Porn vs. Art

[wolftrax]

No, I'm not. I'm asking you to explain what you mean by the terms you use.


There, now. Was that so hard?

Not hard at all to explain or comprehend, it was self-explanatory. Are you telling me you had no idea what porn was before I told you? It probably took more effort on your part to think of Barbarella and Bond than the obvious first thought that came to your mind, of people having real sex in front of a camera.

I never saw the need. Kids will discover that sort of thing on their own long before most parents are ready to confront the subject head-on. I was no exception. But when they did, and asked questions, I made sure not to make them feel like creeps or degenerates for being curious.

How did you handle it?

So what you are telling me here is that you have a problem with how people address sexuality more than whether or not porn is considered art, or even harmful to children. A previous post indicates this has something to do with Abrahamic reliogions and their views on sexuality.

Either way, you wouldn't show pornography to a child. Thanks for answering the question.

To answer your questions, I live in a culture that is not part of western society, it is foreign yet exists right in the middle of it but considers itself separate, I am not officially part of an Abrahamic religion, I am an artist, I do have kids, and no, I wouldn't show them pornography. How have I approached questions or talk of sexuality? Very openly and with understanding.

I don't see how turning to pornograph

 

[not daSkeptic]

Yes it does work that way, and your hesitancy to answer the question tells me that either you don't show it to a child and don't want to admit it, or you do show it to a child and don't want to admit it.
...

You tell me, only you can speak for yourself.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to play this game. If you cannot be bothered to define your own terms and stand behind your own arguments, then you have no interest in meaningful conversation and I simply have no time for your trollish BS.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Listening or watching the various people on Dr. Drew who have been exposed to pornography at an early age which effected them and sexual problems they have is a frequent example.

Ted Bundy claimed that an early exposure to hardcore and violent pornography had an effect on him. Was he honest? Who knows.

Those aren't even close to evidence, which was my point, really. There's no real data showing porn has a negative effect on children. It's an assumption based purely on moral panic and statements by conservative authorities.

I recall reading not long ago about a study on the effects of pornography on men. The study had to be aborted, however, since the research team couldn't find any men who had never watched porn.

You'll be hard pressed to find a young person in a western country who's never had contact with pornography. As such, it's not possible to draw any real correlation between pornography and problems in later life, let alone causation.

But more than any of that, Those of you who have an objection to pornography having a negative effect on children, I have a question for you.

Do you show pornography to children?

Ah yes. And if I say playing tag, tap-dancing or learning Swahili isn't harmful to children, that means I must force them to do all those things?

But in all seriousness, if and when I have children, I don't intend to show them hardcore pornography. I probably will tell them about internet and it's contents, though. And when they reach puberty and start sneaking to adult sites, thinking I don't know, I will not do anything to change that. I believe it's a parent's duty to support his children's developing identities and make sure they are child is equipped with enough sense and information to know what sex and sexuality are. I see no reason to limit their access to pornography to any particular extent - and no real way to do it either.

Please use your right to freedom of expression to give your name and address if you do.

Well, why don't we start with you posting your social security number and credit card number and see where it goes from there?

Why do you think this silly attack helps your case?

 

[wolftrax]

Well no, of course you don't want to admit:

1) You do not show pornography to children because you know it is wrong
2) You do show pornography to children but don't want to admit it because it's wrong

For a thread that is devoted to art, and expression, and anything can and should be freely expressed like pornography, you sure lock up your communication when it comes to how it would effect children.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Well no, of course you don't want to admit:

1) You do not show pornography to children because you know it is wrong
2) You do show pornography to children but don't want to admit it because it's wrong

For a thread that is devoted to art, and expression, and anything can and should be freely expressed like pornography, you sure lock up your communication when it comes to how it would effect children.

You misunderstand. All we've been arguing about in this thread is whether or not pornography is art. I don't think anyone has said all art should be freely distributed to all people of all ages. (Well, at least if you don't count SW's early strawmen.)

 

[wolftrax]

But in all seriousness, if and when I have children, I don't intend to show them hardcore pornography. I probably will tell them about internet and it's contents, though. And when they reach puberty and start sneaking to adult sites, thinking I don't know, I will not do anything to change that. I believe it's a parent's duty to support his children's developing identities and make sure they are child is equipped with enough sense and information to know what sex and sexuality are. I see no reason to limit their access to pornography to any particular extent - and no real way to do it either.

And why wouldn't you show them pornography?

Well, why don't we start with you posting your social security number and credit card number and see where it goes from there?

Why do you think this silly attack helps your case?

If a person feels it is ok to show a child pornography, do they believe in it strongly enough to reveal who they are?

Let me ask you this, if you think pornography has no harmful effect on kids and the reason it is all taboo is because of western society. Would you feel that having sex in front of children would have no harmful effect?

 

[Mirrorglass]

And why wouldn't you show them pornography?

The same reason I wouldn't force them to learn Swahili. No real reason to do so.

If a person feels it is ok to show a child pornography, do they believe in it strongly enough to reveal who they are?

Well, do you believe it's not okay to show a child pornography to reveal who you are?

Do you believe it strongly enough to send me a thousand dollars?

Let me ask you this, if you think pornography has no harmful effect on kids and the reason it is all taboo is because of western society. Would you feel that having sex in front of children would have no harmful effect?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said "the reason it is all taboo is because of western society". (That is a big reason, but not the only one, I'm sure.)

As for having sex in front of children.. well, I don't really know. Forcing them to watch that would probably be harmful. I'll admit forcing young children to watch porn might be emotionally scarring as well. But that isn't the point. Do you believe a child who walks in on their parents having sex will be adversely affected? Or a child who secretly looks at pornography on the internet?

 

[wolftrax]

You misunderstand. All we've been arguing about in this thread is whether or not pornography is art. I don't think anyone has said all art should be freely distributed to all people of all ages. (Well, at least if you don't count SW's early strawmen.)

No, I don't misunderstand. I talked about that in my first two posts in this thread. At first I considered porn not art. After some thought, I considered it art but a negative form. I said it had no socially redeeming value. To explain that, I said it effected kids negatively.

People objected to that. I then asked if they would show it to their kids. So far, they are saying they would not.

 

[Mirrorglass]

No, I don't misunderstand. I talked about that in my first two posts in this thread. At first I considered porn not art. After some thought, I considered it art but a negative form. I said it had no socially redeeming value. To explain that, I said it effected kids negatively.

People objected to that. I then asked if they would show it to their kids. So far, they are saying they would not.

I wouldn't show Duchamp's urinal to to my children either. Not because I think it's harmful; I just don't think they'd be interested, or any the wiser for it.

 

[not daSkeptic]

People objected to that.

Actually, you were asked to define what you meant by various terms in your argument. Not only have you failed to do this but you now also seem to be ignoring that it was even asked of you. If you are really so insecure in your position that you cannot stand behind it, then you are of no use to this conversation. Goodbye.

 

[wolftrax]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said "the reason it is all taboo is because of western society". (That is a big reason, but not the only one, I'm sure.)

Uhhhhh, ok, I won't put words in your mouth of what you are now saying.

As for having sex in front of children.. well, I don't really know. Forcing them to watch that would probably be harmful. I'll admit forcing young children to watch porn might be emotionally scarring as well. But that isn't the point. Do you believe a child who walks in on their parents having sex will be adversely affected? Or a child who secretly looks at pornography on the internet?

Bolding mine. It is EXACTLY the point. My comment was that pornography has no socially redeeming value. Let's explore what that means. You share society, whether western or not, with kids. When you walk out on the street, you see kids.

You also see art on display. You see it in it's various evolved forms all over the place.

But if you publically displayed pornography, it would be the same as showing it to a kid. So far the answers have been we wouldn't do it, for whatever reason. THAT is why it does not have a socially redeeming value.

I'm not out to end porn. I'm not out to say if you watch it it's bad. But let's be honest, it's an act of sex, and we don't want to be having sex in front of our kids or having that done in front of them, it's just not something that we could see having anything of value come out of it.

So yeah, it's an art form, once I thought about it, it's an expression and has been used throughout history. It's a negative one, however, it's not something that is going to have a positive effect on society.

 

[wolftrax]

Actually, you were asked to define what you meant by various terms in your argument. Not only have you failed to do this but you now also seem to be ignoring that it was even asked of you. If you are really so insecure in your position that you cannot stand behind it, then you are of no use to this conversation. Goodbye.

I thought you were done before, ok, goodbye again.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Uhhhhh, ok, I won't put words in your mouth of what you are now saying.



Bolding mine. It is EXACTLY the point. My comment was that pornography has no socially redeeming value. Let's explore what that means. You share society, whether western or not, with kids. When you walk out on the street, you see kids.

You also see art on display. You see it in it's various evolved forms all over the place.

But if you publically displayed pornography, it would be the same as showing it to a kid. So far the answers have been we wouldn't do it, for whatever reason. THAT is why it does not have a socially redeeming value.

That isn't "why it has no socially redeeming value". That doesn't even address the question of whether porn has value, socially redeeming or otherwise.

Sexuality is a natural part of humanity. I knew the basics about where babies come from long before I entered school, and intend to let my children know everything they can think of asking. I've been subjected to pornogrpahic images (not by my parents; mostly by schoolmates) from my early school years, and don't believe I'm any worse off for it. I have no intention of going to great lengths to stop my children from seeing porn.

Let me be clear here, though: I don't intend to make my children watch porn. I also don't intend to give them the "sex talk" before they're ready to ask. When they do develop an interest, I will make sure they receive all the information they need. And I won't stop them from exploring what sexuality is, a quest that will undoubtedly take them to pornography. How would I stop them anyway? Children have always found ways to get to pornographic materials, and always will. And I don't think that's a bad thing; just a natural phase in the development of sexuality.

As for the value of porn, it has plenty. It makes millions of people happy, which should in my opinion be enough to justify it. So it seems very strange to think it has "no socially redeeming value".

I'm not out to end porn. I'm not out to say if you watch it it's bad. But let's be honest, it's an act of sex, and we don't want to be having sex in front of our kids or having that done in front of them, it's just not something that we could see having anything of value come out of it.

"We" don't think that. I think when a child (or a youth, more likely at this point) starts to actively seek sexual materials, it's not harmful, but necessary, that he finds some. A basis is necessary for developing a healthy sexuality, and I personally believe pornographic imagery is a harmless way to provide some of that (combined with sufficient education and parental support, of course).

It's also silly to equate porn to having sex in front of a child. That's like saying seeing Star Wars is equal to murdering dozens of soldiers in front of a child. Children do make a distinction between a video and reality.

So yeah, it's an art form, once I thought about it, it's an expression and has been used throughout history. It's a negative one, however, it's not something that is going to have a positive effect on society.

And this is a totally unbased claim. There's no scientific reason to think porn has any effect on society, harmful or beneficial, just like there's no reason to think that of art. Both are inbuilt to society, so it isn't possible to evaluate their effects, as there's no suitable control group.

Perhaps you have examples, like saying your children are smarter and healthier than average. Even if that was true (and even if it was true for all people with similar worldview to yours) it wouldn't be real proof of the dangers of porn. There's just too much confounding factors.

 

[Marcus]

Please answer my question. What is the purpose of art ?



I must've missed it. I remember the artist's hat and such, but if we know an artist is an artist because he does art, then what is art ? Your definition ?



<Sigh> Fine. Since you are utterly incapable of understanding this point, please simply give me your definition of art and what its purpose is.



A bunch of pixels.

Good luck with that. AFAIK Southwind has refused for the entire thread to provide his definition of art. There was a point where he got someone else to provide one, and agreed with part of it, thus enabling him to deny any responsibility for a definition. Perhaps because he wasn't able to find an official definition that excluded porn, so would have to make one up.

 

[not daSkeptic]

... thus enabling him to deny any responsibility for a definition.

Seems to be a popular tactic in this thread.

 

[Lithrael]

But if you publically displayed pornography, it would be the same as showing it to a kid. So far the answers have been we wouldn't do it, for whatever reason. THAT is why it does not have a socially redeeming value.

I have to come down on the culture side of this one. There have been cultures where pornography was sculpted right into the walls of the cities and it was fine. There have been and IIRC still are cultures where everyone lives together so closely that nobody really bothers to try to exclude children from the premises just cause there's sex or nudity going on. When your entire culture agrees that it's just not a big deal (and certainly not a negative deal) the children don't seem bothered.

IMHO, it's growing up in a society that has tons and tons of very confusing and often unfair or nonsensical sexual and gender rules and taboos, that makes sex an uncomfortable subject for a developing mind. If it frustrates and confuses adult members of a society, it's only going to be more stressful for the kids of that society, and the kids don't even need to deal with it yet, so why not wait till they're closer to actually needing to deal with it. That kind of thing.

Nothing to do with whether pornography itself is 'bad for kids' full stop, or whether that affects its status as art.

 

[wolftrax]

I see. So these kids are doing fine:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=77444
http://www.blacktokyo.com/?p=430
http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_10/issue_07/travel_01.html
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=132930

A virtual utopia:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,445134,00.html

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I see. So these kids are doing fine:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=77444

Completely unsupported assertion from some attorney. Absolutely no evidence of causation is even mentioned.

http://www.blacktokyo.com/?p=430

I have read this article and have no idea what point you think it makes.

http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_10/issue_07/travel_01.html

Hmm, if three in a row turn out to be totally irrelevant I'll start to think we're dealing with a drive-by link bomber... yup, once again totally irrelevant to the thread topic.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=132930

Oh hey, this actually looks relevant at first! Until you realise that this too has absolutely no evidence of causation between the availability of pornography and sex crimes.

A virtual utopia:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,445134,00.html

Hurrah! On your final link you achieve something close to relevance! One particular city often cited as having porn on its walls (Pompeii) in fact only had it on the walls of brothels.

Now when to we get to see the evidence that pornography leads to bad social outcomes? Because we've had threads on this topic before and the best evidence showed that making porn freely available via the internet either had no effect at all, or slightly decreased the frequency of sex crimes.

 

[wolftrax]

Your kidding, right? You read these articles that talked about the connection of child pornography and child prostitution, of sexual offenders and their use of pornography, and you see absolutely no relevance?

Your read about an article about Pompeii and the pornography in the brothel, but the conditions and the low amount of return (two loaves of bread) for women who were initially enslaved and then later could find no other means of income, and this has no effect on you?

The objection was to my comment that porn has no socially redeemable value. An example given was it has harmful effects on children, and this raised objections. Yet when asked if anyone would show pornography to their own kids, not one person said they would.

With good reason, child molesters do try to seduce kids with pornography. As one person stated in the thread, art is meant to evoke an emotional response, and in the case of porn it is meant to evoke arousal.

Nobody in their right mind with a shred of decency wants to make their own kid get turned on with them there beside them. We all know it happens, teens get curious and want to look in private, but not in front of their parents. But to try to evoke that? Yeah, there's some problems there, that's pretty weird. To what end?

That is why I said it has no socially redeemable value. I'm not out to fight against porn. Whatever floats your boat, but you do it in private, and if your teen does it, they do it in private. You don't pack up the kids to go to the museum of pornography, you know that theater with the sticky floors and people who don't get out too much.

Does it make people happy? Sure it does. But it ain't for everybody, it's not a socially viewable thing. Sure, there are clubs devoted to it where people socially view it and engage in it and all of that. But you don't take your kids there, hopefully.

Anyways, is it art? Well, I answered that. I guess it is, in the absolute sense of the word, but it is a negative art. It'll get you off, and that's great, but it's not going to make for a great family event where your kids expand their minds from human accomplishments of the largest gang bang or the furthest ejaculation.

But you still have your porn and I'm not taking that away from you.

 

[JFrankA]

No, I don't misunderstand. I talked about that in my first two posts in this thread. At first I considered porn not art. After some thought, I considered it art but a negative form. I said it had no socially redeeming value. To explain that, I said it effected kids negatively.

People objected to that. I then asked if they would show it to their kids. So far, they are saying they would not.

Okay, I was going to avoid this thread because, quite frankly, I just didn't want to bother with SW.

But I want to make a point here:

I don't show porn to my child because he's not ready to view it.

That question "Do you show porn to your children? Then there's no redeeming value to porn." is exactly like saying "Do you give the keys to a car to a child? Then there's no redeeming value to cars." People die from car accidents and messed up for life every day.

The reason you don't show porn to a child is exactly the same reason you don't hand them your car keys.

It's exactly the same reason why your don't teach your young child Calculus.

It's exactly the same reason why you don't feed a baby a full lobster dinner.

Sex, like driving, like cooking, like dating, like anything else in a human's life is a learning process. You've got to know and understand the basics before you move on to the more complicated things. In other words, there's a learning curve. With sex, the learning curve is more than physical: it's social and also an identity. A child has to learn and understand the social norms and has to have understand what is going on before becoming sexually active.

Now, in the case of porn, there are PLENTY of people who saw porn as children and turned out okay. The idea that showing porn to child will scar her or him for life is just an assumption. (We've had a thread about that). In fact, for every person that says porn messed them up I can find a person who will say that it didn't. Porn doesn't do anything. The reaction to porn is what counts. (Same can be said for art).

The point is, if a person, child or adult, isn't mentally (and physically) ready to handle porn, then you don't show it to them. Just like you don't give the car keys to someone who isn't mentally and physically ready or able to handle a car.

Doesn't mean the car "has no redeeming value", it means that the particular individual isn't ready to handle it. The exact, same reasoning goes for porn.