Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[RandFan]

Several posters on this forum find VCP repugnant. I think I would, although based on my imagination, I haven't actually seen any.

The stomach shouldn't be used as an organ of cognition.

• Women who go out in public and show their faces are in danger of rape.
• Rape churns my stomach.

 

[MontagK505]

• Women who go out in public and show their faces are in danger of rape.
• Rape churns my stomach.

[qimg]http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2876/burkafr.jpg[/qimg]

Somehow, I think these pix have little to do with the wellfare of women.

BTW If by some slight chance we shared a hotel room, I only look at porn involving faeries and demons.

 

[RandFan]

Somehow, I think these pix have little to do with the wellfare of women.

You may very well be right however I'm reasonably certain that the average person percieves that there is a real risk and that this is a real solution.

BTW If by some slight chance we shared a hotel room, I only look at porn involving faeries and demons.

Sounds fairly benign to me.

 

[JFrankA]

I just thought of something, SW.

Most people in this thread are assuming that people who are enjoying VCP and/or fantasy rape porn are only people who are enjoy being the older rapist.

However, there are quite a lot of people, women and men, who get aroused because they imagine themselves as the younger victim.

Since you think that VCP and fantasy rape porn causes a person who has the potential to rape someone to actually lose control and do it, do you believe that this same porn will cause, let's say for example, a woman to purposely go out and get raped?

 

[RandFan]

Somehow, I think these pix have little to do with the wellfare of women.

You may very well be right however I'm reasonably certain that the average person percieves that there is a real risk and that this is a real solution.

By average person I mean the average person who lives in such a society.

 

[MontagK505]

By average person I mean the average person who lives in such a society.

I assumed that.

At first thought it would seem to make sense. If your cultural values assume all men are bestial rape machines that have hair triggered sexual responses. (At least this is the way I heard an Fundy Imam explain it on a PBS television program several years ago.)

BTW The practice of female genital cutting in some of their societies is a serious hot-button issue with me. But let's not pull the thread in this direction.

 

[RandFan]

I assumed that.

At first thought it would seem to make sense. If your cultural values assume all men are bestial rape machines that have hair triggered sexual responses. (At least this is the way I heard an Fundy Imam explain it on a PBS television program several years ago.)

BTW The practice of female genital cutting in some of their societies is a serious hot-button issue with me. But let's not pull the thread in this direction.

Oh, me too. The first time I heard of it I recoiled.

I think there is no question that ultimatly the policies are mysoginistic and are about control and subjugation. It's just easier to sell it when you convince the sheeple that it is in their best interest to obey.

 

[MontagK505]

Oh, me too. The first time I heard of it I recoiled.

I think there is no question that ultimatly the policies are mysoginistic and are about control and subjugation. It's just easier to sell it when you convince the sheeple that it is in their best interest to obey.

To me this is the core reason for freedom of speech and forbidding prior restraint. It becomes harder for abuses to be kept hidden.

I know this is not a good way to make a formal argument:

But, years ago a co worker explained it this way.

Imagine someone who just itches to be on a censorship committee.
Then ask yourself, do you want this person to have the power to decide what can be said, written or drawn, without your knowledge.

What's more frightening, is there are people who see nothing wrong with this.

 

[RandFan]

To me this is the core reason for freedom of speech and forbidding prior restraint. It becomes harder for abuses to be kept hidden.

I know this is not a good way to make a formal argument:

But, years ago a co worker explained it this way.

Imagine someone who just itches to be on a censorship committee.
Then ask yourself, do you want this person to have the power to decide what can be said, written or drawn, without your knowledge.

What's more frightening, is there are people who see nothing wrong with this.

Good post. Have you seen Hitchen's talk on free speech? He makes a similar point.

The speech that is the most offensive is the speech that we must defend the most. There will always be those who would appeal to emotions to justify their censorial insinct.

Look at Bill Thompson's post. I note that Southwind didn't respond. At least I don't think he did. So, following his logic, think of the women who are violated or harrased. Isn't there some statistical likelyhood that banning pornography will help them? So why not ban porn to make our society safer? Why do we need evidence? The percieved risk should be enough.

Yes, I do find such rhetoric troubling.

I'm greatful to live in a nation that values free speech. I'm proud to live in such a nation.

 

[fuelair]

To me this is the core reason for freedom of speech and forbidding prior restraint. It becomes harder for abuses to be kept hidden.

I know this is not a good way to make a formal argument:

But, years ago a co worker explained it this way.

Imagine someone who just itches to be on a censorship committee.
Then ask yourself, do you want this person to have the power to decide what can be said, written or drawn, without your knowledge.

What's more frightening, is there are people who see nothing wrong with this.

I don't actually consider censors, child-molesters, rapists, terrorists, gangsters/ etc. to be people. More like self-chosen targets. But, that's just me and a number of others. (Have you ever noticed how considerate KKKers are on that matter - they have that cross target right over their foreheads and another right over their hearts, makes for a nice double-tap.)*


Intellectually only - I would certainly never advocate causing such actual physical distress.

 

[JFrankA]

To me this is the core reason for freedom of speech and forbidding prior restraint. It becomes harder for abuses to be kept hidden.

There's another thing about rights here in America that I think SW doesn't get:

Innocent until proven guilty.

Because VCP is illegal and can be skewed as child porn, by even innocently owning one issue of a Manga comic out of an entire collection could automatically make that person guilty of "being a child molester in waiting".

 

[JFrankA]

Good post. Have you seen Hitchen's talk on free speech? He makes a similar point.

The speech that is the most offensive is the speech that we must defend the most. There will always be those who would appeal to emotions to justify their censorial insinct.

Look at Bill Thompson's post. I note that Southwind didn't respond. At least I don't think he did. So, following his logic, think of the women who are violated or harrased. Isn't there some statistical likelyhood that banning pornography will help them? So why not ban porn to make our society safer? Why do we need evidence? The percieved risk should be enough.

Yes, I do find such rhetoric troubling.

I'm greatful to live in a nation that values free speech. I'm proud to live in such a nation.

Hear, hear.

 

[MontagK505]

Good post. Have you seen Hitchen's talk on free speech? He makes a similar point.

The speech that is the most offensive is the speech that we must defend the most. There will always be those who would appeal to emotions to justify their censorial insinct.

Look at Bill Thompson's post. I note that Southwind didn't respond. At least I don't think he did. So, following his logic, think of the women who are violated or harrased. Isn't there some statistical likelyhood that banning pornography will help them? So why not ban porn to make our society safer? Why do we need evidence? The percieved risk should be enough.

Yes, I do find such rhetoric troubling.

I'm greatful to live in a nation that values free speech. I'm proud to live in such a nation.

I've seen Hitchen's video. I got the link from you sometime back.

Hopefully it will last.

The problem is, the fore-brain in humans is much newer in evolutionary terms, than the desire to protect our offspring, which is much much older. That's what gives this VCP issue such emotional weight.

 

[quadraginta]

To me this is the core reason for freedom of speech and forbidding prior restraint. It becomes harder for abuses to be kept hidden.

I know this is not a good way to make a formal argument:

But, years ago a co worker explained it this way.

Imagine someone who just itches to be on a censorship committee.
Then ask yourself, do you want this person to have the power to decide what can be said, written or drawn, without your knowledge.

What's more frightening, is there are people who see nothing wrong with this.

I think it goes beyond that. I think that there is a disturbing number of people who are reassured by being told what is acceptable to see, hear, and think. This sort of instruction helps maintain a comfort zone of not being "different".

This urge to conformity, a sort of herd instinct to try and "fit in" often overwhelms any insidious tendency towards considered, rational thought.

The two types, the censors and their disciples, depend upon each other in a rather sad and almost cannibalistic synergy.

 

[RandFan]

I've seen Hitchen's video. I got the link from you sometime back.

Hopefully it will last.

The problem is, the fore-brain in humans is much newer in evolutionary terms, than the desire to protect our offspring, which is much much older. That's what gives this VCP issue such emotional weight.

Agreed. It took thousands of years of moral and social advancement to realize that it was in our long term best interest to codify fundamental rights and defend those rights against appeals to emotion.

That is why I gave my example of a child molester who has been arrested and a video proving his guilt is obtained illegally. Some would argue that the potential of harm to future children would justify setting aside the law in that one case.

I say no.

 

[quadraginta]

To me this is the core reason for freedom of speech and forbidding prior restraint. It becomes harder for abuses to be kept hidden.

There's another thing about rights here in America that I think SW doesn't get:

Innocent until proven guilty.

Because VCP is illegal and can be skewed as child porn, by even innocently owning one issue of a Manga comic out of an entire collection could automatically make that person guilty of "being a child molester in waiting".

Oh, I think SW "gets it" just fine. Between the positions he purports to champion, and the sophomoric level of rhetoric he employs in defense of those positions it is difficult not to compare his behavior to that class of posters whose main goal is to prompt a reaction rather than engage in a discussion.

 

[MontagK505]

I think it goes beyond that. I think that there is a disturbing number of people who are reassured by being told what is acceptable to see, hear, and think. This sort of instruction helps maintain a comfort zone of not being "different".

This urge to conformity, a sort of herd instinct to try and "fit in" often overwhelms any insidious tendency towards considered, rational thought.The two types, the censors and their disciples, depend upon each other in a rather sad and almost cannibalistic synergy.

In the published copy of the screen play for the movie “People vs Larry Flint”, there is an appended article about Milos Foreman the director. He makes the point that he finds smut highly repellent and in the beginning he didn't want to do the movie because of the association with pornography..

Milos grew up and went to film school in Czechoslovakia. He was orphaned after the Nazis killed his parents. One of the things he observed was that the tyrants always go after the perverts first. (Pornographers, queers, whores, etc.) After all, nobody gives a rats-ass about them.

The main reason the powers do this, is to get the people used to the idea that it's OK to lock up people for no other reason other than you don't like what they do. Of course, then the next step is to come after the politically incorrect, wrong race, etc.

By this time it's too late. The boot that was stomping on the queers face will soon be stomping on yours. Unless you don't mind doing some serious ass-kissing to save you and your family.

 

[RandFan]

In the published copy of the screen play for the movie “People vs Larry Flint”, there is an appended article about Milos Foreman the director. He makes the point that he finds smut highly repellent and in the beginning he didn't want to do the movie because of the association with pornography..

Milos grew up and went to film school in Czechoslovakia. He was orphaned after the Nazis killed his parents. One of the things he observed was that the tyrants always go after the perverts first. (Pornographers, queers, whores, etc.) After all, nobody gives a rats-ass about them.

The main reason the powers do this, is to get the people used to the idea that it's OK to lock up people for no other reason other than you don't like what they do. Of course, then the next step is to come after the politically incorrect, wrong race, etc.

By this time it's too late. The boot that was stomping on the queers face will soon be stomping on yours. Unless you don't mind doing some serious ass-kissing to save you and your family.

Exactly. It's always, "well just in this one instance we will set aside rights".

 

[RandFan]

{deleted}

 

[Southwind17]

It doesn't cause me to curl up in a fetal position. I fear for my child's safety. I wouldn't break down in a panic if my child didn't put on his seat belt but I would prefer it.

I'm not asking you what you wouldn't do. My question is quite clear: why does it instill you with fear? What, exactly, is the cause of that reaction that's present with the VCP-reading boyfriend and not the other?

Because that is my right.

That's not a valid answer to the question. My question is quite clear: Why do you allow your own tastes to form the basis on which you judge others who are simply exercising their rights?

It may very well be irrational. I don't know.
I don't pretend that I never act irrationaly. Given what we know I would have to say there is a very good likelyhood that my response is irrational.

Thank you RandFan. You admit that you form irrational views and act irrationally. That's all I wanted to be sure of. I trust you will appreciate that it would be irrational of me to continue to debate with somebody who, by their own admission, forms irrational views. I really don't see any mileage in that. Unlike you, I'm not prepared to allow myself to act irrationally.