When I'm on my way to Target, I want nothing more than to watch hardcore porn while driving! Thanks for showing the world what an amazing guy you are by positioning two of your three DVD screens directly toward the outside of the car in such a manner that even if you did have passengers, they would not be able to partake of the sexy goodness. Truly, you perform a great service to society!
God bless you, PornMan.
-pH
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
Me:
PornMan: Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That Augusten Borroughs story comes to mind. But she was instructing people about safe driving.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
There's got to be a law against that, no? I mean, there are kiddies in the other cars, and PornMan is deliberately broadcasting that where they can see.
Not cool.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
. . .
Maybe it was a mistake or . . . erm . . . I dunno . . .
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Yeah, a mistake like the full frontal (female) photo I saw taped to a car window one day. It was the driver's side rear window, IIRC. Parked in a mall parking lot, where innocent shoppers (and sometimes their children, as well), go. It made paying my cell phone bill a very special experience. GRRR.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Did I miss something? Target is showing pornos?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Heh...now that's funny.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
1: Free porn.
2: It's just nature. People should get over it.
Damn American Puritanism. Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
MC : Even if I believed there was no problem for a kid to see two adults shag, there's also the question of perversity or violence in a lot of porn movies. I would be very concerned to think that the first approach of sex a kid had was through porn. That may lead him/her to believe that sex is inherently pervert/violent. That's not natural and not healthy. Incidentaly, I'm French, so "American puritanism" doesn't apply to me.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I agree with Anna. There's a difference between the type of porn our culture creates and regular sex. If porn depicted sex as it really is and not as some twisted fantasy that has a tendency to objectify women and make sex violent, I'd probably feel differently about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
People who say things like, "It's just nature," I find have rarely if ever actually lived in the food chain which is nature.
I personally think it's hysterical. Hey, maybe you'd like to live in 'just nature' with me sometime, MightyCow. You might have some stuff I'd like to take, be it food, mates, or territory. After all, it's natural!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I would be annoyed to find someone doing this.
First of all, it is very dangerous because of the distraction it causes both from the driver of the car (who is clearly an idiot) and all the other drivers around him.
Second of all is the one that Anna and Celaeno mentioned. This has nothing to do with Puritanism, it's to do with porn which is clearly unsuitable for children.
Nowhere in the world are children encouraged to watch artificial sex on tv.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I would have dialed the police and turned him in.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Anyone who considers porn natural has a really warped view of sex.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:There's got to be a law against that, no?
quote:I would have dialed the police and turned him in.
As far as I know, what the man was doing was violating no laws. If you know otherwise, then which law, exactly, was he breaking?
Should there be a law? Probably. Its awfully hard to define what one should be though. Can a man play sexy music video? An 'R' rated slasher film? How about an 'R' rated film which has a steamy sex scene? How about a PG-13 rated movie with a tame sex scene? What about a national geographic documentary with naked men and women? What about an HBO documentary on prostitution with naked women? What about a medical show with doctors examining naked women?
There's clearly a line somewhere, but I wouldn't know where to draw it.
It gets awfully tricky when you try to take rights away from people, even if you are doing so to protect others' rights.
[ June 19, 2006, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Kyvin (Member # 9141) on :
As for laws about that, ALL pornography should be illegal. pornography is sick, disgusting, and evil, and i can't imagine what kind of perverted person would think it is a "right" to even look at pornography in private, much less display it on their car in public. illegalizing pornography would not be taking any rights away from poeple, not any real rights at least, only something that perverts think is a right. MiightyCow: what exactly makes the U.S. puritan? the U.S. seems to have absolutely no sexual morality whatsoever.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As far as I know, what the man was doing was violating no laws.
Actually, I think he probably was. IIRC, there's no legal assumption of privacy in a car.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Do you suppose that a citizen has the right to dangerously distract other drivers on the road?
Seriously, it might take only a shocked glance lasting less than a second to be lethal-and not necessarily even for the person broadcasting the video. Not technically 'broadcasting', I know.
Furthermore, don't most videos-pornographic and otherwise-have warnings about 'not for public use'? Driving around on a crowded public road, facing TVs out so they're only seen by the public, would clearly seem to violate such a warning.
In any case, I don't think it's remotely tricky stopping someone's right to watch pornography at "in public, while driving, and forcing the viewing of the videos on others, including minors". Which is exactly what could happen. He could have a TV in his back seat facing backwards.
Quite frankly I think that drivers watching television on the road should be illegal, period. Doing so is at least doubly dangerous than talking on a cell phone or listening to the radio.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I can't imagine what kind of person would think it is 'right' to determine what type of content other people can consume based on their own narrow preconceptions of what is or is not 'right'.
Newsflash: you don't get to decide what rights other people get to have, and marginalizing the first amendment in order to make you feel like you occupy the moral high ground hardly makes you the good guy, IMO.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kyvin: and i can't imagine what kind of perverted person would think it is a "right" to even look at pornography in private,
Take a look around you. The vast majority of men and a substantial minority of women view porn in private. So either your imagination is very limited or you're intentionally deluding yourself.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Pornography is illegal for minors and so I would think what this guy was doing was illegal too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you can't imagine it, JT, you're not trying very hard, I'd say. People try and determine what content other people can consume all the time. For instance, snuff films. Opposition to viewing such things could hardly be considered based on a 'narrow' preconception of what is 'right', no?
To wit, people who say that two people havinig sex on camera is 'disgusting, sick, and evil'.
------
Kyvin,
quote:Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Pornography is clearly a form of speech, in this case 'expression', Kyvin. Freedom of speech is such an important right in our nation that its founders listed it first amongst the amendments to the US Constitution.
Whether or not pornography is disgusting, sick, and evil is irrelevant to whether or not citizens have a right to view it. Clearly, they do. So you're totally wrong when you say that no rights would be lost if it were criminalized. I say that bluntly because there is no other way to say it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I can't imagine what kind of person would think it is 'right' to determine what type of content other people can consume based on their own narrow preconceptions of what is or is not 'right'.
I don't think it's necessarily right to determine what type of content other people can consume -- although even that's debatable -- but I think it's absolutely right to determine what type of content people can share with others.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I don't think it's necessarily right to determine what type of content other people can consume -- although even that's debatable -- but I think it's absolutely right to determine what type of content people can share with others.
I agree 100% with the second half of this statement. Just to clarify, my earlier post was directed at kyvin, who was lambasting porn in general; it wasn't meant as a defense of the guy blaring it out the back window of his car. Public and private viewing are very different animals.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I would think there would be at least one law that would cover this situation. What about public lewdness or exposure? If you can't go around flashing people what's under your raincoat, then you can't go around flashing a monitor depicting porn. How about laws regarding showing porn to minors? How about distractions to other drivers? How about copyright laws regarding public viewings of videos?
There's got to be SOME sort of law that covers this. And personally, I think whether or not porn should be allowed in private homes is completely different than whether it should be allowed for forced public viewing.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Actually, I think he probably was. IIRC, there's no legal assumption of privacy in a car.
Tom, I clearly asked anyone who thought that he was breaking the law to tell me which law he was breaking.
I'm not legal expert, and am very open to the idea that such a law exists. But you can't just claim that he's breaking a law without saying which law he is breaking.
quote:In any case, I don't think it's remotely tricky stopping someone's right to watch pornography at "in public, while driving, and forcing the viewing of the videos on others, including minors". Which is exactly what could happen. He could have a TV in his back seat facing backwards.
Okay, then define "pornography". Its not any easy thing to do. Would American Beauty count when Mena Suvari is topless? That film did win the Best Picture Oscar. Hard to call that pornography. If that isn't pornography, then what about the movie Kids, which had several racy sex scenes. If that is porn, then where between American Beauty and Kids do you draw the line?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:People try and determine what content other people can consume all the time. For instance, snuff films. Opposition to viewing such things could hardly be considered based on a 'narrow' preconception of what is 'right', no?
Snuff films depict someone being murdered on camera, do they not? Do you not see the difference between a video chronicling something that every society in history has considered criminal and something which is central to our ongoing existence and in which the vast majority of adults in the world engage?
Edit: Which is why I chose the word 'narrow' to describe the preconceptions. I'd say wanting to ban the consumption of images of consensual sex between adults is narrow; wanting to ban the consumption of images of someone being murdered is just prudent.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because the line is blurry does not mean that things well over the line are not recognizable.
I doubt the guy was showing American Beauty to the world from his car.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'd agree with Katarain, that this should fall under public decency statutes/laws. I can't find any applicable ones in the Louisiana Civil Code, but that's more because I'm woefully unfamiliar with the search function there, not because such a statute doesn't exist.
Posted by Kyvin (Member # 9141) on :
ElJay, that just means that the vast majority of men and a minority of women are perverts, to some degree at least. just because a majority of poeple do something does not make it appropriate, nor does it stop those who do it from being perverts.
rakeesh: as i said, the U.S. is a very sexually immoral country. just because something is legally a right does not mean that it should be a right. there are many things that are quite legal that should be illegal. and please explain what makes pornography a form of speech.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, for the sake of this argument in specific, what was being broadcast was unequivocally pornography.
But for the argument you're making: I cannot define pornography. Which does not necessarily mean that because it cannot be defined, it must all be permitted, either. But in any case, like I said, I would be opposed to forcing other people to view any content that is literally on the road with them, such as another driver facing his televisions outwards.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Keep your values to yourself. If someone wants to willingly partake in making a porn video and someone else wants to buy it for private viewing, it really isn't any of your business, no matter how disgusting you think it is.
The possible exploitation of porn actors and actresses is another issue entirely, and should not preclude willing participants from partaking.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think he has to keep his values to himself. Why would displaying porn possibly be okay, but displaying digust for it is not?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Kyvin, my point wasn't to argue what you consider a pervert. My point was you say you can't imagine what kind of person considers watching porn at home a right. I just want you to be sure you know that by your definition, probably over 50% of the people you know are perverts.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kyvin: i can't imagine what kind of perverted person would think it is a "right" to even look at pornography in private
You obviously have no idea what rights are granted to people living in this country. This has nothing to do with pornography, but what a citizen in this country can expect to do in the privacy of their own home.
quote:Originally posted by Kyvin: illegalizing pornography would not be taking any rights away from poeple
Whoa, whoa whoa. This is a slippery slope. I don't know if you know what I mean, but I'll describe what can happen with this. If we start regulating what people can watch in their homes, who's to stop that from expanding. Who's to say that some religious documentary you watch doesn't become illegal because it offends someone? Where does it stop? Do you see what I mean?
quote:Originally posted by Kyvin: not any real rights at least, only something that perverts think is a right.
Whoa whoa. Let's be careful with the name calling. A person who displays porn for all to see in his car is either really stupid or knows exactly what he is doing and could definitely be classified as either a pervert or a serious jerk(as they probably get their J's off of exposing people to porn).
Seriously, though, you're not going to get anywhere here with that kind of attitude. If all you can do is resort to name calling instead of presenting a decent argument as to why you think every single person who watches porn is a pervert, then you're really on the wrong forum. I'd suggest shaping up or shutting your mouth.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
katharina: I don't think displaying porn is okay. And your right, he can express himself all he wants, but let's not have a law against its very existence.
The guy displaying porn from his car is most definitely in the wrong, and if there isn't a law against it (I can't imagine that there isn't), then there certainly should be. But kyvin seems to be broadening his/her objection to porn's very existence, as if it needs to be illegal. I disagree.
But you're right. People have the right to speak their opinions.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
In many states this may fall under a "disseminating obscenity" charge.
quote:Complaints have popped up across the country since 2002 when High Point, N.C., police charged four men with dissemination of obscenity after an officer saw a pornographic movie playing in the men's car.
Motorists have a right to privacy in their vehicles, Gowdy said. But that doesn't include the right to display obscenity to others, he said.
"If something's clearly visible from another car, there's nothing private about it," he said. "It's a public display." It's called the "plain view" principle.
"You can't show a movie on the side of your house or in the front yard of your house and claim you're not disseminating to anyone who drives by," Gowdy said.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Would American Beauty count when Mena Suvari is topless? That film did win the Best Picture Oscar. Hard to call that pornography.
Mena Suvari topless in American Beauty is pornography. See, it wasn't really that hard.
Admittedly, great legal minds have long struggled with defining what (if any) sexually explicit content should be restricted. We've certainly come a long way, though, from the days when "Anatomy of a Murder" was considered a dirty movie. For all the "puritanism" of US society we're significantly more permissive than we've ever been in our history (and than the majority of countries world-wide).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kyvin,
As the person who wants to remove the rights currently protected for other citizens-and yourself-it is your duty to say why they should be removed, not mine to instruct you why they should not. You want the change, thus you should be the advocate and not me.
I am not the expert or even a knowledgeable amateur on the subject of constitutional law or laws at all in the USA, so bear that in mind when I answer your question-even though you should be advocating, not demanding others prove their point.
It is speech because its producers say it is speech. Once the government gets into the business of telling its citizens, "This is speech...but not this...and this is a form of expression, but not this..." regarding activities which do not deprive others of their rights, or incite others to do so, well then we no longer have freedom of speech. We would have freedom of acceptable speech, which is quite different.
Freedom of speech does not merely mean freedom to talk politics, that is why pornography is a form of speech. Protected speech, too, when done privately.
Now, without demanding that others take it as a given that pornography is sick, disgusting, and evil, explain to me why this currently Constitutionally guaranteed right should no longer be protected?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Mena Suvari topless in American Beauty is pornography. See, it wasn't really that hard.
Ok, so what's the difference between pornography and art? As was pointed out earlier, some things are quite obviously over the line, but for many things the line is blurred.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Because the line is blurry does not mean that things well over the line are not recognizable.
I doubt the guy was showing American Beauty to the world from his car.
Of course he wasn't, and I am not in any way defending what he was doing.
I'm trying to impart the importance of caution when trying to codify into law anything which restricts the rights of individuals.
Take, for example, a bill a few years ago which made it illegal to depict a minor in a sexually explicit manner (we discussed it briefly here at hatrack). By the letter of the law, both A Song of Ice and Fire and American Beauty would have gotten their creators arrested.
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. Note that Titanic (best picture 1997), Shakespeare in Love (best picture 1998), Braveheart (best picture 1995) also have scenes depicting a topless female. I'd imagine these would be "pornography" as well?
I generally don't like slippery slope arguments, but I hope that others can now see why caution is required.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Camus-
In general I work with the definition that "any sexually explicit writing and/or picture intended to arouse sexual desire" is pornography. Whether or not pornography can also be art is a different issue. I would say that some art is pornographic, or has pornographic elements. Then you have to decide how many pornographic elements are sufficient for a full piece to be pornographic, and what is the relative artistic value versus the pornographic demerit, and it all gets fairly tedious. Just ask the FCC.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: 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 don't recall ever saying someone should be arrested for watching pornography. Feel free to provide a quote.
<edit>Ah, now I see you specified in your car. Well, I guess you might have a point. I would certainly find someone showing American Beauty in their car, when it is in full view of myself an my children, as breaking public indecency laws and would want them punished. Being the Best Picture of 1999 doesn't mitigate its offensiveness.</edit>
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
LA RS 14:91.11 concerns "Sale, exhibition, or distribution of material harmful to minors", which may apply here, or may not (as it refers to commercial institutions, which a car is not). But it lists punishments of a fine (between 200 and 1000 dollars) and/or a jail sentence of up to one year. I found some other stuff under public nuisance that seems to apply, but I can't find the exact statute that governs this particular situation.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Peter, I don't think I'd make the "than the majority of countries world-wide" comment here, as it is pretty much given that many other countries are much more open to sex in the media than the US. Europe is a prime example, where it's not uncommon to see topless women for example on prime-time TV. We are however renowned for allowing significantly more violence than other nations on our broadcast media. Now this isn't to say that we aren't more open than some countries, or even many countries, but I think it's a stretch to claim the majority.
On a legal note: It would be illegal for some combination of the following reasons, and I've heard of similar cases that were brought to court, but I don't recall the full stories at the moment: 1) Laws against having an entertainment screen within view of the vehicle's driver. I don't recall if this is a state or nation thing, but it is supposed to be illegal to have any kind of entertainment (TV) screen within view of the driver so as not to cause a dangerous distraction. 2) Copyright laws against public broadcast of copywritten material. as camus pointed out, once it is easily accessible from anyone around you it is no longer a private viewing. 3) Public indecency, the laws against public nudity should apply here as well through the same basis as the copywright argument.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Well, I guess you might have a point. I would certainly find someone showing American Beauty in their car, when it is in full view of myself an my children, as breaking public indecency laws and would want them punished.
Take this a step further then, please. Would african tribal documentaries also qualify? Medical documentaries? Skimpy near-nudity in music videos and cheesy B movies? Sex scenes with no nudity? Brief nudity of a male rear-end, such as what Micheal Douglas is known for?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Broadcasting Michael Douglas' bare ass should definitely be illegal, and I'll exchange any of my constitutional rights I need to to insure a future for my children devoid of droopy old man ass.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
what about classical greek or rennaisance statues with nude figures? the question is where to draw the line
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: I don't think I'd make the "than the majority of countries world-wide" comment here, as it is pretty much given that many other countries are much more open to sex in the media than the US. Europe is a prime example, where it's not uncommon to see topless women for example on prime-time TV.
Europe is a prime example, you're right, and I believe some countries in S. America are also more permissive. And Australia and New Zealand. However I think virtually all of the African countries and Asian countries have tighter restrictions than does the US. That's what motivated my "majority of countries" statement. People with more experience in Asia and Africa should feel free to refute my statement and I'll withdraw it; it's not based strongly on first-hand experience.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:1) Laws against having an entertainment screen within view of the vehicle's driver. I don't recall if this is a state or nation thing, but it is supposed to be illegal to have any kind of entertainment (TV) screen within view of the driver so as not to cause a dangerous distraction.
The screens in question were not necessarily in view of the driver. Usually these TV's are positioned so the back seat are the only seats which can see them.
quote: 2) Copyright laws against public broadcast of copywritten material. as camus pointed out, once it is easily accessible from anyone around you it is no longer a private viewing.
I seriously doubt this would apply. If I take a TV, face it so that people can see it through my windows, nobody could accuse me of infringing on copyright laws. Besides, this would apply for other things, such as displaying SpongeBob Squarepants.
quote: 3) Public indecency, the laws against public nudity should apply here as well through the same basis as the copywright argument.
This might apply, though I would think it varies by state. I think you would have trouble prosecuting anyone for it, however, when displaying it in your car. Maybe I am wrong though.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:
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.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
According to pH's description, I think these screens were pointed out the windows, so that nobody in the car would have been able to see them. This wasn't a case of someone viewing something and the public being able to see by accident. This person deliberately positioned the screens so that ONLY people outside of his car could see them.
That's what I got from the original post, anyway...
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Take this a step further then, please. Would african tribal documentaries also qualify? Medical documentaries? Skimpy near-nudity in music videos and cheesy B movies? Sex scenes with no nudity? Brief nudity of a male rear-end, such as what Micheal Douglas is known for?
I can play the same game, X. If American Beauty is alright, how about Showgirls? A homemade video of a stripping contest? Are Playboy movies alright? Hustler (I assume they make movies)?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I can play the same game, X. If American Beauty is alright, how about Showgirls? A homemade video of a stripping contest? Are Playboy movies alright? Hustler (I assume they make movies)?
You are missing my entire point. Nowhere did I argue anything about what should or should not be allowed.
In fact, my entire point quickly summed up is this: "Determining where to draw the line is difficult, and great caution should be used in doing so. Furthermore, I challenge anyone who claims that drawing the line is easy."
I attacked your statement:
quote:Mena Suvari topless in American Beauty is pornography. See, it wasn't really that hard.
Not because I disagreed with it, but because you appeared to say: "It's not hard to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable. See, American Beauty is unacceptable, wasn't that easy?"
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Katarain-
i think Xavier might be referring to the link camus posted two thirds down the first page of this thread. Either that, or he/she didn't read the original post.
Posted by Kyvin (Member # 9141) on :
any picture or video that displays anyones genital or pubic areas qualifies as pornography. and Xavier, just because a movie won the "best picture" award does not mean that it is not pornography.
Rakeesh: i was merely asking you what delusion could make you think that pornography is a form of expression. viewing pornography is thinking of those pictured in it as sex objects, and victimizing them by doing so, in order to feed your fetishes. and just because the producers of porbnography say that it is a form of speech does not make that true.
Primal Curve:poeple who watch pornography (or who look at it) are perverts because, as i said, they victimize those who are featured in pornography just because they get sexual pleasure from doing so. this is what makes thaem a pervert.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
ok, so remove the first possible violation from my argument for this case if the driver couldn't see, but I'd stand by the other two as at least possible violations of law.
Xavier, I think 2+3 go hand-in-hand, because if you can argue the public indecency that means you were publicly displaying copywritten material. And yes, I think that showing a spongebob movie in this manner would also violate #2 according to the letter of the law (though note this is not coming from a legal authority figure or anything)
And keep in mind that thinking it violates laws doesn't necessarily mean that I agree the laws are right or wrong, just that I think they exist.
Peter, you make a good point here on the fuzzyness of trying to draw a line as to where nudity and sexuality is appropriate/acceptable and not.
the key example here as I see it: Showgirls vs American Beauty (keeping in mind that I know a lot of people that would consider Amercian Beauty trash anyway, but for a moment let's accept it as art). in principle they both may have been trying to use sex in an artful way and for an artful purpose, so what draws the line between them? was it the fact that showgirls was a bad movie? was it the amount of nudity/sex that one versus the other contained? was there something more subtle that allows American Beauty to be considered art and not porn?
Now I'm not saying that I necessarily think that it's appropriate to show American Beauty in a public setting... it's still rated R, and thus there is an age restriciton which could be violated, and some people are offended by the movie in general.
however, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, the problem is that there has been no type of universal agreement as to what is considered pornography and what isnt. The statue of David is almost universally accepted as art and not pornography (I only know of a very few particularly vehement puritans who would object) and Backdoor S***s 9 would certainly be viewed as pornography, but what are the criteria that all or most can agree on as the line to draw?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:You are missing my entire point. Nowhere did I argue anything about what should or should not be allowed.
In fact, my entire point quickly summed up is this: "Determining where to draw the line is difficult, and great caution should be used in doing so. Furthermore, I challenge anyone who claims that drawing the line is easy."
The point of law isn't to tell people what they can and can't do, it's to protect others from having those actions/views/etc on them.
Individuals decide where to draw the line, not government. Laws (government) simply allows them to do so.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:any picture or video that displays anyones genital or pubic areas qualifies as pornography. and Xavier, just because a movie won the "best picture" award does not mean that it is not pornography.
I'm assuming here that you do not consider a woman's breasts to be "genitals or pubic areas", would that be correct?
If so, that's a pretty narrow definition actually, most of my examples would not apply.
In fact, no "soft-core" porn would apply either.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Sorry, X, I guess I was dramatically misinterpreting your point. I admitted, in the same post you quoted, that it's not easy and that legal scholars struggle with the issue all the time. It's not easy to do, and if my flippancy about American Beauty was taken as evidence that it's easy to define reasonable limits, I'm sorry.
I guess in my view it's not all that hard to decide what is pornographic and what isn't, but much more difficult to determine whether a piece's other facets constitute sufficient reason to overlook the pornographic elements when making a decision about public decency. To nitpick, I would say the scene of Mena Suvari topless is pornographic; however I would not say that necessarily means American Beauty should be termed pornographic.
Look at it this way; if someone took that scene, cut it from its context, and looped it repeatedly, would it be appropriate for public display?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
From a completely different viewpoint, I think no one driving a car should be able to watch movies (regardless of content) while they are driving. That's what, in my mind, should be outlawed.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Kyvin, I can't help but further question your sentiments here...
what about clear works of art such as greek sculpture. or how about nude photography, much of which has no intention of being sexually stimulating (I'm primarily thinking of very respectful and artistic photography, which is generally intended to glorify the human body etc...)
what are your views on those topics?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kyvin: I'll admit I don't get why pornography is so huge. (well, ok, it turns guys and some women on. I get it from that angle. But I don't get why it turns them on.)
But the thing is, the second you start limiting stuff that doesn't effect an unwilling victim YOU are the one who is doing something immoral.
It's hard enough to find happiness in this world without busy-bodies sticking their noses in where it doesn't belong. People have a right to pursue that happiness. It's one of the basic principles of our country. And before you step on your soapbox think about the things you might like, that harms no one, that SOMEONE things is evil.
Like eating meat. Like being christian. Like reading Science Fiction.
Anything you do is going to be evil to someone, so please, step off your high horse and learn that other people are different than you. What it takes to make them happy is different. Let them be happy and hope that they let you be happy.
Pix
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:any picture or video that displays anyones genital or pubic areas qualifies as pornography.
So that would include medical diagrams?
quote:i was merely asking you what delusion could make you think that pornography is a form of expression.
So you can talk about or appreciate certain parts of the body but not others?
quote:viewing pornography is thinking of those pictured in it as sex objects
So based on your definition of pornography, a doctor that is reviewing a medical textbook is victimizing people and feeding a fetish?
quote:they victimize those who are featured in pornography just because they get sexual pleasure
Oddly enough, some people actually feel empowered because others view them in a sexual manner.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If you can't imagine it, JT, you're not trying very hard, I'd say. People try and determine what content other people can consume all the time. For instance, snuff films. Opposition to viewing such things could hardly be considered based on a 'narrow' preconception of what is 'right', no?
I was under the impression that it is illegal to make a (real) snuff film, because, y'know, there's murder involved. But is there a law against making or viewing a fake one?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, tell you what. I'll swap my right to view porn for your right to be Christian, or whatever theist cult you subscribe to.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Oddly enough, some people actually feel empowered because others view them in a sexual manner. "
I think that's sad.
I know it's entirely judgemental, yadda yadda, but such power is an illusion. It's not real power - it's a borrowing of real power. It's given as an indulgence, unless someone really does get so addled by sex they lose their minds, in which case power over such a loser isn't something to be proud of.
Did y'all read the beginning of Hart's Hope?
Posted by Kyvin (Member # 9141) on :
Xavier: by my definition, any gender-specific organ is a genital. that was what i meant when i said "any genitals or pubic areas". also any sexually stimulating image (at least one that was intended to be) qualifies as pornography.
TheGrimace: artistic photography of nude or partially nude poeple is just pornography under a different name. all that drivel about it "glorifying the human body" is just bulldung.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:by my definition, any gender-specific organ is a genital.
Wow. I'm glad the courts don't use your definitions for anything, then. *wipes brow*
Seriously, Kyvin, you really need to learn to appreciate more naked people.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Kyvin, what about countries where the women walk aroung topless? Should all the guys have to walk around with their eyes closed?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kyvin: Xavier: by my definition, any gender-specific organ is a genital. that was what i meant when i said "any genitals or pubic areas". also any sexually stimulating image (at least one that was intended to be) qualifies as pornography.
TheGrimace: artistic photography of nude or partially nude poeple is just pornography under a different name. all that drivel about it "glorifying the human body" is just bulldung.
So what would you call a nude beach?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Let's say the picture is one of your husband or wife - does it qualify as pornography then?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think what Kyvin is trying to say is that anything which is intentionally sexually stimulating is pornographic, and furthermore that all pornography is bad.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think what Kyvin is trying to say is that anything which is intentionally sexually stimulating is pornographic, and furthermore that all pornography is bad.
I find that way to broad. Under that definition all women should be dressed like they do in the conservative Muslim countries.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kyvin: any picture or video that displays anyones genital or pubic areas qualifies as pornography. and Xavier, just because a movie won the "best picture" award does not mean that it is not pornography.
Rakeesh: i was merely asking you what delusion could make you think that pornography is a form of expression. viewing pornography is thinking of those pictured in it as sex objects, and victimizing them by doing so, in order to feed your fetishes. and just because the producers of porbnography say that it is a form of speech does not make that true.
Primal Curve:poeple who watch pornography (or who look at it) are perverts because, as i said, they victimize those who are featured in pornography just because they get sexual pleasure from doing so. this is what makes thaem a pervert.
By this logic, a man is a pervert if he looks at his wife and gets sexual pleasure from doing so. He is therefore victimizing her, especially if he asks her to dress up in outfits, because that is clearly feeding his fetishes and turning her into an object.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote:I find that way to broad. Under that definition all women should be dressed like they do in the conservative Muslim countries.
I fear this is the kind of reasoning here as well. How sad.
Posted by Kyvin (Member # 9141) on :
camus: of course medical diagrams and textbooks are not pornography, nor is a doctor who reads them a pervert. medical diagrams and textbooks are nessacary. however, are you saying that every pervert who looks at pornography is doing so for medical purposes?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Kat : or if a woman looks at her husband and gets sexual pleasure from it as well. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kyvin: camus: of course medical diagrams and textbooks are not pornography, nor is a doctor who reads them a pervert. medical diagrams and textbooks are nessacary. however, are you saying that every pervert who looks at pornography is doing so for medical purposes?
Well.... They say what men do with it can reduce the likelihood of prostate cancer....
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:camus: of course medical diagrams and textbooks are not pornography, nor is a doctor who reads them a pervert. medical diagrams and textbooks are nessacary. however, are you saying that every pervert who looks at pornography is doing so for medical purposes?
Okay, you haven't made much sense yet, but this particular post is barely lucid.
You do your beliefs a disservice by having thought them through so poorly.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Anna: Yeah, but I thought that would needlessly confuse poor Kyvin. The thought of women deriving sexual satisfaction from anything might be too much for him/her.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:of course medical diagrams and textbooks are not pornography, nor is a doctor who reads them a pervert.
I just wanted to make sure that you did understand that not all depictions of a person's genital area are for sexually arousing reasons. So it is entirely possible for a movie to win a best picture award and still not be considered pornography by normal people.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Here are my thoughts:
Regardless of whether or not it is illegal for PornMan to spread his Good News on the highway, I think it's in bad taste. Severely bad taste. I mean, I'm really careful about what kinds of movies I watch on my laptop on airplanes because I don't want little kids to see something that their parents wouldn't want them seeing. The fact that two of the screens were pointed directly out toward others and couldn't be seen from inside the car at all just quadruples his classiness. Because everyone loves a guy who watches hardcore porn in public. I mean, who knows how "distracted" he was while driving?
-pH
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: But you're right. People have the right to speak their opinions.
Yep, including the opinion that labelling everyone who disagrees with you a "pervert" is perhaps not the best way to approach things here.
Someone should get Kyvin and Robin K--- together... that would make for a fun thread.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Hey pH, I'm sure you didn't think your thread would get such an interest. Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Jim-me : or, you know, push them in an elevator and block it for a day or two. With a water and food provision.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
FYI, and probably out of date, but it summarizes the legislation at that time.
There are a lot of jerks in this world. It is apparent to me that liking or disliking porn is far from a useful distinguisher of either jerkdom or ability to think through a coherent position on the matter.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Someone should get Kyvin and Robin K--- together... that would make for a fun thread.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Kyvin, so you accept that there are cases where someone can view another's naked form (either in person or in artificial depiction) though medical purposes are the only ones you've identified so far as acceptable.
What if I could convince you that there are other forms of expression/viewing which did not involve any sort of intent to/actual sexual arousal? i.e. when I look at a statue of David or Venus etc that I am purely appreciating the art for art's sake?
But in any case, while I respect your right to hold those views personally, I can't help but feel that the attitude you've expressed so far on the topic is why America is often considered so puritan and prudish. It seems extreme to not allow for any appreciation of human sexuality, which is such a great gift we have.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
Kyvin: Are you one of the people who supported John Ashcroft's needless spending of tax payer money on a tarp to cover the statue of lady justice? Apparently Ashcroft subscribes to your opinion that all nudity is thinly veiled pornogrophy. Even that of symbolic statues. Thanks to opinions like yours this country can continue to live in the dark ages. Next on the useless spending agenda: Cover up the David! Venus de milo! All Classial Greek and Roman Art! Don't look at the human body, it might make you unclean! Unclean! What a crock.
In response to the original topic of this post: pH you are totally right to be disgusted by PornMan's behavior. People who don't want to watch porn should not be forced to, unwittinigly, because they happen to be driving down the road. That guy obviously had some issues and doesn't understand that 'free country' means that I am free to not watch hardcore porn while driving.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
The Statue of Venus hardly makes for a good example. To my knowledge, no sculture has ever done female genetalia its true justice.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
You're right cheiros, most sculpture makes female genetalia look like a Barbie, smooth.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Lol, indeed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are you one of the people who supported John Ashcroft's needless spending of tax payer money on a tarp to cover the statue of lady justice?
Are you one of the people who supported needless spending of money for a statue of lady justice?
In both cases, money was spent on artistic impression. Presumably, the person who installed the statue did so thinking the nudity was good. Ashcroft's adding of the tarp was based on his thinking the nudity bad. Why is the opinion of the original procurer of the statue (or yours, for that matter) more important than Ashcroft's?
I'm not agreeing with anyone's definition of pornography here, but your casual dismissal of other's opinions ("What a crock") is hardly on a different plane than some of the ones being complained about here.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
...i can't imagine what kind of perverted person would think it is a "right" to even look at pornography in private...
[waves at Kyvin]
Frankly, I don't really care what's playing. I don't want television screens visible by other drivers no matter what's playing on them. We don't need more distractions, and frankly seeing "Spider-Man" in another car would probably grab my attention as much as a porn movie.
As for the idiot displaying his junk - we get that here every year during Spring Break and Black College Reunion. Arrest them for public displays of lewdness, public nudity, creating a disturbance, and other rewordings of "You're being a jerk in public." The guy displaying porn to the world is just as annoying to me as the people telling me that my enjoyment of any representation of a naked person is eeeevil.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
I've got to take a picture of the front of my daughter's middle school. Way up near the top is what I think would be described as a classical frieze. The school was originally the high school, then a junior high (grades 7-9) and is now the second middle school (grades 7-8).
I'll try to get a photo and post a link later - at the risk of posting to material that might be considered inappropriate.
I mentioned earlier that I saw a full frontal female photo posted in the window of a car at our local mall. I was offended - I consider that porn. (typed that pron twice ) However, I don't take the frieze on the middle school in the same way. I guess it's a matter of perspective. For one thing, the building has four floors, IIRC, and the frieze is waaayyyy up at the top. It's difficult to see the details. Also, the details are not the same. I can't identify specific parts of genitalia from the frieze - it would have been possible with the picture I mentioned.
I think pH's post covered two issues - porn and driving while distracted. No driver should be watching movies while driving. Also, people who watch porn should watch it privately, without broadcasting.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I've now seen this "Lady Justice" with and without the Tarp change. I don't get how you could think she looks better without it.
Seems to me, by her being the very personification of the US legal system, that her being blindfolded should be more important, than that her breast(s?-- sorry there's multiple versions of the old one) being exposed.
I know which factor I would notice first if I walked by her... or does that just make me a pervert? Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
You are eeeevil, Mr. Bridges.
Sure, this stance seems all reasonable and whatnot to your (probably teenage) ears, but let's see what you say after you get a few years and some kids under your belt.
Hah!
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
And when my drawing class paid to have a nude male model come in, we were obviously victimizing him by not averting our eyes and becoming aroused by learning to draw the shadow-and-light patterns on the human muscular architecture. Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
I'm sorry Dagonee. With all the problems that are in the world that could use some cash help such as education, homelessness, health care, or cancer research, the idea of spending over $100,000 on a tarp to cover a statue seems a little ridiculous. Sure, Ashcroft's got a right to his opinion, but I've got a right to call him a relict of medieval times.
I'm not trying to belittle anyone's opinon. I'm just disagreeing and using colorful language while doing so. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: [QB] I've now seen this "Lady Justice" with and without the Tarp change. I don't get how you could think she looks better without it.
OK, but I'm sure Ashcroft disagrees with you. I'm sure he can't get how you think it looks better without the tarp (I assume you meant "with it"). This is the ultimate matter of opinion - is this art good. If the original statue came with a tarp which most found ugly, would we be somehow bound by the original intentions of the procurer of the statue?
No. It's a question of decoration.
Posted by Kyvin (Member # 9141) on :
stephan: you put some words in my mouth. i never said that all women should dress the way they do in conservatve islamic countries. i think there is a big difference between disapproving of all pornography, and thinking it should be illegal to display ANY part of your body in public. as for nude beaches, they are also evil and sick, as are strip clubs and adult book stores.
Jim-me: i am not labeling anyone who disagrees with me as a pervert, i am merely saying that anyone who looks at pornography is a pervert. just like stephan, you have jumped to conclusions.
TheGrimace: appreciating art like that isnt innappropriate so long as you don't do it for sexual pleasure. and poeple like you are why i think that the united states is a lewd and sexually immoral country.
luet13: as i said, symbolic statues of naked poeple are appropriate as long as they are not intended to serve sexual purposes. i don't think it is nessacary to get so riled up about this, the way you were ranting in that post of yours.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:OK, but I'm sure Ashcroft disagrees with you. I'm sure he can't get how you think it looks better without the tarp (I assume you meant "with it").
No I didn't mean with it. I said without; I'm not stupid.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In Ashcroft's defense, certain photographers were clearly enjoying the irony of being able to photograph him right in front of a bare breast when speaking out on an anti-pornography issue (just as one example). I'd imagine that he put up the tarp as much to protect himself from that sort of ironic juxtaposition (which easily opens him up to unfair assertions of hypocrisy) than to protect himself from sculpted nudity.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm sorry Dagonee. With all the problems that are in the world that could use some cash help such as education, homelessness, health care, or cancer research, the idea of spending over $100,000 on a tarp to cover a statue seems a little ridiculous.
Can you source the $100,000?
Second, with all the problems that are in the world that could use some cash help such as education, homelessness, health care, or cancer research, the idea of spending over $X on a statue seems a little ridiculous.
Are you under the impression that the statue was installed at a time when education, homelessness, health care, or cancer research couldn't have used the cash?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
quote:OK, but I'm sure Ashcroft disagrees with you. I'm sure he can't get how you think it looks better without the tarp (I assume you meant "with it").
No I didn't mean with it. I said without; I'm not stupid.
OK, so you meant "I don't get how you could think she looks better without it."
You think she looks better with the tarp?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:i am not labeling anyone who disagrees with me as a pervert, i am merely saying that anyone who looks at pornography is a pervert.
*laugh* You realize that stats put that at something like 80% of adults in the country, right? In fact, by most technical definitions of the word "pervert," it would be more correct to argue that people who do not look at pornography are perverted.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Ok. I'm sure someone, somewhere, will derive sexual pleasure from viewing anything... and at a great effort to limit my imagination i will keep the list of examples to this: spatulas, obelisks, various fruit and vegetables, a couch.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:You think she looks better with the tarp?
Yes. Though I might have read your original post on Ashcroft wrong. He's a politician, right?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But it wasn't like the statue came in against his wishes and he had it covered. They've been there since the 1930's, and Lady Justice has been depicted that way since before the States were United. Making such a big deal about covering them, especially when we were fighting an enemy that forces its women to cover themselves head to foot, was just stupid on Ashcroft's part.
My impression wasn't that he covered them because he got shaky at the sight of a human breast, but because the press made a game of getting shots of people standing directly under it.
If he wanted it gone he'd have been better served redecorating the whole area, removing both statues, and putting something else there in their place. This just made him look like an insecure prude.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
quote:You think she looks better with the tarp?
Yes. Though I might have read your original post on Ashcroft wrong. He's a politician, right?
OK, sorry I misinterpreted you.
Ashcroft is the one who had the tarp installed.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Kyvin said: "TheGrimace: appreciating art like that isnt innappropriate so long as you don't do it for sexual pleasure. and poeple like you are why i think that the united states is a lewd and sexually immoral country.
luet13: as i said, symbolic statues of naked poeple are appropriate as long as they are not intended to serve sexual purposes. i don't think it is nessacary to get so riled up about this, the way you were ranting in that post of yours. "
What I'm finding issue with is where you draw the line. So now you stat that the David (for example) is not pornography (correct me if I'm wrong). But there's multiple problems with this: 1) there is still the potential (primarily with the young who dont have as great an appreciation for art yet) to view this as an object of arousal. 2) we can't be certain that there wasn't some initial intention of what you would consider pornographic depiction when the statue was first created... what if it really was intended to be arousing and we've since just stopped looking at it in that way?
Additionally, using the justification that says my looking upon the David is NOT lewd behavior that I could say my looking at a partially or fully nude photograph without the intent to be aroused, but only to appreciate some combination of the human form and the artistic use of light and shadow (assuming the photograph was not intended to be pornographic, but artistic).
I'm again asking where you draw the line? What is it exactly that makes some form of sexual expression/representation acceptable, and others not?
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/statues.htm Okay, I'll be the first to admit, I was wrong about the dollar amount. It was only $8,000. Yes that's a big difference, please don't waste your time telling me what a dolt I am. This all happened years ago, and I guess through my own biases against this administration and a time warp, I have not remembered as clearly as I would like.
I suppose you think the best way to win this war is for all the women in America to walk around topless? Sounds like a plan to me. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When President Bush visited the Justice Department to rededicate the building to Robert Kennedy, his advance men insisted on a nice blue backdrop: "TV blue," infinitely preferable to the usual dingy background of the Great Hall. Everyone thought the backdrop worked nicely — made for "good visuals," as they say. This was Deaverism, pure and simple. Ashcroft's people intended to keep using it.
An advance woman on his team had the bright idea of buying the backdrop: It would be cheaper than renting it repeatedly. So she did — without Ashcroft's knowledge, without his permission, without his caring, everyone in the department insists.
But ABC put out the story that Ashcroft, the old prude, had wanted the Breast covered up, so much did it offend his churchly sensibilities. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, ever clever, wrote that Ashcroft had forced a "blue burka" on Minnie Lou. Comedians had a field day (and are still having it). The Washington Post has devoted great space to the story, letting Cher, for example, tee off on it — as she went on to do on David Letterman's show.
And yet the story is complete and total bunk. First, Ashcroft had nothing to do with the purchase of the backdrop. Second, the backdrop had nothing to do with Breast aversion. But the story was just "too good to check," as we say, and it will probably live forever. Generations from now, if we're reading about John Ashcroft, we will read that he was the boob who draped the Boob. The story is ineffaceable.
So it was an aesthetic decision.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That makes more sense (although Snopes implies there's still some dispute). Thanks for posting that.
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
Maybe this is just my leftish leanings talking, but I do find it hard to believe that Ashcroft had "nothing to do with the purchase of the backdrop." Is there any hard evidence, like quotes from Ashcroft himself (not his flunkies) that he had nothing to do with it?
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
*taking notes*
...don't...preach ethics...in a chat room...
Got it.
Anything else?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What does it take to prove a negative? I think people will believe what they wish to.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Westerners have a long history of seeing others who they believe are immoral and simply destroying cultures because of it.
At the same time the English forced Australian Aborigines to lose their self control by alcohol, a substance not at all in Aborigine bloodlines; all wear clothes, despite not having in any way the sexual promiscuity of the British; making them slaves; stealing their children from them by any means possible and literally trying to breed them white, and on top of all that treated them as even more inferior if they didn’t subscribe to the twisted British idea of Christianity.
This kind of western stupidity isn’t unique to Australian history.
Notice the part I put emphasis on. Fact is, Westerner’s just don’t get it. At least not on a large scale. Beauty, profanity, danger, is all in the eye of the beholder. It’s be nice to think you Americans had finally figure it out, but the defenses I’m hearing of the porn industry from some of you makes me think differently.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's not a Western thing. It's a human thing. The idea of the evil Westerners and the noble natives makes for good copy, but it's twisting the events.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Not really. The aborigines had dozens of different cultures, langauages, local areas, histories, stories, and belief systems in general, all coexisting peacefully on the huge continent of Australia. Not once, in something like 60,000 years, did one group try to force their beliefs on another.
They shared ideas, not power structures (like the modern military allieships).
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
cheiros, I'm curious what defenses you are hearing of the porn industry. at best what I've seen in this discussion is people placing that dicsussion on hold in favor of a purely legal discussion.
Part of the problem here is we have two parallel discussions going right now: 1) is this act legal or not? accepting that pornography in itself IS legal, and not bringing into question the moral aspect of this. 2) what is morally classifiable as pornography (and this ventures a little into what should be classified legally as pornography)
I don't think anyone has been seriously arguing that the porn industry is good or doesnt degrade/abuse/exploit many of the people involved. There IS some argument that sexual self expression should be acceptable, but from what I'm reading you're not entirely opposed to that either, so I'm confused by your last statement.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
C: I find that not only incredibly improbable, I'm astounded that you believe it.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
You talk about us Westerners and our stupidity, and then you note about old Christian ideals. I'm frankly offended.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Grimace-
I already stated the purpose of law is to protect others from having different belief system's forced on them, not to stop people from acting as they choose in general. I don't think porn should be illegal, watching or making it, I don't think alcohol, or any other drug should be illegal, etc.
I'm a Libertarian, except not so anarchist as your Libertarian Party seem to want.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Last I checked, the boomerang was primarily an instrument of combat. That sure sounds like force to me.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I'm talking about conquesting, monarchist Westerners of the past, not today where individuals aren't so ruled over by aristocracies.
As for Christianity, I'm not against original Christianity, the marvellous ways these segregated groups (like black Americans) have adapted it, what Pope John Paul did or Gordon B Hinckley have done for the world, and so on.
Doesn't mean I have to like Christianity wholeheartedly, especially not those factioned that have used it to justify enslaving other human beings in the past.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Last I checked, the boomerang was primarily an instrument of combat. That sure sounds like force to me.
1. That's individuals, not cultures, conflicting, and it's not over petty matters, it's over justice.
2. It's primary use was for hunting, though not neccessarily hitting the animal itself (what would be the point of that with an instrument designed to come back?)
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
quote: It’s be nice to think you Americans had finally figure it out, but the defenses I’m hearing of the porn industry from some of you makes me think differently.
Not the monarchist governments of the past I'm just really confused about this. We don't get what? We are just like the British conquestors you mentioned? We like porn because we want to change everyone into us? I don't understand what you're saying.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Westerners have a hard time seperating freedom of expression and promiscuity, being offensive/shocking for the sake of it.
We can't just be free, we always have to drag some moral message (worldview) along with it and yes, try to change everyone else into us.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kyvin: stephan: you put some words in my mouth. i never said that all women should dress the way they do in conservatve islamic countries. i think there is a big difference between disapproving of all pornography, and thinking it should be illegal to display ANY part of your body in public. as for nude beaches, they are also evil and sick, as are strip clubs and adult book stores.
Nude beaches are evil and sick? Well at least I know how truly extreme your beliefs are. I went to a couple with my family growing up. I feel because of it that I find the naked human body to be LESS purely sexual then most find it.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Obviously native cultures where the women walk around topless are also evil and sick.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Cheiros: It's nice copy, but the support for your argument rests on assuming a snapshot of some people that may or may not be accurate is indicative of 60,000 years of history.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
First, I find the beginning of this whole coversation very confusing, almost as if I walking into the middle of a conversation and wasn't sure what the subject was.
It seems the first post in this thread was from pH who was vaguely complaining about having to view pornography on his/her way to Target, but beyond that, everything is a little vague. There seems to be a substantial lack of setup here that would allow anyone to comment intelligently on the subject.
Is this a hypothetical? Is this based on an extension of comments found in another thread that I missed? Is this based on a news article? Is this based on pure speculation of what could happen, but so far hasn't? Is this based on personal experience, and if so what was that personal experience?
I can certainly comment on other people's responses, but I have no idea what the original comment was.
Are we referring to normal video systems now found in many mini-Vans and SUVs?
Or, alternately, is this about a person who intensionally rigged up a van (or other vehicle) with side facing video screens with the specific intent of broadcasting pornography to the world at large?
Did such an event occur, or are we dealing with speculation?
A little explanation of what we are talking about would go a long way here.
Since I haven't a clue what the actual subject is, I can only comment on the comments.
First and foremost, the video screens in normal Vans and SUVs are tiny. I don't think any one is going to be offended seeing a penis that is smaller than the tip of a ball point pen or a breast roughly the diameter of a small pencil eraser. For the most part, you can't even discern those details as cars pass on the highway unless you are trying really hard.
Next, nudity is not pornography, that has been established many many times. There is a general legal and civil/social context in which nudity and even pornography can be displayed.
If this is someone who has intentionally rigged video screens for public view and is indiscriminantly broadcasting REAL pornography, then certainly there are an assortment of legal actions that can be taken.
On the other hand, if this is just a bunch of kids cruising and watching REAL pornography in a normal Van, then while I suspect milder legal complications, I'm sure if someone complained, some legal action could and would be taken.
Free speech does have limits, and it is limited by context. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater. You can view Porn in private. But when you start indiscriminantly broadcasting it, you are entering into the realm of illegal actions.
That's about all I can say given that I have no idea what the original subject was.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: 2. It's primary use was for hunting, though not neccessarily hitting the animal itself (what would be the point of that with an instrument designed to come back?)
To make it easier to attack again, if you missed?
-Bok
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
OK, I was all set to write something in response to Kyvin's posts, then I read Pix's and felt I didn't have to.
Then I read this:
quote:You do your beliefs a disservice by having thought them through so poorly.
El JT, that's beautiful. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:First and foremost, the video screens in normal Vans and SUVs are tiny. I don't think any one is going to be offended seeing a penis that is smaller than the tip of a ball point pen or a breast roughly the diameter of a small pencil eraser. For the most part, you can't even discern those details as cars pass on the highway unless you are trying really hard.
Most of them are 7", but I believe they go as big as 13" screens. I've seen plenty of cars that have dual 13" flatscreens, one behind each seat. Whatever they're watching is plenty clear, even on the interstate. Furthermore, it's not at all unusual in my part of the world for the screens to be installed behind the last row of seats, whichever one that may be. In other words, they're installed where no one in the car can watch them while the car's moving. This is predominantly a status thing (look how rich I am), although I'm sure there are people who use them for tailgating or something like that.
And the size of the display doesn't really matter. If you can see it from outside the car, you're no longer watching it in private, and you've most likely violated some laws.
Edit: Wow, the KarlEd seal of approval. I'm very proud of myself now. Posted by Kyvin (Member # 9141) on :
stephan, nude beaches are evil and sick because they are places where just anyone can go to look at someone elses genitals, and where exhibitionists can display theirs. and you said you went to some growing up... i'll bet pedophiles like to hang out at nude beaches, where they can look at childrens' genitals and have it be legal. i wonder if Robin K. ever goes to nude beaches for that reason...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Kyvin, because I believe in freedom of expression I won't try to speculate as to your reasoning or the sources of your beliefs. I'll just say that I couldn't disagree with you more if I quit my job and worked at it full time.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Kyvin: Would you mind telling me your home area, age range, and basic religious beliefs? I would like to have a framework to better able to understand where you are coming from.
I think it's pretty silly to say that anyone who looks at nudity and is aroused by it is a pervert. First, if you accept that a large percentage of people enjoy looking at nude people, you're not using the word pervert in any meaningful way.
Second, you're defining pornography in such general terms that almost anything to do with a nude person is pornography to you. Further, you make pornography dependent on the viewer, not the medium. You stated that a piece of art showing a nude woman is art, unless someone gets sexual pleasure from looking at it, in which case it is pornography. Pornography is a label for an item, not the state of mind of the person who looks at it.
Finally, I really don't understand the idea of victimizing a person by looking at them nude, either in person, or particularly in a picture or movie. To me, that makes as much sense as the idea that the picture has stolen their soul.
By that logic, if you look at a picture of a nude person from 80 years ago, are you somehow victimizing a dead person? If you look at a sketch or sculpture of a stylized person, are you victimizing an idea? Seems pretty silly to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm pretty sure Kyvin = RK. It's taking an extreme stand on a sex topic in order to get people to pay attention to him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I could, Chris. If you gave me more hours in the day and some high-quality training, I'll bet I could make all of you disagreeing-with-Kyvin people look like amateurs. Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Yes, I had come to that conclusion as well
edit: that was to kat
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm pretty sure Kyvin = RK. It's taking an extreme stand on a sex topic in order to get people to pay attention to him.
It is tiresome, tedious, and the antithesis of effective. Unless, of course, the intent is to drive people away from this site out of yawning boredom with his capers.
I, for one, will be hanging out only at various other for awhile, as my stress level is high enough these days.
Good luck to the Cards and Papa J. I hope you can Make something positive out of this, and all my positive vibes are winging your way for it. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
We could just ignore him. I think it's easy enough - ignore all the posts that sound like they are coming from someone begging for attention.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kyvin: stephan, nude beaches are evil and sick because they are places where just anyone can go to look at someone elses genitals, and where exhibitionists can display theirs. and you said you went to some growing up... i'll bet pedophiles like to hang out at nude beaches, where they can look at childrens' genitals and have it be legal. i wonder if Robin K. ever goes to nude beaches for that reason...
Exhibitionists don't get off on going some place where its expected. They get off stripping down places where its not ok, its part of the thrill.
Except for the rare circumstance (jerks with cameras trying to post to internet sites, who are usually dealt with quickly) voyeurs quickly realize the human body is not exactly the strip club/playboy fantasy they think it is. Any sexiness one might find goes out the window the first time one sees an elderly person.
Children are no more at risk from pedophiles then they are at any other beach in the world. Toddlers are often seen naked at many other beaches anyways.
Paranoia should not stop people from trying to be more comfortable in their bodies.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: Yes, I had come to that conclusion as well
edit: that was to kat
I'll third that.
Posted by ctm (Member # 6525) on :
<sigh>
Kyvin is most definitely not RK. He's my son, he is 15 years old, he's a Christian. He definitely has some strong opinions and he does love to argue. He has Asperger's syndrome.
Some background:
He just got back from a weekend with his dad. He discovered by accident that his dad, whose infidelity led to our divorce, is looking around on the internet for another woman while still in THAT relationship. So, as you can imagine, sex seems like a bad thing to him at the moment.
I'm quite surprised at some of the opinions he's expressed here and we will be doing a lot of talking over the next few days. In the meantime I'm going to be exercising parental control and restrict him from posting here for a while.
I'm grateful to those of you who tried to gently guide him to express himself more appropriately, I really do appreciate it.
ctm
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Once again I will point out that nudity is NOT pornography.
One of the problems with defining and controlling alleged 'pornography' is that to some extent you are trying to legislate thought. More so you are trying to legislate what I am thinking...no, that's not quite right... you are trying to legislate what YOU think I might be thinking, and that is a very tricky process.
Let us use nude art as an example; say the statue of Dave. One person might see that and be in awe of the craftsmanship that it took to create it. Another might be in awe of the aesthetically beautiful capturing of the human form. And, another might be turned on by the naughty idea of seeing a nude boy.
Again, the point is, you can't predict and therefore can't legislate what goes on in my mind.
As an extension of this, and regarding nudist camps and nude beaches, again if you see these as pornographic and obscene then because those thoughts and images come from your own mind, then for you it is true. But for most of the people who frequent beaches and camps, nudity becomes very indicental. It becomes such old hat as to lose all it's significants.
Public bathhouses used to be VERY popular in Japan. Whole families would pack a picnic lunch and a bottle of wine, and meet their friends and neighbors at the public bath for a social gathering. All perfectly innocent. The nudity was purely indicental and had no meaning to them. You couldn't see anything that you couldn't imagine in your mind. There was no sex, boys and girls, children of all ages gathered together for innocent social fun. The nudity simply meant nothing to them because it had a clear social context that was completely non-sexual.
That's the way it is on most nude beaches. After an hour or so of seeing fat 70 year old men and scrawny 70 year of women in the nude, the mystique is gone, and from then on it's just normal life; you swim, you surf, you play volley ball, you have a soda, you talk with your friends, and lay in the sun. No one looks; no one cares.
As to the thought that pedophiles might frequent these beaches to catch a glimpse of some young person naked, so what? Once again you are trying to control what you think other might be thinking, but there is not law so far against thinking. Heaven help us if we sink so low as to institute the 'thought police'.
As along as the alleged pedophile confines his/her actions to thoughts and fantasies, he/she hasn't broken any law. If he/she moves beyond thought into the realm of action, then they have commited a breach of the law that is independant of beach nudity. They have commited a breach of law that could just as easily have been stimulated by the adevertising section of the Sunday newspaper.
Kyvin, I think you have a very warped view of nude beaches. Though I will admit, that there probably are a very few nude beaches that match your view, they are in the minority. Most public nude beaches are very boring places where most people don't give a second thought to the 'nude' apsect of it.
Firther note, that you thoughts and preceptions of nude beaches don't actually create the reality of nude beaches, which is why, very conviniently, we do not let the thoughts of one person dictate the reality for everyone else.
Just passing it along.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
(((ctm)))
FG
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Well, at least now we can all go back to enjoying the porn out of that guy's back window Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Not really. The aborigines had dozens of different cultures, langauages, local areas, histories, stories, and belief systems in general, all coexisting peacefully on the huge continent of Australia. Not once, in something like 60,000 years, did one group try to force their beliefs on another.
They shared ideas, not power structures (like the modern military allieships).
How do you know? It's not as if they had a written history to record any such attempts. I do suspect you are right, since people at that subsistence level of hunter-gathering don't generally have the surplus to fight over abstract ideas - much more likely to fight over hunting grounds. But I do not see how you can be so certain of it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Thanks for the clarification, ctm. I hope things work out as best they can for your family.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by ctm: <sigh>
Kyvin is most definitely not RK. He's my son, he is 15 years old, he's a Christian. He definitely has some strong opinions and he does love to argue. He has Asperger's syndrome.
Some background:
He just got back from a weekend with his dad. He discovered by accident that his dad, whose infidelity led to our divorce, is looking around on the internet for another woman while still in THAT relationship. So, as you can imagine, sex seems like a bad thing to him at the moment.
I'm quite surprised at some of the opinions he's expressed here and we will be doing a lot of talking over the next few days. In the meantime I'm going to be exercising parental control and restrict him from posting here for a while.
I'm grateful to those of you who tried to gently guide him to express himself more appropriately, I really do appreciate it.
ctm
Quoted for those who don't read the last few posts on the previous page of a thread.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Thank you for the note, and I feel really bad for mistaking anyone else for mister R.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
You know, it's kind of funny--when kat suggested that they were the same person, my first reaction was "no, surely Robin isn't that skeezy". Which is really a fairly funny thing to have thought.
I will say, though, that developing cedonyms doesn't seem like something that is in keeping with what Robin has shown us of himself here.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Clarifying because I initially misread -- you are saying not so skeezy as to make up an alias, not that Kyvin comes off as exceptionally skeezy, yes?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oh, I hadn't realized that it could be interpreted that way--thanks for pointing that out, Dana. I meant the former. Kyvin didn't come off as skeezy at all--just very young, and given to seeing the world in primary colors.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
(((ctm))) (((Kyvin)))
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Not really. The aborigines had dozens of different cultures, langauages, local areas, histories, stories, and belief systems in general, all coexisting peacefully on the huge continent of Australia. Not once, in something like 60,000 years, did one group try to force their beliefs on another.
They shared ideas, not power structures (like the modern military allieships).
How do you know? It's not as if they had a written history to record any such attempts. I do suspect you are right, since people at that subsistence level of hunter-gathering don't generally have the surplus to fight over abstract ideas - much more likely to fight over hunting grounds. But I do not see how you can be so certain of it.
They were nomads. When cultures conflict, they tend to build bases to prepare for defence and attack. Then more and more do until it starts looking like Medieval Europe.
Sure, maybe in their earlier years they weren't nomads. Maybe they designed all the technologies we had today, and then some, got all around the Universe, and then eventually destroyed themselves except for some nomads left on Earth, and all that were remaining in Australia knew less about civilisation than most teenage Australian Aborigines know about their own culture today.
Maybe.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So if their technology and society did not support it (granting you some great big ifs that you have shown no evidence of earning), is it really a virtue to not have done it?
I, personally, have never borrowed someone's soul for a few hours and taken it for a spin. I consider this to be a virtue.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Stone Age hunter-gatherers are often billed as the peaceful precursors of agricultural peoples who cultivated frequent warfare along with their crops beginning around 5,000 years ago. But cave paintings in northern Australia, some dating to 10,000 years ago or more, bluntly blast that assumption.
In fact, these scenes painted by aboriginal peoples represent the earliest known portrayals of organized warfare, according to two researchers who have studied paintings at more than 650 Australian sites. Depictions of large battles, small skirmishes, and people attacking one another with spears and boomerangs document an ancient tradition of warrior art by aboriginal hunter-gatherers that extends from pre-agricultural times to the early part of this century.
Stone Age humans thus possessed a full-fledged capacity for waging war, argue Paul Tacon, an anthropologist at the Australian Museum in Sydney, and Christopher Chippendale, an archaeologist at the University of Cambridge in England. “Warfare is often seen as a side effect of sedentary farming and then of urban societies,” Chippendale contends. “But organized conflict is decidedly a characteristic of mobile huntergatherers and Homo sapiens in general.”
Also check out Guns Germs and Steel for a description of the severe xenophobia associated with stone-age hunter/gatherer tribes in general.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Elaborate? What she said was pretty straight forward. If a group has developed the capacity to do horrible thing X, yet refrains from doing it, there is virtue there. If the group never develops the capacity to do horrible thing X, there is no virtue in not doing it.
It wasn't especially virtuous of the Athenians to refrain from using tactical nukes on Persia during the wars between them. There was no restraint at work that kept them from doing so; they just didn't have the technological capacity to even conceive of it, let alone to build the bomb and the delivery system for it.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
I have a dream:
When one day, Ron Jeremy and his legions will be able to broadcast on daytime t.v.!
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: I have a dream:
When one day, Ron Jeremy and his legions will be able to broadcast on daytime t.v.!
My threory on hard core pornography is that only closeted gay men really like it. The whole thing (except for the lesbian ones, acting like men by the way) is centered around the male genitalia.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Stephan, Ron White of "You Can't Fix Stupid" beat you to that theory
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: The whole thing (except for the lesbian ones, acting like men by the way) is centered around the male genitalia.
I've never been a fan of hard-core pornography myself, but it seems to me that its quite often the exaggerated female enjoyment of said exaggerated male genitalia which is the focus.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You totally burned straight guys Stephan! I bet all straight guys who look at porn are really gay.
Total homophobe burn!
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Elaborate? What she said was pretty straight forward. If a group has developed the capacity to do horrible thing X, yet refrains from doing it, there is virtue there. If the group never develops the capacity to do horrible thing X, there is no virtue in not doing it.
It wasn't especially virtuous of the Athenians to refrain from using tactical nukes on Persia during the wars between them. There was no restraint at work that kept them from doing so; they just didn't have the technological capacity to even conceive of it, let alone to build the bomb and the delivery system for it.
In other words, they weren't smart enough? Only smart cultures design weapons of mass destruction, and wage war?
It's the structure of Nomadic Hunter-Gatherer societies itself that precludes these stupid conquests not happening. And it's a structure of choice, so yes it is virtuous.
Not that I'm totally against civilisation in and of itself, but I certainly think we could have done better with it than we've done.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
cheiros, can you cite a source on this theory of yours? (If you did, I apologize, but I thought I looked pretty closely.) It contradicts much of what I've read, some of which is cited above.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
You're missing the point entirely.
The point is that refraining from doing something that you're not capable of doing in the first place is no great achievement. Me deciding not to fly like Superman shows no great restraint, because I don't have the ability to do so in any circumstance.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
yeah, like a Ron Jeremy daytime soap.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: You're missing the point entirely.
The point is that refraining from doing something that you're not capable of doing in the first place is no great achievement. Me deciding not to fly like Superman shows no great restraint, because I don't have the ability to do so in any circumstance.
It is the point. They had thousands of years to use their intelligence, if they so chose, to develop ways of doing those things. It wasn't a matter of refraining from doing it because the technology didn't already exist.
That's like an ancient society claiming they lost a war, or didn't get the harvest they were used to, because God wasn't on their side all of a sudden.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
It's not a matter of deciding not to do something they couldn't do. It comes down to deciding not to try to figure out a way to do something they couldn't at that time do.
By the fact that Westerner's did do all these things that you claim the Aborigines weren't "capable" of doing, you are essentially calling them intellectually inferior, IMO.
Why would you use flying like superman as an example? We're talking about something Westerner's have done, and is therefore possible. It's hard to take you seriously when you make comparisons like that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:By the fact that Westerner's did do all these things that you claim the Aborigines weren't "capable" of doing, you are essentially calling them intellectually inferior, IMO.
No, they are acknowledging a lot of geographic and environmental factors that affect how groups advance technologically.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Geographic factors?
The option was there for them to move to other continents, to extend their reach. Or were they too stupid for that too?
Environmental factors?
Right, because no-one could even build up a society in Australia. I'm typing this from a cave on a rock, and it's magically getting transmuted to this forum by the power of God, because he pities us for not being able to build a civilisation.
I mean, you can't build a house out of boomerang's. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:It seems the first post in this thread was from pH who was vaguely complaining about having to view pornography on his/her way to Target, but beyond that, everything is a little vague. There seems to be a substantial lack of setup here that would allow anyone to comment intelligently on the subject.
Is this a hypothetical? Is this based on an extension of comments found in another thread that I missed? Is this based on a news article? Is this based on pure speculation of what could happen, but so far hasn't? Is this based on personal experience, and if so what was that personal experience?
I can certainly comment on other people's responses, but I have no idea what the original comment was.
Are we referring to normal video systems now found in many mini-Vans and SUVs?
Well, I was not aware that I had to sketch out the entire situation for you. Yes, this indeed happened. It was my personal experience a couple of nights ago that while driving to Target, I pulled up behind a man in some kind of car (maybe a Cadillac), who had three DVD screens in his car, two of which were deliberately positioned so that only people outside the car could view them, as I saw when I later pulled up next to the car.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: I have a dream:
When one day, Ron Jeremy and his legions will be able to broadcast on daytime t.v.!
My threory on hard core pornography is that only closeted gay men really like it. The whole thing (except for the lesbian ones, acting like men by the way) is centered around the male genitalia.
You have clearly never seen hardcore pornography.
-pH
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Why would you use flying like superman as an example? We're talking about something Westerner's have done, and is therefore possible. It's hard to take you seriously when you make comparisons like that.
Because the more subtle analogies already offered seemed to escape your comprehension.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
cheiros do ender:
I think that you are failing to take into account the fact that many elements are necessary for a culture to reach a level of technological sophistication. Among them are access to other cultures, grain with kernels of a certain size and nutritional value, herd animals that are both useful and domesticable. And these are just a few. Far from saying that aborogines were intellectually inferior, this just points out that geographic and environmenetal factors for early cultures play a critical role.
I suggest you read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:My threory on hard core pornography is that only closeted gay men really like it
Hmm, well my girlfriend is going to be shocked. SHOCKED!
'Cause, well, since no one else has come right out and said it: I like porn. If this makes me a pervert, well, I'm cool with that. Hell, I've been called much worse. As long as I'm happy, my loved ones are happy and I ain't hurtin' no one, nobody best be stickin' their snouts in my porn box and shuttin' down da fun.
I don't know about elsewhere, but in Houston it is not an uncommon thing to see porn being proudly displayed in in your friendly neighborhood vehicle. As far as I have heard, it is illegal, and punishable by fines, but typically, the kinds of people that play porn on LCD screens from the inside of their tricked out Escalades with spinners are not the type of people that the police will willingly pull over for non-violent offenses.
So we just learn to live with it. Laugh at it when you see it and if your of the mind, ride real close and enjoy. If you have kids in the car, the odds are that they aren't going to be seeing the naughtiness for long enough to understand, much less form violent associations with love-making.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
KMB makes an excellent point, but there are cultural factors as well which don't necessarily imply that given cultures which aren't as developed are unintelligent or inferior.
Certain governments, religious, and societal values can lead to technological progress and others retard it or keep it at a statis. Also, different governments/tribes may have different policies on maintaining isolationism. This isn't always the case, as there are a LOT of factors involved, but the cultural elements can't necessarily be discarded.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Geographic factors?
The option was there for them to move to other continents, to extend their reach. Or were they too stupid for that too?
Environmental factors?
Right, because no-one could even build up a society in Australia. I'm typing this from a cave on a rock, and it's magically getting transmuted to this forum by the power of God, because he pities us for not being able to build a civilisation.
Bang your head all you want, cde.
The point is that there were no domesticable plants or animals suitable for agriculture in Australia prior to European presence there. That says NOTHING bad about the people who lived there. The same effect can be seen in the Americas: there was no large animal suitable for domestication at the time, and the plants were not as useful agriculturally from a staples perspective (i.e., corn has much lower protein than wheat or rice).
Frankly, until you deign to at least try to present some evidence, your head banging frustration is very silly. You're basically mad because we're not taking your word for something which many of us have read contrary reports from far more authoritative sources.
Please, cite something to tell us why we should take your word over, say, Jared Diamond's.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:I suggest you read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.
I plan to. And another book with it.
Someone, to buy two books together from Amazon.com, can I get the p&h cost cheaper by buying two books together, without them being from the same seller? Or does this just not apply to Amazon, and I'm thinking of eBay maybe?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You have clearly never seen hardcore pornography.
Take any non-lesbian porn movie and delete every scene that focuses on a penis. In 99% of them you'll be left with a few scenes of a couples talking in a kitchen and three or four of the credits.
[ June 19, 2006, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: You have clearly never seen hardcore pornography.
Take any non-lesbian porn movie and delete every scene that focuses on a penis. In 99% of them you'll be left with a few scenes of a couples talking in a kitchen and three or four of the credits.
I'm no expert on sex, but I'm pretty sure that any time a straight couple gets naked, there's at least one penis involved.
I've looked at my own penis many a time, I suppose that makes me totally gay.
Awesome!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: You have clearly never seen hardcore pornography.
Take any non-lesbian porn movie and delete every scene that focuses on a penis. In 99% of them you'll be left with a few scenes of a couples talking in a kitchen and three or four of the credits.
I dunno, most of the porn I've seen focused on a penis doing something related to the female body.
-pH
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No easy way to discuss without getting far beyond the boundaries of this topic and well past the comfort levels of this forum. Suffice it to say that searching for porn that isn't solely concerned with gratifying the male in the scene is a difficult road. They're out there, but not as many as there used to be. Porn as an industry is quickly turning into exactly what anti-porn activists always said it was, which is really depressing.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: [qb] Elaborate? What she said was pretty straight forward. If a group has developed the capacity to do horrible thing X, yet refrains from doing it, there is virtue there. If the group never develops the capacity to do horrible thing X, there is no virtue in not doing it.
It wasn't especially virtuous of the Athenians to refrain from using tactical nukes on Persia during the wars between them. There was no restraint at work that kept them from doing so; they just didn't have the technological capacity to even conceive of it, let alone to build the bomb and the delivery system for it.
In other words, they weren't smart enough?
You think that the Greeks were stupid? What a bizarre notion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What, the Aborigines are supposed to have made a conscious choice to not develop metal working and agriculture? How ridiculous. They didn't do so because they had the bad luck to land on a continent where there was no useful intermediate. You might as well argue that elephants have made a conscious choice not to evolve wings.
As for moving to other continents, no, in fact they were not smart enough. They came from other continents, and the reason they did was that they got chucked out. There wasn't room for them to go back against stronger, hostile peoples.
By the way, GGS mentions that the Australian aborigines managed the interesting trick of actually losing some technology, to wit, the bow. It's found in the oldest settlements, but not newer ones.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:2. It's primary use was for hunting, though not neccessarily hitting the animal itself (what would be the point of that with an instrument designed to come back?)
As I understand it, it's only the toys that are designed to return. Boomerangs intended to be used as weapons don't return.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: My threory on hard core pornography is that only closeted gay men really like it. The whole thing (except for the lesbian ones, acting like men by the way) is centered around the male genitalia.
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.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Let's dial it back a bit, folks -- frank discussion of the content of pornography isn't so family-friendly.
<Will probably go back and do some select minor editing so he doesn't feel compelled to remove thread.>
--PJ
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
No offense intended by the New Member.
It seems that perversion seems to be relative to the eye of the beholder.
For instance, the general discussion here (to me) seems fairly perverted on my scale, and yet to others it is a perfectly rational debate.
So instead of grappling each other's throats over a subject that we will never agree on, why don't we turn our efforts to more constructive discussions elsewhere on the forum?
Then again, to some of you this may seems a perfectly constructive and important factor to your well-being, to prove your point to those who simply will not listen.
It's all relative!
I repeat, no offense intended. Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:It seems that perversion seems to be relative to the eye of the beholder.
I already said that, though not so directly.
Anyway, something tells me this thread is over.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The subjects that we'll never agree on are where some of the most constructive discussions take place, in my experience. If the content bothers you (the royal you), then you simply don't click on the thread. The power of choice, and all that.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Topics like this one make me wish that we had an adult portion of the forum. For intelligent discussion of these issues--not for hookups and titillation.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:The subjects that we'll never agree on are where some of the most constructive discussions take place, in my experience.
Exactly. Even if the main people arguing never budge in their opinions, there are often times many people viewing the thread that learn a lot.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
all I have to say is that I find it hillarious that a topic starting with sing porn displayed to the public from a van can splinter off to a discussion of the cultural (in)adequacy of Australian aboriginees... =p
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
That's why I love Hatrack Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: all I have to say is that I find it hillarious that a topic starting with sing porn displayed to the public from a van can splinter off to a discussion of the cultural (in)adequacy of Australian aboriginees... =p
Yep. This is one of my favorite things about Hatrack.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Cheers Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Interesting thread. Papa Janitor, keep yer claws of this one for just a little longer, eh? Let's try to have some breakthroughs.
Regarding porn: Can't help it. I am addicted to it. However, sex without love is sex without love. When sex and love combine, it is sublime. Sex by itself is overrated.
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..
Huixoles Peyote!
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Papa is not deleting the thread. You will mind your manners when addressing him, please.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
quote:
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
[ June 21, 2006, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
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.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
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?"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
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.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Avoiding hardcore porn because you're afraid catching a glimpse of another guy's fun zone certainly sounds homophobic to me.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
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)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
So you like the hardcore lesbian porn, I take it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you trying to have a discussion or just getting off on provoking people?
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
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.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
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 ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
For the record, Stephan claimed that:
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. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Dude, none of my posts have been directed at you. I thought that was pretty clear.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Karl's response struck me as direct, calm, and well articulated.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.)
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
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?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
JT,
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
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.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
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).
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
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.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
But that's not what you said here:
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?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Was I contradictory about anything? I thought I was just expanding.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
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.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
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.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
quote: Enjoying watching heterosexual sex does not make one bisexual.
...You'd think that would make one heterosexual.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
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.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I'm not trying to nit-pick, but, uh, isn't that exactly what you said:
quote:...You'd think that would make one heterosexual.
quote:which is why I didn't say "That would *make* one heterosexual."
I'm not trying to argue with you, just sayin'.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
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 Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Ah, gotcha. I assumed that "you'd think" meant "you would think." My bad. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Gotcha. (To Dag.)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Originally posted by Chris Bridges
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*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
Posted by IndigoKnight1 (Member # 9526) on :
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.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
Not cool.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) However, I don't take the frieze on the middle school in the same way. I guess it's a matter of perspective. For one thing, the building has four floors, IIRC, and the frieze is waaayyyy up at the top. It's difficult to see the details. Also, the details are not the same. I can't identify specific parts of genitalia from the frieze - it would have been possible with the picture I mentioned.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I said without; I'm not stupid.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)