[WS:] I do not think this is necessarily germane to the conspicuous consumption argument. If I remember correctly, Veblen talked about a sense of status that is created outside public view. First, consumption itself was supposed to be a public signifier of leisure when it was not publicly observed. Second, people engage in conspicuous consumption to satisfy their own sens of self-worth by achieving a certain socially defined standard of consumption, whether anybody watched them or not.
But in any case, the conspicuous consumption is my interpretation of the argument made in the article that Joanna refers to. Their argument explicitly rests on the assumption of neurological addiction of porn, which I am not sure is true. But I think the argument can be made even if the neurological addiction assumption is false, by assuming the conspicuous assumption pattern of behavior.
wojtek
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
>> In other words, it is the
>> conspicuous consumption argument applied to sex.
>
> Except that most people now watch porn all by themselves.
>
> The dollar numbers in that piece are grossly overdone.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- Wojtek http://wsokol.blogspot.com/