Porn fits this model not that it is "conspicuous" (in fact it the opposite, as you and Doug pointed out) but in that it is aspirational to achieve a status defined by conspicuous consumption. Fort example, male centered sex is part of macho culture and thus a "must have" for certain guys, and consumption of porn either solitary or with other guys (GIs and fratboys do that quite a bit, or so so I heard) becomes a part of this status.
But again as I already said - this is my conjecture. You do not have to buy it if you think it is unreasonable. The main reason I used it was to counter Joanna's statement that the argument in the paper implies bleakness of sex life. I countered by saying that it is porn-influenced expectations that changed, not necessarily the life itself. It is pretty much same mechanism that drives status consumption - at first it aspiration but then it becomes something to be expected in everyday life.
In other words, living in a two bedroom apartment may be perfectly suitable for most people, but having lived in a Macmansion to for social status reason it appear grossly inadequate. Likewise, having "missionary" sex may be fine for most people, but after consumption of mass quantities of porn it appears bleak and inadequate.
Wojtek
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Woj, this is Veblen: I see your conspicuous mansion on Park Avenue, your
> manor house in Gladstone, NJ, or Westchester County (maybe, if I can get
> there and see through the trees/walls), your limo, your Maserati or Tesla,
> your country club, your tuxedos and low slung open back dresses, your
> private schools, your jewelry, your penthouse offices, your fashion shows,
> your vacation homes, your private jets, your schooners and islands, your
> party scene, and your engagement, wedding and death notices but you and I
> (and anyone else I know) never meet... you and yours establish and
> characterize and reinforce your status in private, a long away - in
> distance or networks - from me and the rest of the public, though of course
> that distance means that we understand the difference and reinforce your
> status at the same time.
>
> This is just a little different than watching porn on line, in private with
> the curtains closed so no one knows, eh?
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 23, 2012, at 11:30 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
>>
>> > Doug: "Except that most people now watch porn all by themselves"
>> >
>> > [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.
>>
>> Status? They watch in private with the curtains closed because it's
>> embarrassing.
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *********************************************************
> Alan P. Rudy
> Assistant Professor
> Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
> Central Michigan University
> 124 Anspach Hall
> Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
> 517-881-6319
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- Wojtek http://wsokol.blogspot.com/