Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[agrohimgfu]

• <a href="https://www.port... by agrohimgfu
  [Yesterday at 01:50:21 AM]
• Professional Advice: Reco... by Davidfak
  [May 10, 2024, 11:59:18 AM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 10, 2024, 03:21:43 AM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Antonioair
  [May 09, 2024, 04:28:57 PM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 07, 2024, 07:52:26 PM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 07, 2024, 01:37:16 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 4952
• Latest: WllkeiJocky

Stats

• Total Posts: 129628
• Total Topics: 7187
• Online Today: 141
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[Crystalmonkey]

Here's what I have so far:

Argument: Porn doesn't subordinate women, people subordinate each other and themselves.

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

Note: Porn is essentially a Speech Act, and Speech Acts are communal.

Pg. 6 "The [Speech Act] theory also brings together the inner self and the outer world, the individual and the communal, but it does so only when we participate perceptibly in communal life."


Argument: Is subordinating women really wrong? Morality is relative, as is easily seen, and what about cases like Dom women and sub men?

Argument: Humans are sexual beings, and to completely forget about one aspect is a giant mistake. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they desire, whether there is a camera around or not.

Note: Men may not be "only about sex", but it certainly is a part of being alive.



What else should I include? I suppose I should have more evidence too.

[Crystalmonkey]

I'm essentially trying to say that Porn isn't wrong.

[hackess]

Maybe there is a single bachelor/ette out there that wants to watch a video clip of a footjob, who am I to say that it is against the law to do so?

Outside of murder, rape or the involvement of animals, the dead or individuals below the legal age of consent, whatever gets you off is your business.

If you want to be beaten with a rusty spoon by an overweight man wearing a Bea Arthur mask and a Speedo while a bevy of Asian male models give your genitals a tongue bath, knock yourself out.

I object to beastiality because animals, like children, cannot legally give consent.

[Crystalmonkey]

I suppose the question is what are the effects on society, does porn cause harm to women?

[GenStyx]

I suppose the question is what are the effects on society, does porn cause harm to women?

I've seen some crazy German porn and the last time I checked Islamic women in Afganistan and such have it pretty bad. My friend who looks at a lot of porn hasn't seen one Afgani porn. Would the burka still be worn?

Different cultures have different views. I dislike the idea of a culture being forced or limited. In the land of the free, we ought to be free to develop our own viewpoints and values.

Outside of murder, rape or the involvement of animals, the dead or individuals below the legal age of consent, whatever gets you off is your business.

Concur. I tend to prefer things to be within reason and respectful.

[hackess]

I suppose the question is what are the effects on society, does porn cause harm to women?

A corollary would be asking whether pornography is the only thing that causes harm to individuals. Does it just exacerbate stereotypes?

[Crystalmonkey]

If that's the case, does that justify banning it?

[TheJudge]

If you want to trash de definition more, you could say that according to it, pictures of 10 guys chain bum fucking each other is not pron and you think they should use giant posters of gay men to decorate school halls as a celebration of art. Or maybe if they don't dig the gay shish kabob thing, they could use gay pedofile pics instead. You know, for the kids.

[GenStyx]

Or maybe if they don't dig the gay shish kabob thing, they could use gay pedofile pics instead. You know, for the kids.

[Demosthenes]

I think the problem with the "is porn wrong" question is that it's 100% subjective.  Most morality questions are.

The real question here is "is it wrong to ban something for EVERYONE just because YOU consider it immoral?"

In my opinion that is FAR more "wrong" than any immorality that arises from the subject at hand.

I would far prefer my hypothetical children be exposed to two people making love than have them exposed to the vulgar obscenity called censorship.

[sociald1077]

I have been reading along these post and many good points have been brought up.

I myself am not in favour of banning porn. But does that mean that it should be broadcast to me on every street cornor? No. I beleive there should be some amout of good taste in the distrabution of adult material. I may not find it obscene, but I know my parents do.

As far as the question of porn hurting women, I would say for the most part no. The women in the industry know what they are doing, and profiting (if only marginaly) from it. I have read that some serial killers/rapists use pornografic matierial as catalists to their crimes, but there are often many other factors that also contribute to their behavior. But should that alone call for the out right ban of porn, no.

I'm sorry I dont have the most collected thoughts, I dont usally chime in on these debates in a written format.

[ivan]

Catherine MacKinnon is an extremist feminist. Her opinions -- like those of fellow extremist feminist Andrea Dworkin -- should be taught in schools with the same caveats as are applied to unapologetic racists, mysoginists, anti-semites and the like. The only reason to study MacKinnon is to learn about extremism in the feminist movement. To consider her a spokesman for feminism is like considering Hitler a spokesman for German culture. If you want feminism, read Camille Paglia. She correctly points out that extremists of all stripes converge.

Nothing could be more relevant to the dominance of images in our celebrity culture, which strives to turn us all into pagan idolators. Suspicion of or hostility to images persists in the American Puritan tradition, which surfaced at both extremes of the political spectrum in the 1980s: first, in the attempted legal suppression of sex magazines, including mainstream Playboy and Penthouse, by anti-pornography feminists Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon; and second, in the attack by Christian conservatives on the National Endowment for the Arts for funding blasphemous, homoerotic, or sadomasochistic photographs by Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe. Literal iconoclasm was undertaken in Afghanistan in 2001 when the Taliban ordered the pulverizing by artillery fire of ancient colossi of Buddha, carved out of a cliff at Bamian.

(From The Magic of Images:  Word and Picture in a Media Age by Camille Paglia.)

[Crystalmonkey]

I asked the question, how do you define porn. I figured it was important to define the terms we are using, and porn was being thrown around all over the place, so it should definately be fleshed out and explored.

To that end, it seems people have seperated Porn from Erotica, saying that:

Porn - All about violence, dominance, sex used to reinforce/create social inequality, shows pain = pleasure, uses sex as a weapon


vs


Erotica - nice, between equals, self-expression, positive, both are people, mutual on all levels


"Erotic as the mutually pleasurable sexual expression between people who have enough power to be there by positive choice."


vs


Moral Realism - explicit, pleasure = pleasure, pain = pain



The question was though, where was someone who said "Hey Bob, I really want to be tied up tonight" getting the idea from.

An example of this could be shown by the house elves in the Stupid Sexy Flanders universe. They seem to be happy to serve, but the question is, do they serve because they like to, or do they like to because of their history.

In other words, are they basically working within their "limits" in order to accomidate their situation. No doubt, house elves seem happy to serve, and the woman might be happy to be tied up, but that seems more like a twisted happiness.

We have to look at social context, and we are a society that values equality. If Porn promotes social inequality, it is a harm to that society.

Albert Memmi, in 'The Colonizer and the Colonized', wrote:

"But, one will insist, is the colonized truly lazy? To tell the truth, the question is poorly stated. Besides having to define a point of reference, a norm, varying from one people to another, can one accuse an entire people of laziness? It can be suspected of individuals, even many of them in a single group. One can wonder if their output is mediocre, whether malnutrition, low wages, a closed future, a ridiculous conception of a role in society, does not make the colonized uninterested in his work...Essentially, the independence of the accusation from any sociological or historical conditions makes it suspect." (Pg. 21)

Basically, does the house elf, and that woman, suffer from "malnutrition, low wages, a closed future, a ridiculous conception of a role in society, etc..."



Just trying to play devil's advocate.

[Phife]

Here is a different take:

Let's not even consider the porn/adult woman relationship...or the porn/adult man relationship.  What about children who have access to porn on the internet?  Is this harmful?  Does it encourage unhealthy behavior and stereotypes?  Is it generally detrimental to childhood development?  And should we be more strictly regulating the internet so that porn (along with pro-suicide/anorexia/cutting/etc site, hate sites, etc) are not accessible to children?  If so, how would we do this?  How much will it cost to implement?  Who gets to set the ratings?  

Damn.  This question is too big for us little peons to figure out.  [sarcasm] I guess we will have to let our esteemed leaders handle it...like Slick Willy and Manly Reno so cleverly did. [/sarcasm]

[ivan]

Slick Wi....?



Oh. Waco.



Right.

[Phife]

Slick Wi....?



Oh. Waco.



Right.

Oh but I am not to the right.  Really.

[TheJudge]

I really like one of websters definition of pornography.

"The depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement"

Based on that definition, the intent of the material is the defining factor, not necessarly the material itself. I also like the fact that this defenition doesn't restrict pornography to movies or images alone.

[pbsaurus]

I really like one of websters definition of pornography.

"The depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement"

Based on that definition, the intent of the material is the defining factor, not necessarly the material itself. I also like the fact that this defenition doesn't restrict pornography to movies or images alone.

You intended to make me hr0ny by writing that didn't you Judgie?  Pornographer!

[TheJudge]

NO but I could sure go for a greasy poutine covered in melting cheese and hot gravy! AAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh....

That's the stuff!

[pbsaurus]

Poutineographer!

[Crystalmonkey]

Yeah the idea of intent came up when we used talked about that definition.

It's also interesting to think about what happens if the person has an aesthetic response when you were trying to get a sexual response, and vice versa.

[Phife]

Crystalmonkey, have you guys talked about the "community standards" argument, i.e., that what a community deems porn is porn?

[Demosthenes]

Crystalmonkey, have you guys talked about the "community standards" argument, i.e., that what a community deems porn is porn?

Individual rights > Community Standards

[Phife]

Crystalmonkey, have you guys talked about the "community standards" argument, i.e., that what a community deems porn is porn?

Individual rights > Community Standards

Tell that to the creators of "Deep Throat" and the theaters in Times Square that showed it.

What the Courts have told us is that obscenity is defined by community standards.  Here in Waco that means no FHM or Maxim...in Massachusetts that means no holds barred.

[ivan]

Doesn't the Internet render local community standards moot? FHM is on line. You can see Rachael Ray half-naked even in Waco.