Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[JFrankA]

Absolutely not. It's clear that JFrankA has difficulty with comprehension. If he can show that he understands what's going on here I'll entertain him. Otherwise, I don't have time for him.

Oh dear. I hope that doesn't mean you've ignored me again....

You know, there are things I have said that you clearly show you have difficulty with comprehension, too. And I DO comprehend what you are saying, though I think you are confusing disagreement and challenge with miscomprehension.

And a piece of friendly advice. Don't drink and post."

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I am reminded of the Shifting Moral Zeitgeist proposed by Dawkins



... in that, the values of society have changed in terms of differentiating between what we disagree with and what's wrong. It wasn't too long ago that it was believed that there was something inherently wrong (actually not just wrong, but inherently evil) with Rock and Roll music. However, these people would probably have thrown up and/or twitched in pure terror and disgust if we had travelled back in time and played them a tape of Nirvana or Metallica.



This interview with Frank Zappa always strikes a nerve in me, because it seems almost inconceivable that there could have been such enormous bigotry and ignorance so recently. Such intolerance for freedom of speech in its most fundamentalist way. Zappa is here, not defending some twisted artwork in the lines of H. R Giger, but actually defending words. In the interview, he narrows it down to that: "You're just arguing about words". We have here a document to remind us that not too long ago, when Tv was still in color, people were convinced that words alone could produce harm and lead people to succumb to the low passions of evil.

It is then not surprising that even though the moral zeitgeist has shifted, that such shift is supposed to take place at a very slow pace; and that we're still arguing the same thing about images. It is just a matter of time until the moral zeitgeist shifts past it, as some sort of slow storm that makes its way past our culture and its constant evolution, as the myths and irrational fears are cleared.

 

[Southwind17]

It's not the actual law, it's not someone else definition, therefore, it's yours. So it's your option of what the definition should be.

Correct. So what? Please comment on the definition.

I've been doing that over and over in this thread. The first time I did, long ago, your reply was basically you think it could've been done better if it wasn't shown.
Again, that's your opinion.

Please reiterate.

Again, it is. By your own words. Your definition.

It's a proposed definition. It's not an opinion.

On the Simpson's movie example? It was pure comedy. It was plain funny on all levels. Nothing sexual about it at all. If someone saw it as such then that's that viewer's problem.

Then it falls outside the definition.

Now. Did you see the movie? And what do you think?

No I didn't, so I can't think anything meaningful about it.

What part of the word "my" a word you used, don't you understand?

You know, I'm getting sick of repeating myself.

You're getting sick of it!

Look back on my previous posts if you don't know by now what I feel about it.

I'm sorry - I simply couldn't be bothered.

And the laws they come up with are always right and should never be questioned or debated? (Followed - yes. That's not the debate. We are discussing how valid the reasoning behind the law is.)

We are?

But what you percieve as one obvious intent (to invoke arousal) could be percieved as another obvious intent to another (e.g. to invoke anger) but not what the artist's obviously intended (e.g. to invoke humor).
See?

I see you're clutching at straws!

Honestly, I can't in a heartbeat. I'll give it some serious thought and get back to you, if you let me work on that, please.

Sure. If you need time to gather your thoughts that's ok with me.

You are asking me for my definition of VCP for you to comment on it. Would my definition NOT be my opinion then? If it is not, then why isn't YOUR definition an opinion?
See how that works?

No. I'm simply asking you to analyse your scenario in the context of my definition.

It could include anything. Let's take the Simpson's movie. Under your definition, if one person gets sexually aroused by seeing that scene, then it becomes VCP and the movie is banned, censored and the creators, the movie houses and the people who've bought the DVD are subject to prosecution of child porn.

No. It's not a question of whether one person gets aroused, it's a question of whether the intent is to, or whether it will or is likely to, by reference to case precedence, appeal to the prurient nature of some people.

I'm going by what you said. I was basing my statement on the fact that you said that fantasy rape porn should be banned because it could make a person who has the potential to rape someone make them do it.

"The fact"! I said what you claim I said? Please show me where.

Woah. Woah. I HAVE been commenting on your opinion. (Yes, your opinion, because you are not interested THE definition, you are interested in only YOUR definition - therefore your opinion.)
Stop climbing soapboxes and hiding behind "it's the law!!" or "think of the children!" and actually read and debate your point, please.

No comment.

Alright. Fair enough. So I will ask you straight out:
Considering there are some Manga that has drawn pictures of under aged girls (usually around 13 to 17) getting raped, should they be banned?

Does it fall within my definition of VCP?

Should all of them be banned in case a Manga title that usually doesn't have one might someday?

No. Each publication of manga should be judged individually.

*sigh* I'm sorry. I can't put it any clearer than my post. You may say many but by excuting your logic, you lump all in.
Again, based on what you said before:
Since you don't know what Manga is, but since you've heard that some Manga may contain something someone could see as VCP then all Manga should be banned on the fact that it may be viewed by someone who may be a potential child molester, and that viewer may decide to molest a child because the Manga may give that potential child molester viewer the idea it's okay to molest a child
So even though you say many Manga doesn't have VCP, and many people are not child molesters all Manga and all people are suspect.

Each publication of manga should be judged on its merits.

 

[Southwind17]

And there was only one question before your non-"no comment" reply. Did you mean no to my question above your non-"no comment" reply?

I'm sorry. What?

 

[Southwind17]

Verbal – Talking about child rape? Is this an actual problem? (Howard Stern's next subject?)

Please consider how "talking" fits with the remainder of the definition.

“is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal” Is guessing allowed?

No.

“prurient nature of some people” What people are we referring to? Some is still a rather vague description to be used in a legal definition.

Some is perfectly clear. It's simply more than none.

“clear and specific focus on genitalia or anal areas” How clear? How specific?

Clear and specific, by reference to case precedence, if necessary.

What compositional rule shall be our standard of evidence for specific focus?
Rule of thirds perhaps? Is soft focus OK? How soft? How sharp?

Case precedence, if necessary.

It still doesn't address the issue: If the alleged VCP is part of a larger artistic expression then what?

"Either wholly or partially".

If a committee of anally retentive prudes consulting their magic 8-balls or their magic “stomachs”, claim the artist's intent was to arouse, what possible defense can be mounted against a prudes “stomach”?

Case precedence.

 

[Southwind17]

Where is this evidence for #2 (high lite)
Alleged VCP could have another purpose. (Arouse disgust? part of a horror show?)

Not by my definition.

 

[Southwind17]

No, I did not miss the word "some".

Yes you did.

 

[Southwind17]

And a piece of friendly advice. Don't drink and post."

Appeal to alcohol!

 

[RandFan]

If you guys really want this thread to go down a semantics blind alley just say so.

If you really don't want to discuss or debate then just say so.

 

[JFrankA]

Correct. So what? Please comment on the definition.

I did in a later post, but I'm glad you admit that this definition you are defending is based upon your opinion.

Please reiterate.

Here is what I'm talking about:

From Post 1158

Manga is big in Japan, and a lot of it crosses to here in the states. Not all of it sexual. Most often it's superhero stories with a possible incidental sex scene involving school girls. It's not intended to be arousing, just part of the story sometimes.

Oh come on JFrankA - get real. How on earth can an "incidental sex scene involving school girls" not be reasonably interpreted to be intended to arouse? What other possible purpose would such a sex scene serve.

Post 1168

That's how YOU interpret it. In some stories, it's there to evoke an emotion of anger so that when the hero saves the girl from the scene, it's a feeling of justice.

....didn't think of that didja? What does it say about you, I wonder?

Actually, I did consider the possible justifications for including child sex into such a story, and felt that, yes, if incidental, it could have some validity, exactly in the way that you describe it here. But then, I thought that that was totally unnecessary, and that exactly the same plot, story line and message could be conveyed perfectly adequately, if not better, other than resorting to the super-hero rescuing a sexually abused child. Didn't think of that, didja? What does that say about you (I don't wonder!)?!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically what you are saying, (since you've never seen Manga), is that even though it could be "legitimate", it would be much better story if it wasn't in there at all. That's why I said "I've been doing that over and over in this thread. The first time I did, long ago, your reply was basically you think it could've been done better if it wasn't shown."

It's a proposed definition. It's not an opinion.

*sigh* "your option of what the definition should be." "Correct" Whatever.

Then it falls outside the definition.

According to me. According to someone else they could have a very different opinion......

No I didn't, so I can't think anything meaningful about it.

That's fair.

*sigh* never mind......

You're getting sick of it!

We both are but......

I'm sorry - I simply couldn't be bothered.

Neither are we. So I propose that both of us stop saying "you don't get it, look back". Either we have to repeat, reinterate, back post and/or clarify or not.

We are?

Yes! Look, everyone on this thread agrees that if it's the law, we should obey it. No one is saying "disobey the law because I don't agree with it", we are saying "we don't agree with it because...." Most of us are disputing the law, questioning it's reasons and giving opinions....

I see you're clutching at straws!

It's a very valid point! With your definition, SOMEONE has to make the decision as to whether the media in question had the intention to arouse or not. Who gets to decide that? Why?

Sure. If you need time to gather your thoughts that's ok with me.

Thank you, but it's more than just gathering my thoughts. A lot of what is considered porn by some people isn't by others. there's a lot to consider.

No. I'm simply asking you to analyse your scenario in the context of my definition.

Well, my definition will be based on my opinion just as your definition is based upon yours.

No. It's not a question of whether one person gets aroused, it's a question of whether the intent is to, or whether it will or is likely to, by reference to case precedence, appeal to the prurient nature of some people.

Who gets to decide that? Who is the judge? Do you lock a bunch of molesters in a room, have them see a piece of media and ask them "on a scale of one to ten how aroused are you?"

"The fact"! I said what you claim I said? Please show me where.

Unfortunately, I hit the send button before I finished posting this. I'll find what you said and post it later...


ETA(again) Found what I was talking about in post #1839

Yes - pornographic rape portrayal should be banned, provided that it's clear that it is, in fact, rape portrayal.

No comment.

*sigh*

Does it fall within my definition of VCP?

Depends on who you ask, doesn't it? Some people would say yes, some would say no.

No. Each publication of manga should be judged individually.

Each publication of manga should be judged on its merits.

Again, who gets to judge? It's your definition, you tell me who decides the intent of the creator of the proposed VCP?

ETA: Sorry, I hit the send key before I finished this post. Just fixed it. Sorry about that.

 

[tesscaline]

Yes you did.

Evidence?

 

[JFrankA]

Just found this law article about why virtual child porn was part of the first admendment before it was overtuned later. It states pretty much what most of us was saying:

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0019.html

 

[RandFan]

Just found this law article about why virtual child porn was part of the first admendment before it was overtuned later. It states pretty much what most of us was saying:

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0019.html

From your link:

The government presented four arguments supporting the CPPA's constitutionality. First, it claimed that "virtual child" pornography causes indirect harm to actual children,17 contending that the production of virtual pornographic images can lead to child abuse.18 The Court did not accept the government's indirect harm argument noting instead that "virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children"19 and that "the causal link is contingent and indirect."20 The government relied on the Ferber case, but to no avail. The Free Speech Coalition court held that Ferber provides no support for the elimination of the distinction between actual and "virtual child" pornography.21 In fact, the court in Ferber recognized that some works might have societal value as an alternative means of expression.22


[FONT=Arial, Helvitica, san-serif][SIZE=-2]¶ 5[/SIZE][/FONT] Second, the government argued that "virtual child" pornography could have the tendency to persuade the audience to commit crimes.23 The Court struck down this argument, stating, "the prospect of crime, however, by itself does not justify laws suppressing protected speech."24 Even if virtual pornography encourages unlawful acts, "it is not a sufficient reason for banning it."25 "The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or impulses and any resulting child abuse" therefore, the government may not prohibit the speech expressed in "virtual child" pornography based on this unsupported argument.26 The government can punish the perpetrators of sexual abuse of children and punish people who provide explicit materials to children in order to seduce or convince the child to engage in sexual activities.27 Also, the government may not prohibit adults from material protected by free speech in an attempt to prevent children from obtaining it.28

[FONT=Arial, Helvitica, san-serif][SIZE=-2]¶ 6[/SIZE][/FONT] Third, the government argued that eliminating the market for actual child pornography was a sufficient reason for the Court to uphold the constitutionality of the law.29 The Court disagreed and noted that the market for actual child pornography might be eliminated if there was an alternative source.30 "If virtual images were identical to illegal child pornography, the illegal images would be driven from the market by the indistinguishable substitutes. Few pornographers would risk prosecution by abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice."31 The Court held that virtual pornography does not necessarily promote the market for actual child pornography and recognized the distinction between the two.32 The Court stated that the government's market theory was unpersuasive especially because there is no crime involved in "virtual child" pornography since no children are used in the production of the work.33
[FONT=Arial, Helvitica, san-serif][SIZE=-2]¶ 7[/SIZE][/FONT] Fourth, the government also argued that "virtual child" pornography could result in more difficult prosecutions of actual child molesters and pornographers since the virtual images look so realistic.34 The government wants to pass this difficulty on to the potential defendant through the statute's affirmative defense option.35 The defendant can rely on the affirmative defense if he can prove that the alleged child pornography was made using real persons who were adults and the material was not marketed as depicting children.36 The affirmative defense option raises other constitutional concerns because the defendant would have the burden of proving that the material was protected by the First Amendment. The Court noted that, "the Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected speech merely because it resembles the latter."37 All four of the government's arguments were unsuccessful and the Supreme Court held that the CPPA was unconstitutionally overbroad.38

 

[MontagK505]

<snip>

Some is perfectly clear. It's simply more than none.


Originally Posted by MontagK505
If a committee of anally retentive prudes consulting their magic 8-balls or their magic “stomachs”, claim the artist's intent was to arouse, what possible defense can be mounted against a prudes “stomach”?

Case precedence.

"Some" is still vague, not specific enough to be part of a legal definition.

If determination of intent is decided by case precedence then what was the case precedence based on, a previous determination of intent? And how was that determination of intent decided? By case precedence?

 

[JFrankA]

Appeal to alcohol!

Alcohol is usually very appealing!!!!

 

[MontagK505]

Alcohol is usually very appealing!!!!

Not for me. I have other ways of dealing with tension.

A long time ago I got drunk on brew 102. My first and only time. The next morning cured me of that forever.

 

[MontagK505]

Not for me. I have other ways of dealing with tension.

A long time ago I got drunk on brew 102. My first and only time. The next morning cured me of that forever.

Back on subject:

I've seen Japanese Animated porn (2D) and low quality 3D, and I must admit I don't understand it's appeal. It must be a cultural aesthetic that I fail to understand.

I've read magazine articles that claim a large percentage of Japanese “Salary-men” live such emotionally impoverished lives, that reading Manga is a major outlet for their frustrations. Add to that the Japanese justice system which hammers the hell out of the average citizen if he actually does anything out of line. I don't imagine pedophiles have a very good time in a Japanese prison.

Some of their main-stream animation is quite good. I just watched “Appleseed Exmachina” which is very high quality 3D. It would be nice to see more skin especially the “Deunan Knute” or “Hitomi” characters. The problem is, this style of animation is expensive and if you spice it up too much, you lose your PG-13 rating and some of your potential US audience.

I don't see this as a substitute for actual porn anytime soon.

 

[amb]

That may be a comment on your taste in women, but it isn't very clear why that is a comment about what's wrong with porn.

Porn would be wrong in this case if the girl is under age and not mature enough to be able to make a good judgment on whether to participate or not.
I'm talking here of appearing in an adult film.

 

[GreavesCity]

Nothing.

I contend that anyone who responded to this thread with anything other than the word "nothing" is severely misguided and/or wasting their time. I realise this now includes me.

 

[Belz...]

Absolutely not. It's clear that JFrankA has difficulty with comprehension. If he can show that he understands what's going on here I'll entertain him. Otherwise, I don't have time for him.

Southwind, he's asking for clarification, and instead of answering him you dodge his question as if you didn't need to answer. Seriously, the message that this sends is NOT that Frank doesn't get it, but that instead you'd rather not answer. You may not care about your credibility in this thread, but I can tell you that, from my point of view, this kind of behaviour hurts it.