quote:Mena Suvari topless in American Beauty is pornography. See, it wasn't really that hard.
Ah, so at least one person here appears to believe that you should be able to be arrested for watching the Best Picture of 1999 in your car.
I generally don't like slippery slope arguments, but I hope that others can now see why caution is required.
No I agree too. It's art if you choose to watch it as art, but you can't guarantee that it will be seen that way if you display it to strangers. In other words, if you want to watch things like that in your car, get tinted windows and roll them up.
There would most certainly be laws against this is Australia, as well as just about every other country in the world. But if there wasn't for Americans, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
Actually, I think that it is illegal here to have a in-car DVD facing anywhere *but* the back passenger seat.
I'm certain, on the other hand, there would be no restrictions on showing any video rated uner the general classifications (up to R) on that screen. XXX movies are much more heavily restricted here, and in most states showing them is illegal.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, there is no official "XXX" designation of a film. There is R, NC-17, and X. "XXX" is just a marketing ploy by the porn industry to make you think you're somehow going to see more than you would if a movie were simply rated "X".
Edit: Correction, in 1990 the NC-17 rating (which is trademarked by the MPAA), replaced the "X" rating, which had not been trademarked and had, by then, been co-opted by the porn industry as a marketing tool. Therefore, there is no official "X" or "XXX" rating.
Additionally, the whole rating system is voluntary. This makes me curious about the wording of any pornography laws dealing with film since "X" and "XXX" are basically self-applied ratings and have no official designation or application, even if there is a de facto cultural application and implication.
posted
In Australia, there is R and X - though you're right on the X/XXX thing. No NC-17 rating.
(Here, it goes G, PG, M, MA 15+, R18+ - all of which are able to shown at normal cinemas - and then X which is restricted, and movies with an X rating can't be sold in any of the States, let alone shown at cinemas.)
Edit: Also, the rating system here is mandatory and regulated by the Office for Film and Literature Classification. They decide the ratings of all films distributed and sold in Australia.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Regarding aborigenes and other 'noble savages': Technology and advancement are not necessarily inclusive. I prefer to consider the Tibetans, who have a spiritual and psychological advantage over Europeans that make so called 'civilized' Europe seem like the Visigoths to the Greeks. Better technology to slaughter each other is not advancement. However, that does NOT mean that I think folks in some less 'developed' nations didn't want their own technology. It just means that they had different priorities. Like, in the case of the Tibetans: meditation. In the case of the Hindus: Temples... etc. Huixoles: Peyote..
How much history of Tibetans do you know is one question. The second question being, "Where did their advancement get them?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the answer being, "Crushed by the Chinese". Moreover, while the meditating monks might have had a fine time before the CHinese invasion, the serfs on whom they depended for their food were not a happy lot.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Besides being incredibly naive about pornography and sexuality in general, your claim is offensive in its attempt to use gay men as a scapegoat for your prudery. Either you're so irrationally afraid of homosexuality that you can't even conceive of a man viewing a penis without actually desiring it on some level, or you think that being gay itself is a negative and therefore zing! you sure got those porn lovers, heh heh heh, closet homos the lot of them.
There are two separate attractions in pornography (which also hold true for most forms of vicarious entertainment). There is the object of desire, and there is the stand-in for the viewer. In straight porn, only the viewer knows which is which for himself or herself. I'm certainly not claiming sexuality is a cut and dried dichotomy, but I think I'm safe in saying that, in general, if you identify with the man and desire the woman, you're probably straight. Without getting too graphic, your claim is almost as ridiculous as saying that only the mouths of closeted gay men water when watching commercials of a man eating a rich chocolate cake.
Wow, someone's a little defensive. I won't go into why I'm not homophobic, because it sounds like you would never believe me without meeting me in person.
I'll say it, I enjoy porn to. I enjoy Playboy, erotic fiction, and softcore movies. What I said was a partial joke, and to allude to why I do not enjoy the hard core stuff. I prefer the female form, and the hardcore straight movies in my opinion center more on the male form.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Avoiding hardcore porn because you're afraid catching a glimpse of another guy's fun zone certainly sounds homophobic to me.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
if it is actually to avoid seeing another guy's fun zone then perhaps, but I don't think that's what Stephan is trying to say here.
I think it's more of a "I'm looking for pictures/videos of the female form" motivation, and therefore parts that concentrate on the male are lost to him, wasted time etc...
a lack of interest does not equal a fear. Preferring to see something else because you don't want to waste your time with something you're not interested in is pretty far from doing it because you are offended by that something (even if it's hard to tell the difference from an outside perspective)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't watch hardcore porn because I have zero interest in seeing all of some random guy. Does that make me afraid of guys?
I have a hard time taking seriously statements about porn when the above accusation of homophobia is an example. There is a greater range of human experiences and emotions than that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
El JT, I would say yes, but I think this is the kind of thing that Papa Janitor was worrying about. but for sake of argument before this part of the conversation gets censored: given the justification I just mentioned, this would potentially be appealing and not indicate homophobia, but rather a general preference for that porn which is more based around the female form.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is that not a fair question? You claim that the reason you don't watch porn is because you don't want to see 'all of some random guy', which, to me, suggests that it's the guy that bothers you; not the content.
Which I suspect is bogus, so I ask about a scenario where there's no guy, in order to clarify your actual feelings on the subject.
And why can't I be doing both (1) and (2)? Or neither? If you want to honestly tell me what you think, I'd like to hear it.
For what it's worth, I wasn't accusing anyone of being homophobic. I don't think there was enough information given in the Stephan's initial post to make that determination. But the phrasing seemed to be leaning that way.
Edit: Don't think I didn't notice your little misdirection -- you still didn't answer my question.
[ June 21, 2006, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: El JT de Spang ]
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My threory on hard core pornography is that only closeted gay men really like it.
I think I made a very lucid arguement. He claims that enjoying visuals that include the male form means that someone is secretly gay. I think that is irrational to the point of offensiveness if taken completely seriously, or insensitive at least if meant as a joke.
Stephan did not simply claim disinterest. He made an implicit accusation of homosexuality on a large class of people and I took offense. Stephan clarifies:
quote:What I said was a partial joke,
OK, I addressed that too. To the degree it was a joke, I find it an offensive one. I'll admit this is a particular pet peeve of mine (casual accusations of homosexuality), but we all have our hot spots. This is one of mine.
Stephen then backpedals:
quote:What I said was a partial joke, and to allude to why I do not enjoy the hard core stuff. I prefer the female form, and the hardcore straight movies in my opinion center more on the male form.
OK, that might have been his intent, but it is not at all what he said. Had he said "I don't watch hardcore stuff because it wastes too much time on the man" I would have not had a problem at all. Instead, he skipped that entirely and said anyone who does enjoy hardcore stuff is secretly gay. That is what he said, albeit softened with "this is my theory". That doesn't even imply the last quote above.
You will notice also that the word "homophobia" never came off my keyboard. Not that I don't think that slinging unfounded accusations of homosexuality at large classes of people doesn't qualify as such, but I try to avoid the word because it is very seldom taken seriously, even if it is warranted, (as Kat illustrates). If the mere suggestion of the word is enough to stop someone from reading the rest of an arguement, well, I think the deficiency is on the part of the reader moreso than the writer. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To further clarify, had he even said "I don't watch hardcore porn because I don't like looking at naked men" I'd not have taken offense.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
El JT, could you clarify who this latest post is in response to? If it's to my comments then I'd like to respond, but I'm finding it a bit unclear.
KarlEd, not that I'm defending Stephan's initial "theory" but from my perspective I do have to say that your initial response to it was rather harsh/defensive. Not that it wasn't also lucid, but the tone of it made it seem like he had set you off personally.
Basically I'd just say that each of you seem to have set the other off in the course of this discussion.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: KarlEd, not that I'm defending Stephan's initial "theory" but from my perspective I do have to say that your initial response to it was rather harsh/defensive.
Whereas it came off as quite calm and studied to me, albeit persuasive. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: I never claimed that it wasnt well articulated or direct, just that I personally felt it was also shaded with defensiveness (which I suppose it was, as you were defending your stance against what seems(d) to you a rediculous attack)
I wouldn't have thought it worth commenting on, but I'm just saying that Stephan isn't completely off base in calling it defensive.
El JT, I was just confused on that one post because of the order, no worries.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do have to say that your initial response to it was rather harsh/defensive. Not that it wasn't also lucid, but the tone of it made it seem like he had set you off personally.
He did. I'm gay. I take casual and unfounded accusations of gayness seriously, and they are not really softened by being "partially" jokes. I mean really, what's the joke except insofar as the accusation of being gay is intended as a negative.
Now, it's entirely possible that the comment was completely innocent and/or naively made. If that was the case, a simple appology would be the appropriate response. I've been on the offending end of such misunderstandings and that is normally what I do. (Note, I'm not asking for an apology, though one would have ended the issue right there. However, "Wow, someone's a little defensive" to me seemed elicit further response, not to mention being a very condescending phrase.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Suffice it to say that searching for porn that isn't solely concerned with gratifying the male in the scene is a difficult road.... Porn as an industry is quickly turning into exactly what anti-porn activists always said it was, which is really depressing.
I'm curious ... what is it turning into that it wasn't before, Chris?
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: it depends on the motivation:
if it is actually to avoid seeing another guy's fun zone then perhaps, but I don't think that's what Stephan is trying to say here.
I think it's more of a "I'm looking for pictures/videos of the female form" motivation, and therefore parts that concentrate on the male are lost to him, wasted time etc...
a lack of interest does not equal a fear. Preferring to see something else because you don't want to waste your time with something you're not interested in is pretty far from doing it because you are offended by that something (even if it's hard to tell the difference from an outside perspective)
Exactly. I'm too much of a fan of OZ to be terrified of seeing male genitalia.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why are you focusing on the guy part of my statement? Is it really so difficult to understand that my reticence could be related to the "some random" part of it? Are you incapable of believing that there is a difference between a objectified, paid-for stranger and a non-random guy?
You're either playing dumb or honestly don't see the difference between sexuality you pay for and sexuality that you don't. If you really don't see a difference, then I think that's actually a strike against porn in general. It's made sex partners interchangeable commodities.
What I find entirely more likely, however, is that you know there is a difference and are playing dumb. In which case, you're having a discussion by yourself and unsurprisingly, this has become one of those kinds of threads.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: From back a page:
quote:Suffice it to say that searching for porn that isn't solely concerned with gratifying the male in the scene is a difficult road.... Porn as an industry is quickly turning into exactly what anti-porn activists always said it was, which is really depressing.
I'm curious ... what is it turning into that it wasn't before, Chris?
I'm not Chris, but I'd say that it is becoming less diverse, less interesting, less creative, and less story-driven. And no, that isn't a non sequitur. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, let me take it from the top, because I don't want to get off track.
Stephan made a statement (which he claims was a joke) about not watching male/female porn (by which I mean hardcore video porn, not that it makes a particular difference) because he didn't like what he termed a focus on the dude's package.
KarlEd wrote a post saying that he found such behavior to be offensive and ignorant; not the behavior specifically so much as the reason.
Stephan responded that by saying that he's not homophobic.
I responded by saying that his 'joke' from the last page and reasoning behind it certainly sound homophobic.
You responded to me by saying you don't watch porn either because you don't want to see 'all of some random guy'.
I asked if you watched lesbian porn, to see if it was the 'random' or the 'guy' you specifically objected to, though I suspect it's neither. The point was I took your post as a defense of Stephan, and you're in a poor position to defend him in this particular situation.
See, he already said he likes porn. Just a certain kind. So, his problem with porn is not the same as yours, though you try to make it sound that way.
In other words, this whole thing is because I don't believe this statement is conveys the whole truth:
quote:I don't watch hardcore porn because I have zero interest in seeing all of some random guy.
I'm sure that's one of the reasons, but I doubt it's the only reason, or even the main reason.
And sex partners are interchangeable amongst many societal groupings, and it has nothing to do with pornography. I'd say mainstream media, because of its wider and broader rates of consumption have much more to do with our ever loosening attitudes towards casual sex than porn does. I will say that in the last ten years or so, since the internet became thoroughly integrated into our society, the wider availability of porn coupled with the ability to obtain it without anyone knowing has probably done a lot to close that gap.
Also, there's a difference between playing dumb and asking for clarification so you don't misinterpret someone's motives. I was trying to avoid what I finally did here, which is state what I take to be your opinion on the subject.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Stephan made a statement (which he claims was a joke) about not watching male/female porn (by which I mean hardcore video porn, not that it makes a particular difference) because he didn't like what he termed a focus on the dude's package.
Actually, he said that any guy that watches hardcore porn is in the closet. A statement which I agree with Karl is ignorant and offensive (in that it uses homosexuality as an insult).
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note, I said partial joke, I still think there is some truth to it, for some guys. But I don't think its necessarily a bad thing, other then hiding part of their sexuality.
Also, I think my problem with hardcore pornography is similar to those of katharina. Its not just my disinterest in the male form that makes up the majority of the scenes, but the sheer randomness and lack of convincing chemistry I find bewteen the people involved.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll say it, I enjoy porn to. I enjoy Playboy, erotic fiction, and softcore movies. What I said was a partial joke, and to allude to why I do not enjoy the hard core stuff. I prefer the female form...
Did I misunderstand something?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: From back a page:
quote:Suffice it to say that searching for porn that isn't solely concerned with gratifying the male in the scene is a difficult road.... Porn as an industry is quickly turning into exactly what anti-porn activists always said it was, which is really depressing.
I'm curious ... what is it turning into that it wasn't before, Chris?
I'm not Chris, but I'd say that it is becoming less diverse, less interesting, less creative, and less story-driven. And no, that isn't a non sequitur.
Tried answering this four times and kept backspacing out of respect for PapaJ. So I'll just agree with this and add that the trend towards more extreme acts, blatently unsafe practices, and harsher misogyny turns me off faster than a bucket of cold water.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Note, I said partial joke, I still think there is some truth to it, for some guys. But I don't think its necessarily a bad thing, other then hiding part of their sexuality.
Sounds like you've been watching too much Ron White. Enjoying watching heterosexual sex does not make one bisexual.
For what it's worth, Karl, I think your response was appropriate, level-headed and even relatively polite given the provocation.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that the type of sex that you enjoy watching necessarily makes you anything. If I enjoy watching lesbian sex, I'm faily certain that doesn't make me a lesbian.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I'll just agree with this and add that the trend towards more extreme acts, blatently unsafe practices, and harsher misogyny turns me off faster than a bucket of cold water.
Wow! Whereas gay hardcore has taken a turn towards safer practices. Gay hardcore does have it's extreme sub-genres, (and many many not-so-extreme sub-genres), but in general misogyny isn't an issue. (Unless, of course, you count the very absence of a woman as a slight against women - which at least one person on this forum might.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Pornography is so extremely easy to obtain in complete privacy that any theoretical closeted homosexual would hardly need to watch straight porn to see naked men.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Another thought I just had:
Pornography is so extremely easy to obtain in complete privacy that any theoretical closeted homosexual would hardly need to watch straight porn to see naked men.
Some people are closeted even (maybe especially) to themselves, so complete privacy isn't really relevant to the contention. You're much off better not diluting your original statement with this kind of argument.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's true. I'm not sure exactly what I said before that I've now diluted, though. I've never claimed that watching straight porn means you're not gay. In fact, I was very careful to not make that claim. That there probably are some people who are closeted homosexuals and really enjoy straight porn because of the men in it in no way substantiates the claim that all men who enjoy straight hardcore porn are gay.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not sure that the type of sex that you enjoy watching necessarily makes you anything. If I enjoy watching lesbian sex, I'm faily certain that doesn't make me a lesbian.
Oh I agree, which is why I didn't say "That would *make* one heterosexual." Though I have to point out that, at least I think this is true, "lesbian" technically means "likes women." I could be wrong, don't quote me on that. Just an ironic thought.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Well, that's true. I'm not sure exactly what I said before that I've now diluted, though. I've never claimed that watching straight porn means you're not gay. In fact, I was very careful to not make that claim. That there probably are some people who are closeted homosexuals and really enjoy straight porn because of the men in it in no way substantiates the claim that all men who enjoy straight hardcore porn are gay.
I didn't say it contradicts your conclusion, simply that you have this really great point that supports your conclusion and this wishy-washy one that distracts (not contradicts) the great one.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, maybe "you'd think" is a phrase from my neck of the woods, because that means "If you were to jump to conclusions, people would say that..." I wasn't aware it wasn't used as such in other areas Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I'll just agree with this and add that the trend towards more extreme acts, blatently unsafe practices, and harsher misogyny turns me off faster than a bucket of cold water.
That's the major reason I can't stand straight porn, what little I've seen of it. I find it really hard to believe that a brain bathed in that imagery on regular basis could belong to a person whose company I could enjoy. Of course, I could be wrong. *shrug*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: [QUOTE]Though I have to point out that, at least I think this is true, "lesbian" technically means "likes women." I could be wrong, don't quote me on that. Just an ironic thought.
Nope, actually it derives from the island of Lesbos, in the Aegean. Which in Greek days was famous for having no men, or at any rate being the birthplace of the poet Sappho, from whom we get 'sapphic'. Because of the poems she wrote about her lover.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Sappho ran a school for girls on the isle of Lesbos, and much of her poetry speaks of her passion for her students. I think the "famous for having no men" part is your own creation.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, if I get the artistic bent with my paintball gun and cover up his picture with another that I find more fitting, am I breaking the law, or exercising my first amendment rights?
I can display any picture that I wish, no matter how bent, lewd, perverted, or just down-right nasty that I like in the privacy of my own home. However, when I start to force my opinions of what every one should see, aren't I violating their rights?
Just a couple of thoughts.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IndigoKnight1: I can display any picture that I wish, no matter how bent, lewd, perverted, or just down-right nasty that I like in the privacy of my own home. However, when I start to force my opinions of what every one should see, aren't I violating their rights?
Absolutely. There is also a difference between holding up a sign in from of a State building saying "allow me to display my porn" and actually displaying it.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Actually, Sappho ran a school for girls on the isle of Lesbos, and much of her poetry speaks of her passion for her students. I think the "famous for having no men" part is your own creation.
Well, yes, that's what the 'or at any rate' was intended to indicate. Slight poetic exaggeration there. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
