• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated What's wrong with porn?

arthwollipot said:
Apropos of nothing...

Sex Industry Myths and Facts - Consent and Amateur Porn
Click to expand...
:)

All that means is that many people are duped into watching ‘amateur porn’ that isn’t really amateur.
Click to expand...
She says that as if it is a bad thing.

This reminds me of a Paul Reiser joke about reading the Penthouse letters. Invariably the letters will contain some fact that makes you know that they are nonense. He gives an example of some guy who has sex with the entire cheerleading squad who just happen to barge in on him having sex with the land lady (could happen). Now Paul is willing to suspend his disbelief until the author closes with "and then we showered and did it again"... to which Paul replies "NO YOU DIDN'T!"

Hey, I don't mind being duped. Just be damn good at duping me.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
:)

She says that as if it is a bad thing.

This reminds me of a Paul Reiser joke about reading the Penthouse letters. Invariably the letters will contain some fact that makes you know that they are nonense. He gives an example of some guy who has sex with the entire cheerleading squad who just happen to barge in on him having sex with the land lady (could happen). Now Paul is willing to suspend his disbelief until the author closes with "and then we showered and did it again"... to which Paul replies "NO YOU DIDN'T!"

Hey, I don't mind being duped. Just be damn good at duping me.
Click to expand...

He he,

I know a guy who was ghost writer for a similar "letters to the editor" thing in a men's magazine.

The assumed editor is an attractive local female celebrity. My friend got to stay at her house in Amsterdam in return for writing both the letters and the answers.

He's an Israeli stoner with a really hairy back. Hope that doesn't spoil it for anyone.

:D
 
quadraginta said:
Why do I have this feeling that the interpretation of a D.A. who's running for reelection might be different than that of a cautious viewer. Perhaps it is not so simple.

"Interpretation" is dangerous ground to base criminal statutes on at the best of times. For some reason the consensus is even less universal when topics like this one are involved.
Click to expand...
That's why we have the doctrine of case precedence. My view? If you choose to play around at the margin of just about anything in life, whether it be loitering outside a junior school at home time or atop a tall building wearing a backpack, don't be surprised at having your motives challenged, and be prepared to justify your actions and intentions. Otherwise, stand well back at a safe distance. People are entitled to be suspicious.
 
Southwind17 said:
That's why we have the doctrine of case precedence. My view? If you choose to play around at the margin of just about anything in life, whether it be loitering outside a junior school at home time or atop a tall building wearing a backpack, don't be surprised at having your motives challenged, and be prepared to justify your actions and intentions. Otherwise, stand well back at a safe distance. People are entitled to be suspicious.
Click to expand...

What is marginal in one view is mainstream in another view.

I’m very concerned that I have to worry that virtual images made on my computer might make me subject to criminal sanctions because some prude DA running for re-election has a hair up his/her butt.

That’s why I strongly oppose the idea of victimless crimes, unless you can show a chain of cause and effect for each specific case.

Check out Renderosity or DAZ3D websites to see examples of what you can purchase for Poser or DAZ Studio programs.
 
JFrankA said:
I've used Poser myself. In fact, SL based their avatars with the Poser program. And you bring up a good point: if you turn Victoria 4 into a teenager, and don't place clothing on her because you're still adjusting the model, yet you render and save your work in progress, and bang. You've got kiddie porn on your computer.
Click to expand...

I’m doomed! :eek:

Suppose on some renders you never planned to put clothes on Vicky? Why should this be a crime?

What really bothers me is there is no objective standard to any of this. Even if you want to obey the law you can’t.
 
whisper said:
I think porn exploits male loneliness.
Click to expand...
Sure, and food exploits hunger. Water exploits thirst. Toilets exploit the drive to urinate and defecate. I think you've discovered the relationship between drive and the objects of that which we have evolved to crave.

Of course you use the term in a way that is often used in a pejorative sense. It's often thought that an employer who "exploits" his workers is taking unfair advantage of those workers. What's unstated in your proposition is whether or not porn exploits males to the detriment of the male. Certainly the porn does not gain any advantage. I think you could better make the argument that pornographers exploit lonely males the way casino owners exploit their customers (to the extent that they do).
 
RandFan said:
:)

She says that as if it is a bad thing.

This reminds me of a Paul Reiser joke about reading the Penthouse letters. Invariably the letters will contain some fact that makes you know that they are nonense. He gives an example of some guy who has sex with the entire cheerleading squad who just happen to barge in on him having sex with the land lady (could happen). Now Paul is willing to suspend his disbelief until the author closes with "and then we showered and did it again"... to which Paul replies "NO YOU DIDN'T!"

Hey, I don't mind being duped. Just be damn good at duping me.
Click to expand...

Well, if they're watching it because they think it is a nobler action due to myths about the industry then it could be a bad thing. Clearly, though, you're not watching for that reason. :P
 
BTW: For those who like everything about porn but the sex I recomend PG Porn. Though there is no nudity it's still not quite safe for work.
 
RandFan said:
BTW: For those who like everything about porn but the sex I recomend PG Porn. Though there is no nudity it's still not quite safe for work.
Click to expand...

For those of you not inclined to click the link, PG Porn is a Spike TV series of short web videos parodying pornography cliches. Quite funny.
 
MontagK505 said:
What is marginal in one view is mainstream in another view.
I’m very concerned that I have to worry that virtual images made on my computer might make me subject to criminal sanctions because some prude DA running for re-election has a hair up his/her butt.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand. There is a clear legal line that defines child porn, as least so far as the definition of "child" ("minor") goes. If you tinker at the margin of whether an image is "virtually indistinguishable from a minor" expect to be checked. If you think that your images might reasonably be viewed as crossing the line then back off. Do you really need to be living on the edge in this instance?

MontagK505 said:
That’s why I strongly oppose the idea of victimless crimes, unless you can show a chain of cause and effect for each specific case.
Click to expand...
I think a historical trend or pattern should be sufficient, which is why, I guess, possession of drugs is a crime. Do you think it should be legal for somebody to traffic 10kg of crack cocaine across international borders?
 
I actually once called the Parliament office of Finland, and asked what is the line between legal and illegal photography of minors. Not a question about age limits, but rather a question about what is legal under the age limit. I got an appointment with a legal advisor of the Parliament, and I never got any clear answer to any of my questions. Laws are seldom written with clear language, so how could their interpretation be clear? The clearest answer, or the only answer that I still remember afterwards, was "well the adult entertainment industry can regulate themselves quite nicely, we have had no problems". Not a very helpful answer, if at stake could potentially be several years in prison, if you "regulate yourself" differently that the prosecutors and judges will.

What is "sexual content"? Ask from a Muslim cleric, a Xian fundie, a random passer-by on the street, a doctor of sexology, and a naturist. You could get five very different answers, by five people differently exposed to nudity in their daily lives, but all of them sincere and true in the opinion of the person himself.
 
Last edited:
JJM 777 said:
Laws are seldom written with clear language, so how could their interpretation be clear?
Click to expand...
Case precedence, that's how, although that probably wouldn't be much practical use for the lay-person trying to identify whether his borderline intentions are legal or not.

JJM 777 said:
What is "sexual content"? Ask from a Muslim cleric, a Xian fundie, a random passer-by on the street, a doctor of sexology, and a naturist. You could get five very different answers, by five people differently exposed to nudity in their daily lives, but all of them sincere and true in the opinion of the person himself.
Click to expand...
I don't think you'd get five different answers from five different judges. Again, maybe not much help, but then neither are the five views above. Given that ignorance of the law is no excuse, my advice, if you know you're teetering on the edge (and you should!) - do your homework - take expert legal advice or do some solid case precedence research.
 
SophieHirschfeld said:
Well, if they're watching it because they think it is a nobler action due to myths about the industry then it could be a bad thing. Clearly, though, you're not watching for that reason. :P
Click to expand...

Of course, "being noble while watching porn" can be part of the viewer's kick. :)

As I said "objectification, (or noble watching) is in the eyes of the beholder."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom