Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

Some women get off on being objectified. And I mean seriously objectified.

Some women get off on torturing and killing their own kids. Meaning what? Meaning it's extremely rare. Meaning don't bother citing irrelevant examples.

 

[fuelair]

Okay, I can understand that. But just as a followup question: (just curious to get a bead on how you think). What if there is a woman who enjoys a fantasy rape scene in a porno? Perhaps fantasizes about being raped? Does she deserve respect in your eyes?

Now let me add that she wouldn't want to be actually raped. But the fantasy of it turns her on. (I hope I've explained the difference).

Especially since you are quite soundly describing the average (I assume they are still called this) "bodice-ripper".

 

[Southwind17]

I'm not even interested in tasting it in the first place. I also used to think that drinking urine could cause diseases, although I later realized that was most likely not so.

I also think urine wasn't meant to be drunk, but that doesn't follow that it's "wrong", especially if it's not proven that it can actually injure the person's organism.

I can see how someone can jump to the conclusion that if someone has gone to the extents of drinking urine, then "something has to be wrong with them". But if we look past the mere shock value, I think that unless it's proven that it is damaging for the body, we shouldn't jump to conclusions. If, on the other hand, the person likes to cut him/herself, then something is wrong with the person. Any conscious act which is self damaging (and/or damaging of others) is most likely the result of some sort of pathology.

This is why I continuously make the differentiation between "acts", and "acts that carry with them some sort of damage". If an act by itself is controversial, weird, bizarre and just really really crazy, but it's proven to be harmless, then we have no reason to make any judgements about the person doing that act, on the sole base that we don't share their inclination.

You omitted to answer the key question that I clearly asked you Ron. Why, exactly, do you find the idea disgusting?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Of course you can. What else would you judge them about ? Certainly not their thoughts or their genes. So what's left ?

In context it reads that he's referring to the totality of actions and intentions rather than a singular act or set of actions.

 

[Southwind17]

Especially since you are quite soundly describing the average (I assume they are still called this) "bodice-ripper".

Regrettably, I hope you're just pointing JFrankA in the direction of the nearest "convenient" ball park here ("Marshmallow Rape", I'm guessing it's called), otherwise I could easily imagine many rape victims finding your comment highly offensive and insensitive, were they to read it.

 

[Sabrina]

Let me ask you this: don't you think some men (not all, but some) predisposed to rape (assuming there are such men) might see legally published material portraying rape for arousal purposes as legitimizing rape? I think that's conceivable. If so, don't you think that such men might then be more inclined to rape? I think that's conceivable.

I'll jump in and answer this.

Might they see it as legitimizing rape? Certainly they MIGHT, but it doesn't negate the law. They could not use it as a defense were they to ever be arrested for committing an act of rape. Which renders your point moot; they might see it that way, but it doesn't negate the actual truth, and in any case, for every ONE man (or woman, as it is possible to rape a man, albeit with much more difficulty) who is prompted by the act of watching so-called "rape porn" to commit the actual act, there will be many more who won't. Porn is not reality, it is never intentionally, to my knowledge, portrayed as reality, and most people are smart enough, in my opinion, to recognize that difference.

I think you are conflating what a woman who is a porn actress might be PAID to do with what they would actually WANT to do (I'm certain they're often quite different) when engaging in sexual acts. A porn actress has a job to do, same as me; the major difference is in how we both put money in the bank and food on the table. That doesn't negate the fact that she has a legitimate job, and I certainly wouldn't automatically disrespect her for performing her job.

And speaking as a normal, upper-middle-class woman, I can tell you right now that if I thought I could pull it off well enough, I would possibly take a role in a porn movie. I enjoy sex and do watch porn movies on occasion; the only thing holding me back from seeking such a role is that I am happy in my job and my life and don't really feel the need to change jobs now, and my perception of myself is that, while I am attractive, I am not exactly the same sort of model as those porn actresses are and probably wouldn't be considered anyway. But I've entertained the thought on occasion and wouldn't automatically turn it down if it were offered to me. I'd have to give it a decent amount of thought first before I made a decision.

Porn, in my opinion, is greatly exaggerated sex that is presented as a form of escapism, the same as any other form of entertainment, to include movies, plays, music, art, etc. I personally feel that anyone who has disrespect for such people is being hypocritical by not extending that disrespect to people in similar, albeit less sex-oriented, professions. Porn is a job; a lucrative job to be sure, but still a job, and a necessary one if you ask me.

Southwind, this may not be the way you actually feel, but I have to agree with several other posters in this thread when I say you do act somewhat hypocritical with regards to your feelings toward porn actresses. I'm not saying you have no right to have disrespect for them; that's your prerogative and I won't be a party to an abrogation of someone's rights, but to say that you disrespect these women solely because they are paid to have sex on camera and don't extend those feelings to the MEN in the equation comes across as very sexist and hypocritical of you. Understand, this is solely my perception of the situation; it may not be how you actually feel, but it IS how you are presenting yourself in others' perceptions of you. You might want to bear that in mind when you respond to JFrankA and sugarb and Ron, because right now your responses, as I've read them, come across as very snarky and disregarding of the fact that their interpretation of your posts, as they've read them, may not be what you actually meant.

Just my two cents.

 

[fuelair]

I'm not even interested in tasting it in the first place. I also used to think that drinking urine could cause diseases, although I later realized that was most likely not so.

I also think urine wasn't meant to be drunk, but that doesn't follow that it's "wrong", especially if it's not proven that it can actually injure the person's organism.

I can see how someone can jump to the conclusion that if someone has gone to the extents of drinking urine, then "something has to be wrong with them". But if we look past the mere shock value, I think that unless it's proven that it is damaging for the body, we shouldn't jump to conclusions. If, on the other hand, the person likes to cut him/herself, then something is wrong with the person. Any conscious act which is self damaging (and/or damaging of others) is most likely the result of some sort of pathology.

).

A physician would be better for this, but until one pipes up: (and, not for the uninterested in physiology) the problem with drinking urine - especially the deeper it's color - is that it is concentrated nitogen compounds that are not good for your body that have been carefully filtered out of some one else's body. For equivalent, try mixing a little fertilizer with some ammonia.
I definitely don't advise for anyone with kidney or related problems. Only way I could see someone doing this is if the person providing the drink has eaten little and drunk a lot of fresh water for some hours prior to same. Or by going on the internet to one of the free sites ( ).

As to the feces thing - besides the fact that it is waste material, two words: coliform bacteria. Enjoy.

 

[quadraginta]

Some women get off on torturing and killing their own kids. Meaning what? Meaning it's extremely rare. Meaning don't bother citing irrelevant examples.

Slightly O/T, but about a third of all the children under five who are murdered in the U.S. are murdered by their mothers. I can't dig up a cite right this moment, but it's easy enough to verify.

Many people resist the idea that a parent, especially a mother could do such a thing, but the facts suggest quite the contrary.

Another third is the father, and most of the remainder are friends or other family. The only really rare culprit is the stranger, weighing in at around 5%.

[/OT]

 

[Belz...]

Who cares what "any" people (or anybody - such as I) think, then? You seem to!

Huh ? Where ? I've specifically said I judge people on their actions, not their thoughts. So I don't usually care much what they think.

But you having disrespect affects your actions, so it's clearly useful for the both of us to get to the root of why you do so.

 

[Belz...]

So you have full respect for athletes who take performance-enhancing drugs then, for example. I wonder why they receive bans and have their medals retracted.

Do you have a non-sequitur engine in your brain ? Taking drugs is an act, and it harms others by robbing them of the medals they deserve.

With respect (and I do mean that on this occasion), I think that's a cop out. There's only a one day difference between a child and an adult (legally). Use your imagination (some pervs don't need to!). But if you like - yes - using cartoons. You see that as acceptable do you? Why do you see rape portrayal and child sex portrayal different, in principle?

No, I don't. I'm not sure there'd be much of a market for it but I could be wrong. It's still just cartoons.

But you're prepared to give a reduced rape correlation the benefit of the obvious doubt. That seems somewhat flippant.

I am not. I'm simply stating an opinion, which could be wrong.

I thought I'd made that clear with this essentially rhetorical question:

Then why do you disrespect non-rape porn actresses ?

 

[Belz...]

while I am attractive

Evidence ?

 

[Belz...]

Slightly O/T, but about a third of all the children under five who are murdered in the U.S. are murdered by their mothers. I can't dig up a cite right this moment, but it's easy enough to verify.

Many people resist the idea that a parent, especially a mother could do such a thing, but the facts suggest quite the contrary.

Another third is the father, and most of the remainder are friends or other family. The only really rare culprit is the stranger, weighing in at around 5%.

[/OT]

Last I checked, children are statistically more at risk of being killed by their parents than by complete strangers.

 

[Southwind17]

Might they see it as legitimizing rape? Certainly they MIGHT, but it doesn't negate the law. They could not use it as a defense were they to ever be arrested for committing an act of rape. Which renders your point moot; they might see it that way, but it doesn't negate the actual truth ...

And you think a rape victim is going to take comfort in that wonderfully unerring citation?!

... and in any case, for every ONE man (or woman, as it is possible to rape a man, albeit with much more difficulty) who is prompted by the act of watching so-called "rape porn" to commit the actual act, there will be many more who won't. Porn is not reality, it is never intentionally, to my knowledge [emphasis added], portrayed as reality ...

"to [your] knowledge". And what, exactly, would that extend to in this context, because, you know, that's vitally important if you're going to make statements like that and expect people to respect them!

... and most people [emphasis added] are smart enough, in my opinion, to recognize that difference.

I've tried "most people". Unfortunately, it doesn't work around here in this Forum, so, everything you "spoke about" is, sadly, invaild. Ordinarily, I'd say "I know exactly what you mean" when you refer to "most people", but, unfortunately, I feel that on this occasion I really must toe the line! Sorry

But regardless, we're not talking about "most people" are we? We're talking about people with a propensity to rape. Are they "smart enough" to recognize "that difference", just like they're "smart enough" to recognize that they shouldn't rape in any event? If so, why have the porn in the first place? See how that works?

I think you are conflating what a woman who is a porn actress might be PAID to do with what they would actually WANT to do (I'm certain they're often quite different) when engaging in sexual acts.

Ordinarily, I'd sit right back at this point and watch the Forum Fireworks go up, just like they did when I made this (and similar) points. But somehow I think that the relevant posters around here have homed in on their target, so I'd say you're pretty safe!

A porn actress has a job to do, same as me; the major difference is in how we both put money in the bank and food on the table. That doesn't negate the fact that she has a legitimate job, and I certainly wouldn't automatically disrespect her for performing her job.

We've touched on this principle earlier, but I'll reiterate it, in essence: Would you automatically disrespect a man in Iran, say, whose job, by choice, is to flog women for wearing trousers? See how that works?

And speaking as a normal [emphasis added] upper-middle-class woman ...

Unfortunately "normal" falls flat around here to the same extent as "most people" (and "regular people") does. But regardless, it doesn't really matter. Here's why:

... I can tell you right now that if I thought I could pull it off well enough, I would possibly take a role in a porn movie. I enjoy sex and do watch porn movies on occasion; the only thing holding me back from seeking such a role is that I am happy in my job and my life and don't really feel the need to change jobs now, and my perception of myself is that, while I am attractive, I am not exactly the same sort of model as those porn actresses are and probably wouldn't be considered anyway. But I've entertained the thought on occasion and wouldn't automatically turn it down if it were offered to me. I'd have to give it a decent amount of thought first before I made a decision. [emphasis (lots of!) added]

Well if THAT isn't the best case study I've ever seen in hedging your bets and leaving the door open I really don't know what is! You're all piss and wind, in my opinion - typical of why I wrote this:

Not only that, and this might be the rub, there is a major difference between asking a woman: "Would you do porn" and her answering "yes", and her actually doing porn if push came to shove!

Porn, in my opinion, is greatly exaggerated sex that is presented as a form of escapism, the same as any other form of entertainment, to include movies, plays, music, art, etc. I personally feel that anyone who has disrespect for such people is being hypocritical by not extending that disrespect to people in similar, albeit less sex-oriented, professions.

You really don't realize how naive and thoughtless this shows you to be, do you? Or are you just wanting to be completely open and honest, warts and all, and drop the persona at this point?

Porn is a job; a lucrative job to be sure, but still a job, and a necessary one if you ask me.

And flogging women for wearing trousers is too, if you ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! See how that works?

Southwind, this may not be the way you actually feel, but I have to agree with several other posters in this thread when I say you do act somewhat hypocritical with regards to your feelings toward porn actresses. I'm not saying you have no right to have disrespect for them; that's your prerogative and I won't be a party to an abrogation of someone's rights, but to say that you disrespect these women solely because they are paid to have sex on camera [emphasis added] and don't extend those feelings to the MEN in the equation comes across as very sexist and hypocritical of you.

Well if you realized how general, and hence way off beam, this stereotypical pro-porn defensive rhetoric of yours is, you could save us all a lot of time and effort here!

Understand, this is solely my perception of the situation ...

"Perception" being the operative word.

... it may not be how you actually feel ...

You don't say!

... but it IS how you are presenting yourself in others' perceptions of you.

"Others'"! You mean like "most people"?!

... You might want to bear that in mind when you respond to JFrankA and sugarb and Ron, because right now your responses, as I've read them, come across as very snarky and disregarding of the fact that their interpretation of your posts, as they've read them, may not be what you actually meant.

I made my position on this clear previously:

As I admitted previously, I tend to be provocative to "stir" the debate. I see no harm in that. And I don't suffer fools gladly (OK - "fools" is probably too strong a word, in the main!), by which I mean if somebody here happens to misunderstand or judge me because of lack of attention to exactly what I write and the words I choose (I like to be precise, even if it's not comprehended precisely!) or for whatever other reason beyond my control, then they will tend to get short shrift, topped off with a healthy dose of sarcasm and/or beratement, if I'm so inclined at the time. That's just me. Take it or leave it - you are, afterall, perfectly free to leave.

My adage Sabrina - pick your jousts carefully. If you realize the other guy's lance is twice the length of yours afterwards don't expect him to lop some off! (I like that! )

Just my two cents.

I hope you consider it money well spent, particularly given how much change you got back!

 

[Southwind17]

Slightly O/T, but about a third of all the children under five who are murdered in the U.S. are murdered by their mothers. I can't dig up a cite right this moment, but it's easy enough to verify.
Many people resist the idea that a parent, especially a mother could do such a thing, but the facts suggest quite the contrary.
Another third is the father, and most of the remainder are friends or other family. The only really rare culprit is the stranger, weighing in at around 5%.
[/OT]

But you miss the point, O/T or /OT. How many mothers murder their kids as a proportion of the total number of mothers? Get it?!

 

[Southwind17]

Huh ? Where ? I've specifically said I judge people on their actions, not their thoughts. So I don't usually care much what they think.

But you having disrespect affects your actions, so it's clearly useful for the both of us to get to the root of why you do so.

Well your presence here sure makes me think you care what people think. You've certainly asked me a lot of questions (a couple quite well considered, I might add)! Or are you the mystery troll around here, the locating of which seems to be the sole attention and obsession of some posters here, like the illustrious Bigfoot!?

 

[Southwind17]

Do you have a non-sequitur engine in your brain ? Taking drugs is an act, and it harms others by robbing them of the medals they deserve.

Ah ... I see ... the "harmful" goalposts are also floating in the breeze. So tell me Belz: where does "harmful" end, lest this thread, as for so many like it, tumbles rapidly down into the semantic abyss?

No, I don't. I'm not sure there'd be much of a market for it but I could be wrong. It's still just cartoons.

And you question my morals!

I am not. I'm simply stating an opinion, which could be wrong.

But you're defending the behaviour of others based on that opinion. If your opinion could be wrong, as you admit, what motivates you, then, to lean in the direction of the "rape portrayal porn reduces rape in reality" brigade?

Then why do you disrespect non-rape porn actresses ?

I'm really going to have to insist that you read back Belz. You really do just seem to be going around in never-decreasing circles here.

 

[Southwind17]

Slightly O/T, but about a third of all the children under five who are murdered in the U.S. are murdered by their mothers. I can't dig up a cite right this moment, but it's easy enough to verify.

Many people resist the idea that a parent, especially a mother could do such a thing, but the facts suggest quite the contrary.

Another third is the father, and most of the remainder are friends or other family. The only really rare culprit is the stranger, weighing in at around 5%.
[/OT]

Last I checked, children are statistically more at risk of being killed by their parents than by complete strangers.

That would be a check here, presumably:

Slightly O/T, but about a third of all the children under five who are murdered in the U.S. are murdered by their mothers. I can't dig up a cite right this moment, but it's easy enough to verify.

Many people resist the idea that a parent, especially a mother could do such a thing, but the facts suggest quite the contrary.

Another third is the father, and most of the remainder are friends or other family. The only really rare culprit is the stranger, weighing in at around 5%.

[/OT]

Sorry Belz - couldn't resist rubbing salt into your self-inflicted tomfoolery wounds!

 

[Southwind17]

BTW sugarb, I made a remark in Post #619 concerning something you wrote (I highlighted it). I don't think you responded (I thought you might). I'm interested to know - do you think it's OK for a man to objectify a woman by invitation but not otherwise? If so, what do you see as fundamentally different between the character of a man when he objectifies by invitation and otherwise? I'm hoping you don't claim that a man objectifying by invitation is only pretending to objectify, because that's not what your post says, or even implies, and that wouldn't be much fun, anyhow, would it!

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

You omitted to answer the key question that I clearly asked you Ron. Why, exactly, do you find the idea disgusting?

Because I'm not into drinking urine. I did not omit the answer. There you have it again.

You, on the other, omitted all the questions addressed to you. I wonder if purposely.

I'm still waiting for an answer on this:

I find it very dishonest that you think it's out of the question that I lose respect for a person once they've "crossed the line" with me, but yet you find it perfectly fine losing respect for a woman you don't know absolutely nothing about, except that she likes to perform certain types of pornography that you find disgusting.

So explain to me why am I being irrational by stating my will to lose respect for someone who has offended/attacked me, but you feel you have the right to disrespect people just because they engage in certain types of pornography you find distasteful.

Also, if my stance is irrational, does that mean you act in a different way? Do you continue to treat people nicely even after they do horrible things to you? Are you claiming you don't lose respect for someone who hurts you in a deliberate kind of way? What is, according to you, the way in which respect is to be handled?. Again, I am baffled at the irony here: It's wrong that I choose to draw the line on respect when people offend me personally, but it's ok to disrespect people who have never done anything to you and you have never met. Please elaborate more on your ethics.

 

[JFrankA]

Okay, I can't read this fully right now, but one thing that jumps out at me, SW17, after doing a quick scan of the postings:

WTF is "marshmallow" porn???