Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[MontagK505]

And while you're watching it decent sir would you care for a bucket of faeces to go with your can of urine? I can highly recommend it - the man in the seat next to you has gone super-size!

Do you equate consensual sex in a video or an actor portraying a mass murderer with eating poop?

 

[Southwind17]

Here's the essential point of #487 as I read it:

My impression is the same as JFrankA - your problem is with exhibitionism. You disrespect people who enjoy having people watch/look at them.

Is this closer?

Are you serious? I suspect so, as you seem to be one of the more balanced contributors, but then your response puzzles me.

If you were right I would disrespect just about all entertainers - rock musicians, comediens, sportsmen, etc. Is that really the impression I've given?

No (and I'll go slightly extreme again here to try to make the point), my issue is with people who are prepared to (and even worse delight in) do things "in public" that most people will either:

1. refuse to view through pre-disgust
2. view and be disgusted
3. view and be shocked (at somebody being so prepared)

I realize that I'll get pulled, as usual, for not having "evidence" or "data" for my analysis of how "most people" are, but I think (and please feel free to read back) you know my views on that stance in these circumstances. Bottom line - I won't be commissioning a study, but feel free to go ahead.

To be clear, what I've just written does not apply to what goes on in private. The key is the publication part, but not publication per se. I hope that is clear, now.

 

[Southwind17]

Do you equate consensual sex in a video or an actor portraying a mass murderer with eating poop?

Consensual sex in a video - no, per se (unless they're eating poop); actor portraying a mass murderer - no, period (unless he grabs a poop sandwich on the way home).

Whatever gave rise to this question?

 

[MontagK505]

Consensual sex in a video - no, per se (unless they're eating poop); actor portraying a mass murderer - no, period (unless he grabs a poop sandwich on the way home).

Whatever gave rise to this question?

Post #520 plus others you've made.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And while you're watching it decent sir would you care for a bucket of faeces to go with your can of urine? I can highly recommend it - the man in the seat next to you has gone super-size!

Urine's close to sterile - it's sterile in the bladder, and while it picks up microflora on its way out, those are microflora you'll be exposed to anyway if you're having sex with them. Faeces in porn can be faked, and hence almost always is for obvious reasons.

Part of the target market for this content is the set of people who enjoy the feeling of marking someone else - usually a woman - as inferior to themselves. What they are selling, in part, is the chance for those men to look down on a woman.

It seems likely to me that you do enjoy this, but you feel conflicted about it, so you started this thread in the hope that it would work its way around to the topic of women being excreted on. It would have saved us all a lot of time if you'd cut to the chase, but whatever. I think your troll-dance is just your way of pretending that you're in control and that you aren't really just trying to work your way around to discussing your own kink.

If that's your issue, I say relax. It's just fudge or some suitable alternative anyway, and (as I think I said recently in the thought police thread) nobody sensible gives a good goddamn what gets you off in the privacy of your own home. As long as your recognise in your dealings with real people that your knee-jerk urge to judge people based on their sexual preferences is irrational and small-minded, and extend to others the tolerance for their sexual preferences that you would like us to extend to your choice of masturbation fodder, there's no problem.

 

[Southwind17]

Post #520 plus others you've made.

I'm afraid you'll need to be specific if you really want to continue this line of enquiry.

 

[Southwind17]

Urine's close to sterile - it's sterile in the bladder, and while it picks up microflora on its way out, those are microflora you'll be exposed to anyway if you're having sex with them. Faeces in porn can be faked, and hence almost always is for obvious reasons.

Part of the target market for this content is the set of people who enjoy the feeling of marking someone else - usually a woman - as inferior to themselves. What they are selling, in part, is the chance for those men to look down on a woman.

It seems likely to me that you do enjoy this, but you feel conflicted about it, so you started this thread in the hope that it would work its way around to the topic of women being excreted on. It would have saved us all a lot of time if you'd cut to the chase, but whatever. I think your troll-dance is just your way of pretending that you're in control and that you aren't really just trying to work your way around to discussing your own kink.

If that's your issue, I say relax. It's just fudge or some suitable alternative anyway, and (as I think I said recently in the thought police thread) nobody sensible gives a good goddamn what gets you off in the privacy of your own home. As long as your recognise in your dealings with real people that your knee-jerk urge to judge people based on their sexual preferences is irrational and small-minded, and extend to others the tolerance for their sexual preferences that you would like us to extend to your choice of masturbation fodder, there's no problem.

Well written. If only it were true it would deserve some merit. I'd rank it close to the top of the list of the best examples of missing the point, though. So there you go - your efforts weren't entirely wasted.

 

[arthwollipot]

Are you serious? I suspect so, as you seem to be one of the more balanced contributors, but then your response puzzles me.

If you were right I would disrespect just about all entertainers - rock musicians, comediens, sportsmen, etc. Is that really the impression I've given?

I'm afraid so.

I'm having trouble working out exactly what it is you're saying. What's different in your mind between a porn actress and a rock musician or comedian, that you disrespect one but not the other? I see all of them as performers of one kind or another, and don't see a reason to consider them any different.

Please be aware - I'm not trying to judge or knock your opinions or anything, but it's clear that I've received the wrong impression from this thread (and I suspect a few other people have too) and I'd like to try and get to the bottom of it.

 

[tesscaline]

If you are unsure what "public domain" means, please consult a dictionary.


See how that works?!

The difference between my response and yours is that I actually answered the question.

Now, will you please explain what YOU mean by public domain? The reason I ask is that you seem to be using the phrase "public domain" in a way that is different from the common definition. I cannot respond to the question you posed to me unless you define your meaning of public domain.

Unless of course, you're not actually interested in any discourse at all, and are just out to be a troll... ?

 

[Southwind17]

I'm afraid so.

I'm having trouble working out exactly what it is you're saying. What's different in your mind between a porn actress and a rock musician or comedian, that you disrespect one but not the other? I see all of them as performers of one kind or another, and don't see a reason to consider them any different.

What's different is what they do and what it represents. Let's just take a few steps back here to check whether it's worth continuing the debate.

Without getting all het up about evidence, data and what not, do you agree that most people, if asked, would say that they have more respect for, say, Eric Clapton or Jerry Seinfeld than [insert name of a famous porn star] (provided, of course, you explain who [famous porn star] is, where necessary)? Now, let's address this fundamental point first. If your answer's "no" (and I'm almost certain() that you know that my answer's "yes", then I honestly can't see us reconciling that, in which case I guess we'll be done and just go our separate ways.

Please be aware - I'm not trying to judge or knock your opinions or anything, but it's clear that I've received the wrong impression from this thread (and I suspect a few other people have too) and I'd like to try and get to the bottom of it.

That's understood and appreciated - thanks.

 

[Southwind17]

The difference between my response and yours is that I actually answered the question.

You consider that this "actually answers" the question:

Yes, there is. If you are unsure of the difference, please consult a dictionary.

And then you have the gall to write:

Unless of course, you're not actually interested in any discourse at all, and are just out to be a troll... ?

So, I'm left wondering: who's doing the trolling around here?! You seem to have a very warped opinion about your own honesty and genuineness!

If you're actually interested in discourse I suggest you start behaving like a mature adult.

 

[arthwollipot]

Without getting all het up about evidence, data and what not, do you agree that most people, if asked, would say that they have more respect for, say, Eric Clapton or Jerry Seinfeld than [insert name of a famous porn star] (provided, of course, you explain who [famous porn star] is, where necessary)? Now, let's address this fundamental point first. If your answer's "no" (and I'm almost certain() that you know that my answer's "yes", then I honestly can't see us reconciling that, in which case I guess we'll be done and just go our separate ways.

To that question, specifically as worded, my answer would be that yes - most people, if asked, would say that they have more respect for Eric Clapton than they do for Asia Carrera. Personally, I think they're wrong to feel this way.

Now - where were you going with this? I was enquiring about how you feel about the subject, not about how most people feel.

 

[not daSkeptic]

So, I'm left wondering: who's doing the trolling around here?! You seem to have a very warped opinion about your own honesty and genuineness!

If you're actually interested in discourse I suggest you start behaving like a mature adult.

You know, you could have been the bigger person and just answered the question. But you didn't. If I didn't know better I'd say she played you.

 

[Southwind17]

To that question, specifically as worded, my answer would be that yes - most people, if asked, would say that they have more respect for Eric Clapton than they do for Asia Carrera. Personally, I think they're wrong to feel this way.

Now - where were you going with this? I was enquiring about how you feel about the subject, not about how most people feel.

I suppose I'm just one of those "most people". So, given that I'm "normal", perhaps the real question is: where are you going with this? Seriously!

 

[Southwind17]

You know, you could have been the bigger person and just answered the question. But you didn't. If I didn't know better I'd say she played you.

Just as well you "know better" then, eh!

 

[arthwollipot]

I suppose I'm just one of those "most people". So, given that I'm "normal", perhaps the real question is: where are you going with this? Seriously!

I'm just carrying on the conversation, and trying to do so in a non-accusatory way. I'm trying to get to the essence of the OP: What's wrong with porn?

I wrote something yesterday, which I'd like to reprint here, but it'll have to wait until I get home. It's based on a question that occurred to me a couple of days ago:

If sex sells, why does it still have such a bad rep?

 

[Southwind17]

I'm just carrying on the conversation, and trying to do so in a non-accusatory way. I'm trying to get to the essence of the OP: What's wrong with porn?

Perhaps you answering this here, for yourself, will help you understand my answers! (I'll stop writing "seriously" in your case - I'd like to think we understand each other insofar as how we post here.)

I wrote something yesterday, which I'd like to reprint here, but it'll have to wait until I get home. It's based on a question that occurred to me a couple of days ago:

If sex sells, why does it still have such a bad rep?

That's a very good question. But you could ask the same about drugs. I wonder if the answer's essentially the same (by which I mean I wonder!).

 

[tesscaline]

You consider that this "actually answers" the question:

​

And then you have the gall to write:

So, I'm left wondering: who's doing the trolling around here?! You seem to have a very warped opinion about your own honesty and genuineness!

If you're actually interested in discourse I suggest you start behaving like a mature adult.

I'm sorry? You asked if there was a difference. I answered. You didn't ask what that difference was, or any other sort of question that would have required any depth. I was, however, nice enough to educate you as to where you could both verify my answer, as well as find out the difference for yourself.

Now. Are you going to answer my question? Or are you spending all this effort complaining about my response because you don't actually know what the phrase "public domain" means, and are embarrassed that someone called you out on it?

 

[JFrankA]

I suppose I'm just one of those "most people". So, given that I'm "normal", perhaps the real question is: where are you going with this? Seriously!

Seems to me that "most people" and "normal" isn't always right.

To reiterate my example "Most people" in America (and therefore, by your definition, "normal") believe Intelligent Design is true.

"Most people" in America (and therefore, by your definition, "normal") believe in some sort of god.

So does that mean that since "Most people" (and therefore, by your definition, "normal"), Evolution and Atheism is now completely false and wrong????

 

[JFrankA]

Are you serious? I suspect so, as you seem to be one of the more balanced contributors, but then your response puzzles me.

If you were right I would disrespect just about all entertainers - rock musicians, comediens, sportsmen, etc. Is that really the impression I've given?

No (and I'll go slightly extreme again here to try to make the point), my issue is with people who are prepared to (and even worse delight in) do things "in public" that most people will either:

1. refuse to view through pre-disgust
2. view and be disgusted
3. view and be shocked (at somebody being so prepared)

I realize that I'll get pulled, as usual, for not having "evidence" or "data" for my analysis of how "most people" are, but I think (and please feel free to read back) you know my views on that stance in these circumstances. Bottom line - I won't be commissioning a study, but feel free to go ahead.

To be clear, what I've just written does not apply to what goes on in private. The key is the publication part, but not publication per se. I hope that is clear, now.

Portrayal of murder and torture are part of that list. And since you like to deal with extremes, I still say my murder example stands.