quote:Lance B. Johnson of BGin3D reckoned that "for several decades, the adult entertainment industry has driven adoption of every significant new entertainment delivery system — the VHS home-video craze in the 1980s, the satellite television mania in the 1990s and the present day internet."
quote:But nevertheless, when the adult industry gave the thumbs up to VHS, the result of the format war was pretty much a foregone conclusion.
What followed is now common knowledge. The explosion in the early 80s of VCRs and home-video rentals did for the adult industry pretty much what TV did for pro football.
Today, of course, there is a new format war at hand, one between two high-definition discs whose similarities far outweigh their differences.
Nevertheless — whether it be out of habit or simply a wish for the whole thing to be over and done with — many have started looking toward the adult entertainment industry to get a better feel of which way the high-definition winds are truly blowing.
It's really quite interesting that what seems to drive entertainment technologies today, and in the future, will be the pornography industry. I guess it was steel in the 19th century, cars in the 20th. and now...? So weird.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
This HD disk was was settled long ago. Your Fox article is 3 years old.
And I don't understand your last point. Steel and cars drove the entertainment industry?
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
No, these were the industries that we associate with those centuries. Now it seems this is the defining 21st. Century industry:
Second, when I think of the major industries of the 21st century, the first thing that pops into my head certainly isn't pornography. I think of industries related to medicine, or the Internet, or more generally, an explosion of information technologies (TV, Internet, personal computers, cellphones, etc). Perhaps pornography is a natural extension of these information technologies. But it's certainly not the defining industry of the century.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think we'll see a similar theme to household android purchases. (Already have, for a generous definition of android.)
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I don't think porn had anything to do with Blu-Ray winning. Mostly because more people use the internet to get porn then anything else. Does anyone actually go out and pay $30 for a porn movie?
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
While it was true of porn two decades ago, the thing with the new dvd formats thats fundamentally different is the proliferation of internet porn. It seems unlikely that the specific type of HD really mattered.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As a truism, I think "When choosing between two competing technologies, the one that makes it easier for men to view naked women will outcompete the other" is fairly invulnerable.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
My thoughts. Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Hey, we agree Tom! Look, one of the few highly profitable industries on the internet has been porn. And it's now extremely mainstreamed -- to the point that family hotels like the Marriott make a fortune off this stuff in the pay-per-view services they offer. Otehr large corporations are involved too -- just watch the Frontline documentary I linked. I have read that much of the graphics improvements on the internet was driven by porn. If the internet is the ultimate form of democratization then we can see how people vote on this issue.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by happymann: My thoughts.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
I took a history of information class once and I remember my teacher saying that every development in communications technologies/infrastructures has been financed in large part by pornography. It's nothing new.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well yes. Gutenberg, for example, wanted to print Bibles. Now there's porn for you.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Along those lines, the Diamond Sutra, the "the earliest complete survival of a dated printed book" dated to 868 is a Buddhist text. Pretty sexy stuff.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Edit: The post I responded to below seems to have disappeared.
Lalo: Are you suggesting that porn use contributes towards a reduction of not only rape, but all violent crime? Could you explain how those too are even correlated. Many criminals admit to heavy use of porn, are they simply not viewing enough, or are there people to whom porn isn't enough of a braking mechanism?
Are you further suggesting that Iranian youths are more liberal than their government because they are viewing porn?
Or are you suggesting that the desire to view porn increases the likelihood somebody will seek to obtain high speed internet, and as a side effect, exposure to liberal progressive thought also increases?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Are you suggesting that porn use contributes towards a reduction of not only rape, but all violent crime?
Males tend to become more docile after sex. Perhaps that's the mechanism?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Are you suggesting that porn use contributes towards a reduction of not only rape, but all violent crime?
Males tend to become more docile after sex. Perhaps that's the mechanism?
I don't think that statement holds much water. Again, criminals often report heavy use of porn. It seems just as likely that porn use engenders greater desire for porn. Not necessarily more kinky or extreme forms, but an increase in frequency.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, here's a study that detects an effect on rape by availability of pornography over the Internet but detects no effect on homicide.
quote:Using state-level panel data from 1998-2003, I find that the arrival of the internet was associated with a reduction in rape incidence. However, growth in internet usage had no apparent effect on other crimes. Moreover, when I disaggregate the rape data by offender age, I find that the effect of the internet on rape is concentrated among those for whom the internet-induced fall in the non-pecuniary price of pornography was the largest – men ages 15-19, who typically live with their parents. These results, which suggest that pornography and rape are substitutes, are in contrast with most previous literature.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmm, here's a study that detects an effect on rape by availability of pornography over the Internet but detects no effect on homicide.
quote:Using state-level panel data from 1998-2003, I find that the arrival of the internet was associated with a reduction in rape incidence. However, growth in internet usage had no apparent effect on other crimes. Moreover, when I disaggregate the rape data by offender age, I find that the effect of the internet on rape is concentrated among those for whom the internet-induced fall in the non-pecuniary price of pornography was the largest – men ages 15-19, who typically live with their parents. These results, which suggest that pornography and rape are substitutes, are in contrast with most previous literature.
(Blackblade: Whoops, sorry. I thought my argument was too tangentially related to the subject, so I deleted it. I'll try to recreate the post from memory.)
It's worth pointing out that porn will save the world on more fronts than just technological advancement. Even in the West, state-by-state analyses of increased broadband Internet have shown dramatic, causal drops in violent crime and sexual assault. Apparently giving potential rapists a release for their sexual urges is a very, very good thing.
If that's the US, can you imagine the revolution that must be going on in the Muslim world? Even now, we're seeing the younger generation of Persians rebelling against their conservative Muslim government. I think a huge reason for that is access to the Internet -- specifically, access to taboo subjects like pornography, which in turn develops a disregard for these taboos and an appreciation for liberal thought.
Blackblade, nobody's said that porn stops all crime. But yes, there's a very real relationship between access to pornography and drops in sexual assault. Here's an academic paper on the subject: http://www.toddkendall.net/internetcrime.pdf
I should point out that I don't look at porn often and I think people who do are trashy. But my personal distaste doesn't cloud my appreciation for the good pornography's done in the world.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(Thats actually the same study, and reading more in detail it says this "Thus, I support this claim by showing that the internet has no apparent substitution effect on any of 25 other measured crimes, with the exception of the only other well-defined sex crime, prostitution." Whatever effect Internet pornography has, it appears to be fairly limited to these two crimes.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I should point out that I don't look at porn often and I think people who do are trashy.
That's gonna mean that, to you, about 88-90% of men and 60-66% of women are 'trashy' :/
commendable attitude really, separating the analysis of the data from personal distaste.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lalo:
quote:Blackblade, nobody's said that porn stops all crime.
You're right, nobody said that.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I should point out that I don't look at porn often and I think people who do are trashy.
That's gonna mean that, to you, about 88-90% of men and 60-66% of women are 'trashy' :/
commendable attitude really, separating the analysis of the data from personal distaste.
No offense intended. You'll notice I said "often" -- I looked at my share as a teenager, and I can understand why single guys resort to porn. It's just something that people should grow out of.
In other words, don't prematurely shoot your wad on what should be a dry run, or you'll have something of a mess on your hands.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: It's just something that people should grow out of.
Why? Generally people are either completely against porn or they see no problem with it. You seem to acknowledge benefit while still suggesting that it's an undesirable activity. What is your reasoning?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote: It's just something that people should grow out of.
Why? Generally people are either completely against porn or they see no problem with it. You seem to acknowledge benefit while still suggesting that it's an undesirable activity. What is your reasoning?
There's plenty of good that comes out of drinking cheap Budweisers, but that doesn't mean I APPROVE.
No, I think it's entirely consistent to be okay -- happy, even -- that something occurs without practicing it yourself. The Nation of Islam's done some great things for cleaning up inner cities and prisons, but that doesn't mean I endorse the movement. Evanescence has helped tons of teenage girls express their innermost turmoil, but that doesn't make it good music. Porn's no substitute for a relationship, though I'm happy that horny teenagers have that as an outlet for their frustrations rather than than raping/impregnating/making gym class awkward for each other.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
And no, before anyone asks, I don't think the Nation of Islam is a good thing on ANYWHERE near the scale that pornography (or Evanescence) has been. It's just the first example that came to mind.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Porn's no substitute for a relationship
So your disapproval is couched in terms of porn being a substitute for a relationship? I don't know many people who use porn this way. If people were viewing porn *instead* of having a relationship, I'd probably agree with you, but I don't think that's what happens in most cases.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I should point out that I don't look at porn often and I think people who do are trashy.
That's gonna mean that, to you, about 88-90% of men and 60-66% of women are 'trashy' :/
commendable attitude really, separating the analysis of the data from personal distaste.
No offense intended. You'll notice I said "often" -- I looked at my share as a teenager, and I can understand why single guys resort to porn. It's just something that people should grow out of.
In other words, don't prematurely shoot your wad on what should be a dry run, or you'll have something of a mess on your hands.
I share it with my wife. Its a fun way to share some fantasies.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Evanescence has helped tons of teenage girls express their innermost turmoil, but that doesn't make it good music. Porn's no substitute for a relationship, though I'm happy that horny teenagers have that as an outlet for their frustrations rather than than raping/impregnating/making gym class awkward for each other.
So should it be legalized for the under 18 crowd, if they are the only ones that should be using it?
What is your beef with Evanescence?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: No offense intended. You'll notice I said "often" -- I looked at my share as a teenager, and I can understand why single guys resort to porn. It's just something that people should grow out of.
Eh, I disagree. Porn's going to be a healthy, non-detracting part of plenty of people's lives even through marriage and into old age.
At this point, it's getting to be kind of like caffeine. Mostly innocuous, most people use it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have an issue with your post, Lalo.....
Compared to most modern music, Evanescence IS good music. It's no Bach, but it is decent.
Amy Lee has a hell of a voice. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"about 88-90% of men and 60-66% of women"
Ah. There's an apparent theme to what Lalo doesn't really approve of. Evanescence is also popular.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
How the heck did Evanescence get drug into a debate on porn? Hahahaha
By the way, if you like Evanescence you might also enjoy UnSun, Within Temptation and Lacuna Coil.
As for porn, the only thing I object to is that people are being paid to commit fornication or adultery for people's entertainment -- and it tends to normalize certain sexual acts and increase the probability of experimentation (especially with teens).
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I want to take this opportunity to ask a legal question. How is it that people can be paid to have sex in places where prostitution is illegal so long as they then turn around and sell it to others? Couldn’t you get around prostitution laws by taping it and then, if need be, selling it to yourself, or to a front? Or is porn only made in places where prostitution is legal (which I don’t think is likely)?
Hobbes Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Back in the 1980s some law-enforcement types in LA got the bright idea that they could use California's pandering statute to run pornographers out of town. Instead, they established a legal precedent that enshrined their state as the porn capital of the U.S. ... The court found that the "payment of acting fees was the only payment involved in the instant case. . . . There is no evidence that [Freeman] paid the acting fees for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, his own or the actors'." Thus, no prostitution. Besides, the court went on, "even if [Freeman's] conduct could somehow be found to come within the definition of 'prostitution' literally, the application of the pandering statute to the hiring of actors to perform in the production of a . . . motion picture would impinge unconstitutionally upon First Amendment values."
So Freeman's conviction was overturned, and making porn was effectively legalized in California. Producers who once filmed surreptitiously in motel rooms were free to shoot with good lights and no fear of arrest. Another triumph for the storied LAPD.
quote:Even in the West, state-by-state analyses of increased broadband Internet have shown dramatic, causal drops in violent crime and sexual assault. Apparently giving potential rapists a release for their sexual urges is a very, very good thing.
I am not disputing what you are saying, but I don't understand it. I was taught in my field of study that rape is not driven by sexual desires. It has more to do with power and dominance. I am confused how porn is related.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
because when watching porn you can imagine yourself in it?
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
quote:I am not disputing what you are saying, but I don't understand it. I was taught in my field of study that rape is not driven by sexual desires. It has more to do with power and dominance. I am confused how porn is related.
While it is not politically correct, I have heard some researchers dispute that as a feministic driven conclusion based on faulty assumptions. For instance, if it were true, why is it that the vast majority of rape victims are young -- in their prime fertility age? If some guy wanted to strike out against some perceived power structure then he would target middle age and older women since they are the ones who, presumably, would be symbols of power in his world (symbolic of mother, teachers, bosses, etc.).
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8:
quote:I am not disputing what you are saying, but I don't understand it. I was taught in my field of study that rape is not driven by sexual desires. It has more to do with power and dominance. I am confused how porn is related.
While it is not politically correct, I have heard some researchers dispute that as a feministic driven conclusion based on faulty assumptions. For instance, if it were true, why is it that the vast majority of rape victims are young -- in their prime fertility age? If some guy wanted to strike out against some perceived power structure then he would target middle age and older women since they are the ones who, presumably, would be symbols of power in his world (symbolic of mother, teachers, bosses, etc.).
It isn't about striking out against a power structure. It is about power over the weak.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Evanescence has helped tons of teenage girls express their innermost turmoil, but that doesn't make it good music. Porn's no substitute for a relationship, though I'm happy that horny teenagers have that as an outlet for their frustrations rather than than raping/impregnating/making gym class awkward for each other.
So should it be legalized for the under 18 crowd, if they are the only ones that should be using it?
What is your beef with Evanescence?
For reals, I don't love Amy Lee's beliefs but I thinks she's quite talented.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
notes:
• I think it is quite possible that rape is both motivated by power AND that it is about reproduction. Plenty of people having sex are not thinking "man let's produce some babies!" they are simply doing it because they enjoy it - but the biological motivation for that enjoyment is still "make babies." The power struggle motivations behind rape may be an alternate way in which our body convinces us to have sex, and if our sex drive is being satiated by other means, that motivation might become less significant.
• I think Evanescence is a good band, and Amy Lee is a very good singer, but they only really make two "songs," (the loud one and the quiet one) and I have a hard time telling individual versions of those songs apart from one another.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: No offense intended. You'll notice I said "often" -- I looked at my share as a teenager, and I can understand why single guys resort to porn. It's just something that people should grow out of.
Eh, I disagree. Porn's going to be a healthy, non-detracting part of plenty of people's lives even through marriage and into old age.
At this point, it's getting to be kind of like caffeine. Mostly innocuous, most people use it.
Honestly, I can imagine few things more insulting than watching porn while married.
I think you have a valid point, and I'm not condemning single people for watching porn. But at some point, you SHOULD grow out of it. There's nothing technically wrong with a grown man listening to Hannah Montana and My Chemical Romance (and Evanescence ), but it gets weird once he's old enough to know better.
If someone reaches his twenties and STILL hasn't found better substitutes for Evanescence and porn, he's in trouble.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Honestly, I can imagine few things more insulting than watching porn while married.
That's really silly, lalo. Married people still watch porn, very, very often. A lot of couples watch porn together. it's not 'insulting.'
quote:If someone reaches his twenties and STILL hasn't found better substitutes for Evanescence and porn, he's in trouble.
In trouble of what? Your disapproval, or something more substantive?
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
I do want to point out that while it isn't necessarily the norm, there are plenty of reports of couples who use porn as a sexual aid - much like they might use other devices.
Also, many people misattribute porn with ending a relationship rather than the relationship already having effectively ended. I'm sure there are counts of relationships that do end as a result of the overuse of porn, but in many cases the question needs to be asked: why does any partner in the relationship turn to porn in the first place? I suspect that a significant factor in this is that one of partners in the marriage was feeling unfulfilled, and turned to porn rather than attempting to actively engage in adultery. So while it seems as if the porn was the reason for the failure of the relationship, it actually ends up being the symptom, not the cause.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Honestly, I can imagine few things more insulting than watching porn while married.
That's really silly, lalo. Married people still watch porn, very, very often. A lot of couples watch porn together. it's not 'insulting.'
quote:If someone reaches his twenties and STILL hasn't found better substitutes for Evanescence and porn, he's in trouble.
In trouble of what? Your disapproval, or something more substantive?
I thought it was obvious that I referred to a married man spending his sexual energy on porn rather than his wife. If couples want to watch porn together, that's their business.
And really, you don't think it's a sign of immaturity if a man doesn't graduate to real women after a time? Porn can be a fallback option for singles, but I don't understand why anyone would continue to invest their time in porn when they have a girlfriend or a wife. (Unless, like Jenos pointed out, porn is simply staving off the end of a dysfunctional relationship.) If you disagree, could you explain what I'm missing?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think the relationships between people (and, hell, people) are very personal and individual and ascribing any kind of blanket statement of "porn is always insulting" or "anyone who thinks porn is insulting is narrowminded and uptight" is going to be a gross over-generalization.
I think it's a legitimate viewpoint that if you are in a relationship you should focus your sexual attention on that relationship - if that's how both partners feel. I can also see there being partners who are very good for each other emotionally and financially but don't quite meet each other's needs sexually, and porn is out there to help with that. There may also be partners that consider each other completely satisfying sexually but simply don't have a problem with porn at all as a pleasurable activity to do when your partner's not around for whatever reason.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I thought it was obvious that I referred to a married man spending his sexual energy on porn rather than his wife. If couples want to watch porn together, that's their business.
Not obvious at all, really. Your wording was very direct, it didn't mean what you thought it meant, especially given the explicit notion you've given us that you think that it's time to quit porn once you get into real-mate-territory.
quote:And really, you don't think it's a sign of immaturity if a man doesn't graduate to real women after a time?
no, because porn and 'real women' are not mutually exclusive. It's like saying that once you have a car, you should stop riding a bike ever.
quote:but I don't understand why anyone would continue to invest their time in porn when they have a girlfriend or a wife. (Unless, like Jenos pointed out, porn is simply staving off the end of a dysfunctional relationship.) If you disagree, could you explain what I'm missing?
I will, but I'll do it in a rather novel way. I'll posit the question neutrally to a girlfriend of mine and have her answer the question.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Her answer:
quote:no, that's ridiculous. That would be like if a guy I married came up to me and told me "Don't you think it's a sign of immaturity if a woman doesn't graduate up from a vibrator to a real cock after a time?"
It does not matter that a real cock is available. Sometimes, I'll still use the vibrator alone. is this insulting? Is this impossible to understand outside of the context of dysfunction? Same thing with porn, which is mostly used as a masturbatory aid. It's only when it is used to the detraction of the sexual relationship that it is actually a problem, like if I would watch porn in a way that made my partner feel neglected. And porn addiction like this occurs but it is REALLY NOT THAT COMMON. Most porn use is HEALTHY. It is hard (but I guess possible) not to understand this, or not understand why anyone would "continue to invest their time in porn" - why someone could just be at home alone and their partner's out doing something or is asleep and has work early in the morning and you're just going to watch some Redtube by yourself? Anybody who expects that a guy would have to "graduate out of it" just because you have a vagina leased to you via cultural customs really doesn't understand as much about human sexuality as they think they do or are upset due to possessiveness issues. They feel cheated on or uncomfortable because their partner is watching naked people that are not them!. THAT is more problematic than the PORN is imo.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Her answer:
quote:no, that's ridiculous. That would be like if a guy I married came up to me and told me "Don't you think it's a sign of immaturity if a woman doesn't graduate up from a vibrator to a real cock after a time?"
It does not matter that a real cock is available. Sometimes, I'll still use the vibrator alone. is this insulting? Is this impossible to understand outside of the context of dysfunction? Same thing with porn, which is mostly used as a masturbatory aid. It's only when it is used to the detraction of the sexual relationship that it is actually a problem, like if I would watch porn in a way that made my partner feel neglected. And porn addiction like this occurs but it is REALLY NOT THAT COMMON. Most porn use is HEALTHY. It is hard (but I guess possible) not to understand this, or not understand why anyone would "continue to invest their time in porn" - why someone could just be at home alone and their partner's out doing something or is asleep and has work early in the morning and you're just going to watch some Redtube by yourself? Anybody who expects that a guy would have to "graduate out of it" just because you have a vagina leased to you via cultural customs really doesn't understand as much about human sexuality as they think they do or are upset due to possessiveness issues. They feel cheated on or uncomfortable because their partner is watching naked people that are not them!. THAT is more problematic than the PORN is imo.
Fair enough, but I suppose I just don't understand human sexuality because I have a vagina leased to me via cultural customs. Seriously, it's wrong if my girlfriend's uncomfortable that I'm "watching naked people that are not [her]" and that means she has "possessiveness issues"?
I think Raymond Arnold's post is a good conclusion to the debate. I honestly don't think porn is a bad thing. If I'm single or my girlfriend's out of town, I don't think it's immoral to watch porn. But if we're under the same roof... I think it's disrespectful, barring a previous mutual agreement.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I think it's disrespectful, barring a previous mutual agreement.
Take this as a caveat and apply it to many of your previous statements about porn and watch what happens. Really. according to what you've been saying, mutual agreements are irrelevant. Someone is still 'immature' or 'insulting' for still watching porn while married or in a relationship.
One way or another, your position needs revising.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
quote:There's nothing technically wrong with a grown man listening to Hannah Montana and My Chemical Romance (and Evanescence ), but it gets weird once he's old enough to know better.
Say what? And by what criteria do you come to this conclusion? I mean, I had a freind give me a copy of her MCR and I guess I found it too Emo. Hannah Montana? Not my favorite either -- although my daughters love her music. And for what is called symphonic rock (Evanescence, Night Wish, UnSun, Within Temptation, Serenia, etc. ) I rather like rock and classical fusion. Richard Wagner is a major inspiration for heavy metal and symphonic metal and nobody claims listening to Wagner is immature.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Two things.
The conversation has been respectful so far in regards to the subject matter. Samprimary, independent of the views espoused in your quote, I think portions of it goes beyond what the Cards wish at their site in regards to discussions of sexual matters. I'd appreciate it if the conversation could go back to the conceptual issues rather than the descriptions if it is to continue.
Michaele8, after not posting for several years, you have returned and immediately begun starting several threads on topics recently disallowed for someone else due to that person's fixations (at least forumatically, yes I decided that's a word) on those limited topics. Rather than make any accusations, I'm going to ask that for the next month, you not start any threads on gender roles or relationships of any kind, as well as not redirecting other threads onto those topics. If you have any questions on that, please contact me by e-mail.
--PJ
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote:Even in the West, state-by-state analyses of increased broadband Internet have shown dramatic, causal drops in violent crime and sexual assault. Apparently giving potential rapists a release for their sexual urges is a very, very good thing.
I am not disputing what you are saying, but I don't understand it. I was taught in my field of study that rape is not driven by sexual desires. It has more to do with power and dominance. I am confused how porn is related.
It's both. In some cases the rapist is sexually gratified by dominating the other person. Other times particularly when one man rapes another the dominance is the goal not sexual gratification which is incidental.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Back in the 1980s some law-enforcement types in LA got the bright idea that they could use California's pandering statute to run pornographers out of town. Instead, they established a legal precedent that enshrined their state as the porn capital of the U.S. ... The court found that the "payment of acting fees was the only payment involved in the instant case. . . . There is no evidence that [Freeman] paid the acting fees for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, his own or the actors'." Thus, no prostitution. Besides, the court went on, "even if [Freeman's] conduct could somehow be found to come within the definition of 'prostitution' literally, the application of the pandering statute to the hiring of actors to perform in the production of a . . . motion picture would impinge unconstitutionally upon First Amendment values."
So Freeman's conviction was overturned, and making porn was effectively legalized in California. Producers who once filmed surreptitiously in motel rooms were free to shoot with good lights and no fear of arrest. Another triumph for the storied LAPD.
So let's set up a scenario here: we're in a state with strict, anti-prostitution laws. Some entrepreneurial soul decides he wants to start a brothel anyways and comes up with a clever idea. He hires the prostitutes, and then men (or women, let's not be bigoted here ) come in, he pays them a nominal fee to have sex while video cameras are running. Then sells them (in a prearranged agreement) the video for much, much more money.
Does he get convicted?
Hobbes Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm no legal expert. However, the end of the article speculates on that:
quote:However prostitution is defined, courts are generally reluctant to restrain pornographers because of the First Amendment complications. A publicity-crazy lawman can always make arrests and even get convictions, but it's foolish to do so without ironclad statutory language. If a conviction is reversed like Hal Freeman's was, the result would be counterproductive at best. As it stands, there's a big sign over California saying "PORN PRODUCTION LEGAL HERE." Only an idiot, a porn lover, or perhaps an Illinois governor would risk erecting another sign saying "HERE TOO."
So maybe, but it might be foolish and counterproductive.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The first neural interactive implant will be pornography related. The greatest human desire is to reproduce. The greatest reward is the feeling of the action of reproduction. Live, breed and die is in our nature. Pornography taps into the most important aspect of our being....reproduction. Sex drive outweighs all other drives. The man who is driven in his career and works 16 hour days can afford a better looking wife. Does the plain looking intelligent man work 16 hour days for corporate acceptance or for the supermodel waiting for him at home in a big house?
We can only live three days without water and a month without food. Despite the immediacy of these needs, if given a choice, pornography will get higher ratings than the Food Network. Everything else is just a means to an end. A thirsty man will turn down a drink of water for sex.
The inventor or the spear got the best women.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
God I love how you talk as if no one has ever come across such a brilliant and novel thought, and that we are all so lucky to hear it said by you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: The man who is driven in his career and works 16 hour days can afford a better looking wife.
I see malanthrop has graduated from the Clive Candy School of Women as Utilitarian Social-Economic Trophy Commodities
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: We can only live three days without water and a month without food. Despite the immediacy of these needs, if given a choice, pornography will get higher ratings than the Food Network. Everything else is just a means to an end. A thirsty man will turn down a drink of water for sex.
You know, I want to start a podcast. It will be me and Samp, à la Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, with Mal as our American Pilkington. It's those kinds of substantive pieces of analysis that would really make the program zing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
wut. live podcasts from the same physical location. that would either be the best idea or the worst idea.
'yes mal, you have fifty seconds to explain coherently to me why apparently I was lying about my construction experience and you weren't, before I throw this drywall hopper I've been using since 1997 at your head'
my lawyer would have to insist on full Lethal Weapon 2 style diplomatic immunity before letting me within 50 yards of such an event.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: We can only live three days without water and a month without food. Despite the immediacy of these needs, if given a choice, pornography will get higher ratings than the Food Network.
Perhaps that's because, you know, a person can't be nourished by watching food on television.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: A thirsty man will turn down a drink of water for sex.
Speak for yourself. Sex is overrated.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: wut. live podcasts from the same physical location. that would either be the best idea or the worst idea.
I think the two states are not mutually exclusive. Certainly, it would be interesting when in the middle of a live discussion, one of us would ask Mal to substantiate one of his points with evidence, and be met with total silence. He would still be there, so we'd just be staring at him. I wonder if he might wink out of existence.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: We can only live three days without water and a month without food. Despite the immediacy of these needs, if given a choice, pornography will get higher ratings than the Food Network.
Perhaps that's because, you know, a person can't be nourished by watching food on television.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: A thirsty man will turn down a drink of water for sex.
Speak for yourself. Sex is overrated.
I agree. Sexuality is only a part of our lives. Sexual desire is a temporary part of our lives. Who is going to have a higher quality of life when the inevitable death of sexual desire comes? I feel sorry for people who define themselves by a particular attribute. I like petite women with heart shaped rear ends. Tall women with jumbo breasts turn me off. My brother likes fat women. I don't like fat women, does that mean I am prejudice against them? I can't understand how he is attracted to his wife but we do have one thing in common. When sexual attraction no longer matters, we'll both have grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I pity the homosexual for what he/she isn't going to have later in life.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: my lawyer would have to insist on full Lethal Weapon 2 style diplomatic immunity before letting me within 50 yards of such an event.
Yeah, 'cause that worked so well in LW2... Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote: When sexual attraction no longer matters, we'll both have grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I pity the homosexual for what he/she isn't going to have later in life.
Adoption. It happens. Gay people can have kids too, if they want to.
I'd also really appreciate it if you refrained from talking about women in a demeaning and objectifying sense.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
How unfortunate they are to be forced by societal pressures to go against their nature and have sex with the opposite sex. Perhaps they submit themselves to the distasteful act, just to reproduce.
I love my sister in law. She's a wonderful woman, a great wife and mother. I just can't imagine being sexually attracted to her. I've had homosexual friends who I thought were wonderful people. Just because I can't comprehend my brother's particular sexual attraction, doesn't mean I am prejudice against him. Just because I find his wife to be sexually repulsive, doesn't mean I think she is a bad person.
I view gays the same.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah, the homosexual friends come out.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Is that the best you have? You might find this surprising,...I have black friends too.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I have every confidence.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Of course they are Uncle Toms according to the Democrat party. Do you think there are conservative homosexuals in this society? Libertarianism is the place to be homosexual. What about a black homosexual who is opposed to abortion and for small government? If you're a Democrat you need to tow the line and abide by the stereotype. They are a coalition of groups. Gay marriage would still be legal in California if the blacks hadn't shown up to the polls in record numbers, to vote for Obama. The gay marriage part of the ballot was an afterthought. Those blacks must really hate gays.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm no legal expert. However, the end of the article speculates on that:
quote:However prostitution is defined, courts are generally reluctant to restrain pornographers because of the First Amendment complications. A publicity-crazy lawman can always make arrests and even get convictions, but it's foolish to do so without ironclad statutory language. If a conviction is reversed like Hal Freeman's was, the result would be counterproductive at best. As it stands, there's a big sign over California saying "PORN PRODUCTION LEGAL HERE." Only an idiot, a porn lover, or perhaps an Illinois governor would risk erecting another sign saying "HERE TOO."
So maybe, but it might be foolish and counterproductive.
Then I want to know why someone hasn't already done this. Or have they and I just don't know about it? It seems like there's enough money there that it should be pretty common. Or is it just to easy to get prostitutes illegally so as it make it nor worth it? I find that hard to believe but I'm just an innocent, little Mormon boy.
Hobbes Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Prostitution should be completely legal. What is a porn star, if not a prostitute? Why isn't it considered prostitution when both parties are paid to perform sex acts. Pornography is much more severe than prostitution. In prostitution, at least one of the participant wants it enough to pay for it. A prostitute is paid to perform a sex act with one person in private. Pornographic actors are paid to perform sex acts sold as viewing pleasure to the general public. Sex requires two people. Why is it illegal if one of the two is a prostitute, but filming two prostitutes is perfectly fine.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually I'm fairly certain for the most part it IS legal but with certain facets of it made illegal for entrapment purposes.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Actually I'm fairly certain for the most part it IS legal but with certain facets of it made illegal for entrapment purposes.
It is completely legal if you have a license or you're semi-monogamous. Sex for goods is as old as mankind. A good wife knows how to keep his man from straying. My wife isn't a prostitute but she knows how to meet my needs, even if she isn't in the mood. Plenty of women perform that act to satisfy their man, it's in their best interest to do so.
I'm sure there are men who treat their wives as sex slaves when the woman has no where else to go. I had a girlfriend who later told me that she had sex with me for the first time, to keep me with her. She initiated the sex to give me what she knew I wanted. She didn't want the sex, she wanted me. Prostitutes have taken this to the extreme.
A wife isn't a prostitute, but a wife who doesn't know how to satisfy her husband will find herself either cheated on or divorced.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:A good wife knows how to keep his man from straying. My wife isn't a prostitute but she knows how to meet my needs, even if she isn't in the mood. Plenty of women perform that act to satisfy their man, it's in their best interest to do so.
Oy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Then I want to know why someone hasn't already done this.
The answer, Hobbes, is that even in states where filming pornography is legal -- and it's not legal everywhere -- there is generally a clause banning accepting money for the purposes of sexually gratifying the payer. In other words, the people participating in the porn cannot pay the pornographer. So you're left with a situation in which the pornographer must attempt to sell porn involving completely unskilled amateurs, and then probably has to divide any profits from that sale with at least one of the participants (as well as the crew). And, of course, filming porn isn't as sexy as you'd think.
And while there is a market for truly amateur porn, the bigger market is for professional porn by people pretending to be amateurs.
Ergo, filming porn as a way of getting around prostitution law simply isn't likely to be profitable (or as enjoyable for the customers.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Alternatively, you could just fly to Arizona, Germany, the Netherlands, Greece, Turkey, Mexico, etc. There are actually a surprising (to me) number of countries that have legal regulated or legal unregulated prostitution in the following article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_by_country
As a complete guess, if you have enough money to be fancy, just do that. (Or maybe even a call-girl would have a lower chance of legal issues than a normal prostitute?)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:A good wife knows how to keep his man from straying. My wife isn't a prostitute but she knows how to meet my needs, even if she isn't in the mood. Plenty of women perform that act to satisfy their man, it's in their best interest to do so.
Oy.
More like 'ew'
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:...there is generally a clause banning accepting money for the purposes of sexually gratifying the payer.
This makes sense; so would that prohibit the gratified from paying large sums of money for the tape (ala the plan I suggested above)? Obviously if they're going to try to actually make marketable porn and get their money that way the whole point of the scenario disappears.
Hobbes Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I don't know. 'Ew' means I actually tried to picture what he was talking about. 'Oy' has more of an implied rolls-eyes included.
Like this: y.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I don't know. 'Ew' means I actually tried to picture what he was talking about.
I think that was probably my mistake.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
And really, you don't think it's a sign of immaturity if a man doesn't graduate to real women after a time? Porn can be a fallback option for singles, but I don't understand why anyone would continue to invest their time in porn when they have a girlfriend or a wife. (Unless, like Jenos pointed out, porn is simply staving off the end of a dysfunctional relationship.) If you disagree, could you explain what I'm missing?
I can't imagine porn as anything but the most perfect way to solve an imbalance of sexual appetite in a couple, especially as such an imbalance can be extremely detrimental to the relationship. The only immorality I see in it is the same as I see in prostitution: People, who's upbringing has often caused severe personality disorders, working in a job they find degrading and disgusting, that steadily becomes more so as those people age and become less valuable to their employers. I know this isn't what all porn is about, but a lot of it is.
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: A thirsty man will turn down a drink of water for sex.
Speak for yourself. Sex is overrated.
Clearly you are not having good sex!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Only an idiot, a porn lover, or perhaps an Illinois governor would risk erecting another sign saying "HERE TOO."
Wait, why is that? The porn industry is a big money-maker; tax it and get rich. If I were a state governor, I certainly would want it legal in my state.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Prostitution is legal in some parts of Nevada. While it is not legal here in Las Vegas, about an hour away in Pahrump there are brothels.
The state does not tax it in any way probably because it is an industry that they don't want to have to regulate. They consider it a "service" which is not taxable here in Nevada.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: [QB] I'm not attempting to express an attitude towards homosexuality. I really do not care.
mal says: I am not attempting to express an attitude towards homosexuality.
quote: Just because I find his wife to be sexually repulsive, doesn't mean I think she is a bad person.
I view gays the same.
mal says: I find homosexuals to be sexually repulsive.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
y.