Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

As with many other comments he has made, the words "repressed" and "denial" come to mind.

Of course, that would be your mind, though, wouldn't it, for what it's worth.

 

[Southwind17]

Now in the case where "Male" doesn't know "Female", yet "Female" is willing to do a film that "Male" finds sexually arousing that not many other females would be filmed doing, I can't understand [emphasis added] how "Male" can not respect "Female".

Which brings me to this question: If "Male" doesn't respect "Female" with the above conditions, and they meet, does "Male" feel like he can do whatever he wishes to "Female" because she doesn't deserve any respect?

Confucius say: Don't go asking questions about things you don't understand, the answers to which depend upon such understanding. Take it upon yourself to understand first then the questions will have some frame of reference!

 

[Southwind17]

Just to be clear, it wasn't me, and the fetish I produce doesn't involve poop or pee...

Unless you're caught short on a particularly long take!

 

[Southwind17]

I sometimes wonder if people unaware of what it is that we do would view it differently if they could see the same things we see, beyond the physical acts.

Do you mean as viewed from the warped minds that you have or otherwise?!

Remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[arthwollipot]

Hello, quadraginta! Perhaps there is trolling going on, I'm not sure.

Personally, I wouldn't describe much of what's going on in this thread as "trolling". There has been some very frank and honest discussion going on, and although there have been some quite vehement disagreements, I believe that it's been very worthwhile.

I don't know if anyone's opinion has been changed by anything, but since when has that been the primary criterion?

 

[Southwind17]

I've heard that being submissive is some times used as an expression of trust.
Does that ring a bell?

It did for Quasimodo and Esmeralda, I believe! Actually, there's more than a hint of truth there.

 

[Belz...]

Absolutely, because our respective criteria for judging people are clearly different. JFranK's are based on the width of their smile; mine are based on their behaviour. Get it now?!

Aren't you being a bit hypocritical, though ? I mean, you're accusing Frank of being superficial -- that is, basing his judgment of people based on a very limited amount of data -- but you do the same by relying on a single data point to reach a conclusion.

 

[arthwollipot]

JFrankA, you're a jewel, thank you.

So...basically what's happening here is that Southwind enjoys these women, but does kind of loathe them.

You know, there isn't much in this world that freaks me out, really...but...I just find that a little bit creepy. If you truly loathe something, how can you get turned on by it? Why would you even...watch it? Interestingly enough, though, that's just perhaps his fetish. Though that's one of the fetishes I find disturbing. Truly objectifying women, with no respect for their person.

I really *hope* that isn't what this is.

This was my impression as well, but when I expressed it earlier in the thread, Southwind17 appeared to be incredulous that I had come to that conclusion.

 

[Southwind17]

As a matter of information my hobby is photographing women. I'm a DOMWC, (Dirty Old Man With Camera) and I've always treated my models with respect.

I always discuss before hand what kind of photoshoot we're going to do etc. Most of the stuff I do is cheese-cake with some art/erotic type nudes. And I've done some masturbation videos (solo acts). Sometimes, I get models that are actually eager to get out of their clothes.

This is why I find Southwinds attitude on this issue perplexing.

I don't have a big hang up over what you describe above so far as respect for the models goes. Never have done.
Are you still perplexed, or only paralaxed now?!

 

[Southwind17]

Aren't you being a bit hypocritical, though ? I mean, you're accusing Frank of being superficial -- that is, basing his judgment of people based on a very limited amount of data -- but you do the same by relying on a single data point to reach a conclusion.

Ah ... a sensible question, at last, from Belz. As such, I will treat it with respect and answer it accordingly:
I believe not. The difference is the nature of the "data point". How would you judge a guy who goes on the monthly walkathon with the local animal centre and molests a child on his way home afterwards?

 

[Belz...]

That's why I made the analogy. A sum of millions of good deeds, still does not account for who the person really is.

No, but I don't judge people for who they are. Neither for the colour of their skin or their genes or their opinions. So long as their actions don't hurt others.

 

[Southwind17]

This was my impression as well, but when I expressed it earlier in the thread, Southwind17 appeared to be incredulous that I had come to that conclusion.

Indicating what? That your conclusion might be false, maybe?!

 

[Southwind17]

Jeez - I've caught up, again. I'm gonna go play guitar now. I hope that's not seen as hypocritical to y'all! If so, I'll just blame the hypnocrist!

 

[Belz...]

There was a long lead up to this question (which I interpreted as the first non-rhetorical question in your post) - some of which I construced as relevant to the key issue, namely respect, some of which not. To answer your question - no I'm not, and that's simply because I have no data to go on.

See, this is where I don't get you. Here you're being reasonable, admitting that lack of data precludes you from reaching a conclusion. But elsewhere in the thread your reach a conclusion based -- really -- on the lack of data.

 

[Belz...]

Ah ... a sensible question, at last, from Belz. As such, I will treat it with respect and answer it accordingly:
I believe not. The difference is the nature of the "data point". How would you judge a guy who goes on the monthly walkathon with the local animal centre and molests a child on his way home afterwards?

Since the molestation is a harmful act, and having sex for money on camera is not (in my opinion), I'm not sure the analogy applies. Are you saying that pornography is harmful ? You seem to have suggested a few posts ago that you didn't.

So, if it's not harmful why disrespect those who do it ?

Also, since you considered my previous question to be sensible, I wonder if you could answer another question I asked upthread:

Since you seem to imply that porn actresses playing in scenes involving fantasy rape deserve your disrespect, what about regular actresses playing in scenes involving simulated rape ? This is a serious question. Perhaps the only difference to you is the intent to arouse.

 

[arthwollipot]

Ah ... a sensible question, at last, from Belz. As such, I will treat it with respect and answer it accordingly:
I believe not. The difference is the nature of the "data point". How would you judge a guy who goes on the monthly walkathon with the local animal centre and molests a child on his way home afterwards?

Okay. This, for me, is completely left-field. I now no longer have any clue what Southwind17 is thinking.

 

[BenBurch]

Okay. This, for me, is completely left-field. I now no longer have any clue what Southwind17 is thinking.

clue;

 

[arthwollipot]

clue;

No. Absolutely not. A troll will make an inflammatory post and disappear. Southwind17's behaviour, although confusing, has been utterly unlike that of a troll.

 

[Matthew Best]

A troll will make an inflammatory post and disappear.

Says who?

 

[arthwollipot]

Says who?

http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/troll.html

Without wanting to digress too much, a troll deliberately tries to stir up trouble. Southwind17's opinions, while controvertial, appear to be genuinely held.

Just because someone expresses an opinion different from that of others, doesn't mean that person is a troll. Now can we please return to the subject?