Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Matthew Best]

That definition says nothing about "disappearing".

 

[nescafe]

http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/troll.html

Sorry, that definition has become superseded in the era of /b/.

Sucessful trolls see how long they can stir the pot. Suprising everyone by being unreasonably reasonable every now and then is an excellent way to keep the troll fed -- intermittent reinforcement is such a wonderful conditioning tool.

 

[arthwollipot]

Whatever. Can we please just get on with the subject?

 

[Southwind17]

See, this is where I don't get you. Here you're being reasonable, admitting that lack of data precludes you from reaching a conclusion. But elsewhere in the thread your reach a conclusion based -- really -- on the lack of data.

I wondered who would be first to pick up on this! There are, of course, various means by which one can form a view on something. Anecdotal data is one means and other "data" is another (there are, of course, more). I consider that I have lived long enough and met enough people to make reliable assumptions about what most people feel about certain things. One of those things is certain types of pornography. I do not, however, have any, let alone enough, anecdotal data to form a view as regards a possible correlation between porn and rape (I think that was the comparison). I simply haven't met and spoken to enough rapists yet (well, not that I know of!). So, depending on the nature of the subject issue one can choose between the various data sources according to what affords the necessary information upon which to form a view. That's how I see things, anyhow. Not perfect, I admit, but valid nonetheless, depending on circumstances.

 

[Southwind17]

Since the molestation is a harmful act, and having sex for money on camera is not (in my opinion), I'm not sure the analogy applies. Are you saying that pornography is harmful ? You seem to have suggested a few posts ago that you didn't.

So, if it's not harmful why disrespect those who do it ?

Personally, I don't place a mental threshold at "harmful" or even "illegal" when forming a view on somebody's behaviour. There are many behaviours that I consider disrespectful that are both legal and, technically, harmless (provided they're contained). To be clear, no, I don't consider porn harmful, other than the possible higher risk of contracting STDs (and provided it's consensual, of course, and, well, not physically injurious, as some even consensual acts most definitely are!).

Also, since you considered my previous question to be sensible, I wonder if you could answer another question I asked upthread:

Since you seem to imply that porn actresses playing in scenes involving fantasy rape deserve your disrespect, what about regular actresses playing in scenes involving simulated rape ? This is a serious question. Perhaps the only difference to you is the intent to arouse.

I don't agree with the portrayal of rape with the intent to arouse - period. Anybody doing so would get my disrespect, be that an actress, actor, producer, director, cameraman, etc. Portrayal of rape for cinematic purposes per se I have no problem with. So, yes, intent to arouse would seem to be the differentiator.

 

[JFrankA]

I wondered who would be first to pick up on this! There are, of course, various means by which one can form a view on something. Anecdotal data is one means and other "data" is another (there are, of course, more). I consider that I have lived long enough and met enough people to make reliable assumptions about what most people feel about certain things. One of those things is certain types of pornography. I do not, however, have any, let alone enough, anecdotal data to form a view as regards a possible correlation between porn and rape (I think that was the comparison). I simply haven't met and spoken to enough rapists yet (well, not that I know of!). So, depending on the nature of the subject issue one can choose between the various data sources according to what affords the necessary information upon which to form a view. That's how I see things, anyhow. Not perfect, I admit, but valid nonetheless, depending on circumstances.

By that logic, though, my statement is also correct. I also consider that I have lived long enough and met enough people to make a reliable assumptions about what most people feel about certain things as well. One of those things is also certain types of pornography as well.

I still firmly believe, that given the ideal circumstances, most women would act in a porno.

I admit that my opinion is based on a condition. The truth is, so is yours, although unspoken. There is a major difference in saying to a woman "Would you do a porno?" and "Would you do a porno provided that X and Y conditions are met?" Two very different questions with very different ways that the person questioned can interpret and answer. Especially since the question "Would you do a porno?" is extermely open-ended and very open to an individual's viewpoint as to what elements are involved.

Now based on that I still say that even though your opinion and my opinion may be very different, neither one is a truth or a fact.

This is part of what bothers me with your statement of "normal women would destest doing porno" from before. I freely admit and remind everyone that my opinion is simply that, you have tried to pull yours off as a fact.

Also, in the grand scheme of the OP, it doesn't matter what the majority says. Reaction to porno is an individual thing and a conditional thing.

Now maybe I'm over thinking once again, but I feel it's an important point. I don't like obvious opinion statements being toted around as a fact.

(Please note, SW, I am not mocking you here. Just making my point.)

 

[JFrankA]

I don't agree with the portrayal of rape with the intent to arouse - period. Anybody doing so would get my disrespect, be that an actress, actor, producer, director, cameraman, etc. Portrayal of rape for cinematic purposes per se I have no problem with. So, yes, intent to arouse would seem to be the differentiator.

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).

 

[Toke]

Southwind,
Brian Tarsis makes some excellent comix, and his homepage contain a good explanation on the sub/dom relationship, it is not abusive and involves a lot of trusting each other.
The page is NSFU but easy to google.

 

[Belz...]

I wondered who would be first to pick up on this! There are, of course, various means by which one can form a view on something. Anecdotal data is one means and other "data" is another (there are, of course, more). I consider that I have lived long enough and met enough people to make reliable assumptions about what most people feel about certain things. One of those things is certain types of pornography. I do not, however, have any, let alone enough, anecdotal data to form a view as regards a possible correlation between porn and rape (I think that was the comparison). I simply haven't met and spoken to enough rapists yet (well, not that I know of!). So, depending on the nature of the subject issue one can choose between the various data sources according to what affords the necessary information upon which to form a view. That's how I see things, anyhow. Not perfect, I admit, but valid nonetheless, depending on circumstances.

Okay... but I'm a little confused now. Is your disrespect for porn stars due to how other people see the trade ? I thought it was your opinion ? Or did I understand that wrong ?

 

[Belz...]

Personally, I don't place a mental threshold at "harmful" or even "illegal" when forming a view on somebody's behaviour. There are many behaviours that I consider disrespectful that are both legal and, technically, harmless (provided they're contained).

Okay, then. Why ? If it isn't harmful why wouldn't it earn your respect ? What's the threshold ?

I don't agree with the portrayal of rape with the intent to arouse - period.

First off, a comment: I have no problem with it per se. Some people, I guess, are aroused by portrayals of rape. I think it's better to have them get off on watching this kind of stuff than actually, you know, commiting rape.

Second, a question: if the intent to arouse is the differentiator, is it the same with the rest of porn ? Does your disrespect stem from the intent to arouse, period ? If so, do you disrespect women with skimpy clothing, strippers, and all related jobs, hobbies and behaviours ?

 

[MontagK505]

And while you're watching it decent sir would you care for a bucket of faeces to go with your can of urine? I can highly recommend it - the man in the seat next to you has gone super-size!

To make a point, that's all, you can relax!

The post refered to is about disrespecting Peter Cushing for playing a planetary scale mass murderer in a sci-fi movie and you segue into eating poop.

What was the “point” of that?

I'm off to work

 

[Southwind17]

Okay. This, for me, is completely left-field. I now no longer have any clue what Southwind17 is thinking.

OK - Belz claimed that both JFrankA and I have only one "data point" when judging somebody (for argument's sake), and that I was being equally superficial as JFrankA in using just one data point to judge. But I pointed out that it depends on the nature of the data point. So I introduced a scenario with two data points to make the point: 1) supporting the local animal centre by taking the cared-for dogs on a walkathon, thereby raising funds, and 2) molesting a child. For me, the two are not inversely equal. In other words I wouldn't aggregate my respect for the animal care and my disrespect for the child molestation to cancel each other out. Does that make sense?
Here's the quote - maybe it isn't entirely clear what I mean:

Ah ... a sensible question, at last, from Belz. As such, I will treat it with respect and answer it accordingly:
I believe not. The difference is the nature of the "data point". How would you judge a guy who goes on the monthly walkathon with the local animal centre and molests a child on his way home afterwards?

And as for this exchange:

clue;

No. Absolutely not. A troll will make an inflammatory post and disappear. Southwind17's behaviour, although confusing, has been utterly unlike that of a troll.

Says who?

http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/troll.html
Without wanting to digress too much, a troll deliberately tries to stir up trouble. Southwind17's opinions, while controvertial, appear to be genuinely held.
Just because someone expresses an opinion different from that of others, doesn't mean that person is a troll. Now can we please return to the subject?

That definition says nothing about "disappearing".

Sorry, that definition has become superseded in the era of /b/.
Sucessful trolls see how long they can stir the pot. Suprising everyone by being unreasonably reasonable every now and then is an excellent way to keep the troll fed -- intermittent reinforcement is such a wonderful conditioning tool.

Whatever. Can we please just get on with the subject?

I assure you all I'm not trolling here. 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.

And thank you Arthwollipot. Whilst you might be left wanting or confused at times at least you seem to be the only person here who really appreciates that nobody here seems to understand me. Your acknowledgement in itself demonstrates that there's clearly some sort of disconnect between what I've written and what's been "read".

 

[Southwind17]

By that logic, though, my statement is also correct. I also consider that I have lived long enough and met enough people to make a reliable assumptions about what most people feel about certain things as well. One of those things is also certain types of pornography as well.

That's as may be, but that wasn't your defence to my argument. You simply contested my rationale. Are you saying now that my rationale could be valid, in principle, but is flawed because application of it by you yields a different result? If so, then the type of people that we have had cause to encounter during our lives may well account for it, in which case I will admit that my definition of most people needs revisiting. I'm far from certain that's the case, though.

I still firmly believe, that given the ideal circumstances, most women would act in a porno.

Ah ... and "ideal circumstances" would be what? If it doesn't exclude publication of the video footage (which is hard to see, otherwise what would be the point, and would it even be classed as "porn"?), then I'll save you the trouble of responding, as I can tell you now we will never agree, unless you can show me some scientific (maybe not the right word) data that categorically disproves my anecdotal data.

I admit that my opinion is based on a condition. The truth is, so is yours, although unspoken. There is a major difference in saying to a woman "Would you do a porno?" and "Would you do a porno provided that X and Y conditions are met?" Two very different questions with very different ways that the person questioned can interpret and answer. Especially since the question "Would you do a porno?" is extermely open-ended and very open to an individual's viewpoint as to what elements are involved.

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!

Now based on that I still say that even though your opinion and my opinion may be very different, neither one is a truth or a fact.

I can't argue with that.

This is part of what bothers me with your statement of "normal women would destest doing porno" from before. I freely admit and remind everyone that my opinion is simply that, you have tried to pull yours off as a fact.

Not quite true. I am convinced that I am correct, but I most certainly wouldn't seek to pass off what I believe as fact. I know what "fact" means.

Also, in the grand scheme of the OP, it doesn't matter what the majority says. Reaction to porno is an individual thing and a conditional thing.

Except that that's not the maxim that's applied when civil laws are enacted in response to "What's wrong with ...", for example, is it! And who are the intended beneficiaries of civil laws?

Now maybe I'm over thinking once again, but I feel it's an important point. I don't like obvious opinion statements being toted around as a fact.

I think we've cleared this up!

(Please note, SW, I am not mocking you here. Just making my point.)

I understand. If your mockery was "that" subtle there'd be little point in continuing any semblance of a debate!

 

[sugarb]

Do you mean as viewed from the warped minds that you have or otherwise?!

I wish I did have a warped mind...reality would be so much easier to deal with. Alas, my mind is not warped, and so I trudge through each and every day dealing with what reality throws my way. And it is not easy...but I value my mind, so I do it.

Is there a reason that you feel as though your mind is superiorly warp free? That's a pretty low blow there.

 

[sugarb]

Hang on a second. That's not a fetish by any stretch of the imagination. That's exactly what a lot of porn serves, if not sets out, to do. Not all porn, I admit, but a lot of porn.
And good old St Paul here supports it, nay, relishes in it (relish/in it - now there's an idea JFrankA!):

Now you hang on for a second. It *is* a fetish to objectify women in certain ways, and that isn't what pornography does. Pornography, if it objectifies anything, objectifies *sex*. As far as the people being objectified, that would obviously be both males and females. Bodies. In general.

 

[JFrankA]

Now you hang on for a second. It *is* a fetish to objectify women in certain ways, and that isn't what pornography does. Pornography, if it objectifies anything, objectifies *sex*. As far as the people being objectified, that would obviously be both males and females. Bodies. In general.

Indeed. I've always felt that objectification is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[JFrankA]

Just so you see where I'm coming from, I will respond.

Ah ... and "ideal circumstances" would be what? If it doesn't exclude publication of the video footage (which is hard to see, otherwise what would be the point, and would it even be classed as "porn"?), then I'll save you the trouble of responding, as I can tell you now we will never agree, unless you can show me some scientific (maybe not the right word) data that categorically disproves my anecdotal data.

Yes, one of the conditions could be that it won't be published and yes, I would still consider that to be porn because that person is still having sex in front of a camera. And it's very likely that someone is going to watch it. The audience may well be just the participates in the porn, but it's still being watched.

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!

I think you'd be surprised.

.....but that's all my opinion.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I was jesting with you. But you make a point in response anyhow, which actually misses the point. Perhaps this can be addressed by your answering this: Is it just the taste of those fluids that you find disgusting or something else? If it's something else, what, exactly, is it that you find disgusting? Please be as explicit as reasonably possible, because I suspect the devil's most definitely in the detail here.

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.

I didn't express any assumption whatsoever. I wrote "I'd be interested to learn ..." (see above). The number might well be zero. But I confess there's a clear implied assumption in what I wrote, and that's because I'd bet the farm that my assumption is correct. Why? Because your stated position regarding people having to "earn" respect clearly shows that you're a dogmatist, and hence you pre-judge. I don't need to check!

Your issue with my "people need to earn their respect" is coming from a very distorted interpretation you have made of the words. Read further below as I will once again clarify.

That's the problem you see - "who you really are". You will never know who anybody "really is", even your nearest and dearest, so at what point do you feel able to judge? You (by which I also mean "one") subconsciously judge people from the first moment you meet them and it continues from there.

So if you agree that you never really know who someone is, why do you feel it's ok to look down on people who do certain kinds of porn you don't like, when you know absolutely nothing about them and haven't even had a chance to meet them in person?.

My point is that there are always exceptions, and most people realize that. There's no need to try to cover it off with chapter and verse. Try succinct phrases like "generally", "subject to", "provided" and "depending on". That's what such words and phrases are for!

Please point when I have ever made a generalization, and implied that there are no exceptions.

You "bet"! You must be a very poor man Ron. You justify losing respect for somebody just because they lose respect for you! Where's the logic in or rationale for that?
For example, would Jeffrey Dahmer be justified in having little or no respect for you just because you have little or no respect for him (I assume that's the case, but, as you pointed out, I would be wrong to assume!)

See what I'm talking about? "You must be a poor man, Ron"? What's that all about?. Please stop making assumptions and be civil. Argue without ad homs, will you?.

I make the choice of losing respect for a person if they have done something that hurts me or a loved one, or offends in a very deep way (For example, if some random guy on the street calls my mother a bad name, I feel very entitled to lose all respect for such person). That's a choice I make, and it is my opinion that it is perfectly reasonable. I already mentioned that's a choice and there are people who are capable of forgiving someone even after that person does something atrocious to them (Such as the girl who was raped by Polanski). But I don't think it's mandatory. I think once someone has disrespected me, they now owe me an apology.

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..... and yet you confessed to be aroused by it.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
Of course. If a stranger sits next to me and starts treating me like crap, he's certainly losing my respect, don't you think?. I'm not saying he has to "actively do something" to earn it. He already had.
Let me explain: You seem to be implying that what I said is that every single human on this planet already has no respect of mine and they have to earn it. That is not what I said. It's the exact opposite: If a stranger sits next to me, they are perfectly fine with me until (and if) they decide to disrespect me or attack me in some verbal or physical way. Then, if they do that, they have lost my respect. Until then, they had it.

Your logic (or lack of) Ron never ceases to amaze me. He's already earned your respect? So what on earth do you think "earn" actually means?!

I don't know. What else could "earn" mean? Do you really fail to understand what "earning someone's respect" means?.

I will repeat: Respect is something you earn, meaning not that I disrespect a stranger by default until they have proven that you're "worthy of being respected by me" (Which is a very ego-centrical view and I think that's the wrong impression you got from my statement), but that, as you grow to know the person, each one of the persons involved will gradually earn or then again lose respect from the other, depending on how they behave (Wether there's any physical/verbal offense, etc).

 

[Southwind17]

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?

To be clear, the question is: "Does she deserve some disrespect?", and my answer is "yes", she does (as does everybody else involved in the production).

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).

It's not having the fantasy that matters, it's how she's prepared to act on that fantasy, and who's prepared to be act on it too.

 

[Eddie Dane]

To be clear, the question is: "Does she deserve some disrespect?", and my answer is "yes", she does (as does everybody else involved in the production).


It's not having the fantasy that matters, it's how she's prepared to act on that fantasy, and who's prepared to be act on it too.

This discussion is so bizarre at times that I don't understand whole sections of it.

Let me get this straight: you disrespect people (or women?) who would act out a rape fantasy?

seriously?