what makes you assume that I am a man rather than a woman with some amount of maturity and practicality.

I don't see how pornography in any reasonable circumstances could destroy a marriage, other than being a scapegoat for a much larger, fundamental problem in the relationship.

And yes, looking at other women is the same as looking at any nice thing. It is just looking, it means nothing. Have fun suffocating any men stupid enough to enter a relationship with you to the point of destroying it.

— Dr House | Registered, Swarthmore

Thanks, Dr. House, for being such a rude advocate of a reasonable position. your condescending insults sure do a lot of good for civil debate; good job! I'm hesitant to launch such a low blow, but you're in the running for becoming the jive turkey of the Daily Gazette.

Random girl and L, why do you feel the way you do? If you've seen pornography destroy a marriage, I am very sorry; I am sure that was awful. But in general, why are you against your partner watching pornography? It would seem that so long as both partners accept porn as part of their sex lives, and neither gets totally addicted, that a marriage can incorporate pornography pretty peacefully; perhaps your experiences contradict that. What makes you uncomfortable about it?

And, I'm sorry to say, finding a man who does not watch porn is going to be much, much harder than finding one who, once he knows you disapprove of porn, tells you what you want to hear.

Personally I'm with Savage that the demonstration of love is in the behavior: not cheating. Asking your partner not to desire or lust after others seems unreasonable, but you seem to feel differently, and I would like to know why. If it's not too much to ask, the relevant personal experiences might really fill in the picture here.

— Ari | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Ha. One comment about how this has been a "very polite" conversation and suddenly the gloves come off. Pornography probably *has* ruined a marriage or two by giving guys unrealistic expectations from their partner and making them feel unsatisfied with their real sex lives. With that said, I think a healthy conversation about it and perhaps watching a little bit of porn together might have saved a lot of those marriages. If there is no behind-the-back guilty desire aspect of it and if the second partner tries to understand what the first partner is into, they would have a good chance of being able to figure out what it was that the first partner was unsatisfied with and how to find a compromise. Let's not all jump on bashing the more conservative opinion--it's not like she's trying to ban us from doing anything.

Ari, isn't bit torrent illegal? How many of those sites are legal? And yes, taking breaks is good. I think that would have helped a lot of the people whose marriages were ruined by porn as well. It can be an addiction.

House, forgive me if I do not have enough "know-how" to find the good stuff. I don't think there's an amendment to rule 34 that says "and it's legal" (not to mention "and it doesn't have a virus that is going to fuck up your computer if you download it"). Find me a better site.

Oh, and it doesn't surprise me that "the majority of porn is geared towards straight men since they consistently have formed the backbone of the pornconomy," what does surprise me is that the porn that is geared towards straight men is so male-dominated, since 60% of men are submissive.

"When you run out of hot strangers and exciting pornography, I guess you'll just be forced to cheat on your boring, faithful wife."
Random Girl, if there were no hot strangers, who would men cheat on their wives with? The point isn't that we *have* to look at hot strangers or porn to avoid getting bored, it's that hot strangers are out there and it's better to allow your husband to fantasize about them a bit (and share those fantasies with you, if you want) than to try to suppress them until he resents you and feels like he has to go behind your back to get off (first with porn, but if he feels like he's already going behind your back to get off he may well feel like you can't do it for him and since he's already lying to you, it'll be easier for him to lie about this). I'm not saying every guy is into porn or every guy will react this way, but I think if he doesn't go behind your back for one thing, he'll be much less likely to go behind your back for another. Operant conditioning.

So what would you think about porn that did not involve "fake bodies and disturbing imagery"?

L., I totally agree about the car thing. Sorry House, admiring a car is not like admiring a woman. But maybe you can get Dr. Foreman to run an MRI on a guy's brain while he looks at cars and hot women and see if the same brain centers get activated. I doubt it.

Did anybody ever accidentally press enter after typing "www.mysp" into their browser, when trying to go to myspace, and run across that gigantic network of porn sites that you get to? That was my first experience with porn. Just curious.

— FFL | Unregistered, Swarthmore

"Ari, isn't bit torrent illegal?"

You call yourself a college student?

— Swattie Expat | Registered, Swarthmore

No can do on the MRI, Foreman would undoubtedly steal the car before the testing could be completed.

I wasn't saying that looking at a car will stimulate the same part of the brain as a woman; looking at anything nice will stimulate you in different ways. Looking at a nice car might stimulate your brain one way, a piece of art another way, and a beautiful woman yet another way. The point isn't that it is stimulating the same part of the brain or not, it is that you are just looking at something that it brings you pleasure to look at. Your favorite statue could be the Venus di Milo, but that doesn't mean every once in a while you can't admire David.

"Find me a better site."

It took me like 8 years to learn all I know about porn and the internet, why should I go giving away all of my knowledge for free? Maybe I could start selling my services and become a sort of porn tutor... but until then, you're on your own.

Also, I'd like to take a moment to point out that BitTorrent itself is not illegal. Purely theoretically, it can be used to illegally download copyrighted material (but that is against the law and should never, ever, EVER be attempted), but it can also be used to quickly distribute free media such as some linux distributions and other freeware.

I think a lot of people had the same first porn experience as me, in elementary school I was doing research for a report or something on the government and I went to www.whitehouse.com (instead of .gov). Back in the day it used to be a porn site, but it appears to no longer be (what a shame, they had a pretty original theme and everything for the site).

Also, Ari, jive turkey is seemingly gone, and I can't blame him, the new Jolt is terrible and he has probably graduated anyway. You cannot honestly compare his rambling and trolling on the Jolt to me, a paragon of rationality and pragmatism on the DG. Besides, although I may have been "a big meanie," I have given valuable advice. The vast majority of men watch porn, if not all of them, and any woman who enters a relationship with a man and expects him to idolize her as the alpha and omega of the female form is setting herself up for a faulty relationship. Guys like a little variety and to know that they have other options, and since most women, if not all, cannot shape shift into a different looking woman everyday to appease this, the next best solution is to let him harmlessly watch some porn and gawk at a girl in a mini skirt on the other side of the road from time to time. The fact that he stays loyal despite this freedom is how you know the relationship is worth something, if a man doesn't watch porn or ever look at other women while in a relationship it does nothing to prove his devotion since he isn't staying with his girlfriend despite his viewing of other women.

— Dr House | Registered, Swarthmore

FFL I agree with pretty much everything you said. I do agree with Dr. House on the car issue though; admiring things we don't have doesn't mean we're going to steal/cheat with them. All the porn sites I listed are legal. The rest of them range from legal to semi-legal, but who cares? Maybe you do; that's cool. I just get a little sense of satisfaction every time I pirate a movie. I'm not a big fan of the MPAA.

Dr. House, you're definitely not as obnoxious or troll-like as jive turkey (and as an aside, the new jolt is totally lame; I miss the old one). But neither is the DG as chaotic and profane as the jolt. It's not that your comments are similar, but rather than you two play a similar role: bringing the level of discourse down. It's true that you make rational and interesting points, which at least in this case, I agree with about 100%. Sometimes your comments are respectful and engaging. But when you mix reasonable critiques with your idiotic, not at all funny jabs, the conversation goes downhill. So I'm asking you, please, be more polite. The whole thread will benefit. I would appreciate it.

— Ari | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

People be trippin' yo.

— Argos | Unregistered, Swarthmore

"I wasn't saying that looking at a car will stimulate the same part of the brain as a woman; looking at anything nice will stimulate you in different ways. Looking at a nice car might stimulate your brain one way, a piece of art another way, and a beautiful woman yet another way. The point isn't that it is stimulating the same part of the brain or not, it is that you are just looking at something that it brings you pleasure to look at."

See, for me, it doesn't just "bring me pleasure" to look at another girl, it makes me want them. Now, I would never want them so much that I would cheat on my partner, but I can see how a partner of mine would have a problem with me desiring something that, if I were to get it, would be cheating. If I want a new car, sure I won't steal it but I might buy it. If I want another girl, it means I have some desire either to cheat on or dump my current partner. House, I like what you say about wanting other things and refraining from them being a testament to faithfulness, but you have to admit there's a difference between admiring a piece of art and admiring a piece of ass.

And speaking of asses, yeah, try to be a little more polite.

— FFL | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Seriously trippin' indeed.

— Dr House | Registered, Swarthmore

What about amateur porn? Mass market porn is okay, but what I like is watching amateur porn, real people, not just sad actors. Also, I wish more girls would admit to liking porn. I'm a woman but I like watching porn. I also like watching porn with my boyfriend. it doesn't for a minute make me think he'd rather have them than me- a) i'm sexier anyway and I know just how he likes it ;) and b) if that were the case wouldn't he just go out and find someone who looked like them?

Anyway I like to look at sexy people on the street and think about sleeping with them so it doesn't really bother me that my boyfriend may do it too. it's not like I'm going to go jump them right there, but hey, looking is free ha ha. But sometimes these discussions make me think I am the only girl that thinks that way :P

— a female | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Sorry about the "ass" remark, it sounded witty to me at the time. If that makes me "trippin'", then my bad, yo. Hope this doesn't kill the conversation.

Anyway, "a female," I totally agree. In fact, you sound scarily like my ex girlfriend, and you are on a non-Swarthmore address. I hope you're not.

Of course, the fact that I've met so few women who like watching porn and admit to fantasizing about people that when I hear about one I immediately wonder if it's my ex, kind of says something about either the number of women who do like porn, or the number of women who will admit to it.

— FFL | Unregistered, Swarthmore

I am not your ex girlfriend but I'm glad to know there's at least one other chick like me out there ;D

— a female | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Thank goodness.

— FFL | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Ari,
What was so bad about the comments on the deer cull editorial? I thought they were a little heated but not so impolite as to lower the quality of discussion. But maybe I'm biased just because I was also irked by the author's moralizing and was probably more sympathetic to some of the blunter comments as a result.

But even so, I am interested in where you draw the line between which comments are harmful to civic debate and ones that aren't. I agree that if someone says something inflammatory and false/misleading (I'm thinking of Ann Coulter here, liberal that I am, though she's probably not the best example), I'd say that's worse for civil debate that someone saying something substantive/engaging but also rude. The later only hurts the person who makes the comment (for example, people think Dr. House is a douche so they are less likely to hear him/her out) whereas the former derails the debate.
Thoughts, anyone? Ari, I'm curious about which comments you objected to on the cull article.

Also, how are you all using the DG's voting system? I still can't figure out why some innocuous comments are getting voted down.

— '12 | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Ari - Thanks for the tips. Actually redtube and youporn are my (relative) favorites but a lot of it still creeps me out. I can't quite turn off that analytical lens even as I'm jacking off.

I think part of the trouble with sites like that is sorting through the chaff. I will definitely take a look at your other suggestions, though.

By the way, my first encounter with porn was seeing a "bangbros" clip some boys on my hall were watching during a residential program I did at a college while in high school. I was 16 and pretty sheltered, and it creeped me out, though probably not for the reasons it does now.

— SH | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Hey '12, good question. I'm not sure where to draw the line; I don't have a systematized response yet, and I'll think about it more/consult others. My first stab at it is this. It's not that discourse declines every time there's an ad hominen attack. When I'm chatting with friends about, say, a movie, the substantive points usually get mixed in with assertions that one is less qualified to hold an opinion because their mother chooses to wear combat boots (I really don't know what that means but I say it a lot), and the discussion will continue on in a good-natured way.

The quality of discourse declines when an insult causes one of two things: a hostile, nonsubstantive response, or a non-response. The first happens when insults are responded to with insults; eading back and forth "you suck for x reason" matches is distracting and not nearly as interesting, I think, as the original discussion taking place.

The second appears to have happened on this post, when Dr. House said that "random girl" had the maturity of a middle school girl for believing porn was tantamount to cheating, and she responded to the insult and then said little else. Then L jumped in and said that Dr. House doesn't deserve to be in a serious relationship. This is a shame, because I really don't care what House thinks of RG's maturity level, or L thinks of House's relationship suitability. The cost of such rewarding comments was that we never got to hear RG elaborate on why she felt the way she did, and that's a shame; I really wanted to know.

I like the Gazette. We generally do pretty well in civility, using a mixture of pseudonyms and real names to have some interesting conversations in which a variety of thoughtful viewpoints are exposed and fleshed out. Sometimes, however, the discussion goes overboard. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for name calling; if there were a ya mama thread on the DG, that would be awesome; feelings wouldn't be hurt and maybe people would actually try to be funny instead of insulting people to get them to shut up. But I think it should be separate from the policy discussions. The line, therefore, is crossed when the responses to insults become disengaged from the ideas; though it is incumbent on each of us to turn the other cheek, responsibility still falls with the original insulter. I singled House out because I like what they have to say and would appreciate if they toned the douche dial down.

— Ari | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Yeah, I really hope Random Girl comes back to recount her experience with porn destroying a marriage and to answer some of the other questions we had. I imagine, however, that this discussion will now die as we go into Thanksgiving break. Random Girl, if you're out there, please come back.

Dr. Strokes-- It wasn't just the fact that she liked porn, there were some other characteristics, though many of these, like enjoying porn, we don't see/hear enough of: her openness in discussing porn and her fantasizing and sometimes objectifying of men, and her confidence in knowing that her boyfriend wouldn't get drawn away by porn or other women because she knows just how he likes it.

That's the best thing about long-term, close sexual relationships. In a good one, as the novelty wears off, the awesomeness of the other person knowing exactly what you want takes its place.

I guess we just have to make it our life's duty to introduce women everywhere to the right kind of porn!

— FFL | Unregistered, Swarthmore

Re: Argos
Subject: Erotic Calculus

Well, it's pretty close...

http://www.perpetualocean.com/amgallery8.html

— N | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore

Wow, first thanks for the mention Dr. Stokes!
Sounds like there is a lot of debating on this piece. I am sure that Tony, Madison Young, and Shine Louise Houston and I would all love to come speak at Swarthmore and share a little bit more about each of our works and how they work in and/or against mainstream representations or pornography/erotica.

xo,
Tristan

— Tristan Taormino | Unregistered, Non-Swarthmore