• 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?

Southwind17 said:
You're answering the wrong question JFrankA, and getting yourself all uptight in the process. Let's see now, do you see a fundamental difference between what the answers to these two questions might reveal?:

  1. The thought of my drinking urine disgusts me.
  2. The idea of drinking urine disgusts me.

The first is a matter of the emotion that your own behaviour invokes in you.
The second is a matter of the emotion that the behaviour of others invokes in you.

There's a fundamental difference.
Click to expand...

So, basically, a silly semantics play? People aren't compilers, and natural language is full of vagueness and of things that can mean more than one thing. Saying that "The idea of drinking urine disgusts me" is really just a fuzzy piece of human language which really _lacks_ a qualifier as to whom it applies. It may be about others, it might be just thinking about oneself, or even miss a lot of details as to what extent and whether any restrictions apply. You can't really nail it squarely to mean "the behaviour of others" unless a lot more context is provided.

And it's quite common to imply a "my" in there. E.g., an actual random quote:

"I certainly didn’t want to go to Vietnam, but in my particular case it wasn’t because I was unwilling to serve my country. I wanted no part of the military, period. I was a “sensitive” boy, you see. (OK. I was gay.) The idea of having to serve in the military had always scared the bejesus out of me. I wasn’t “man” enough and didn’t want to be — in fact, the very idea filled me with dread."

You'll notice that in the emphasized parts it's the same construction as the second of your statements. But the author actually makes it very clear in the context that it applies to _his_ serving in the military. There is nothing in there to justify thinking he as getting the same dread if someone else goes to war. And the reason he gives for it, it's pretty clear that he's not assuming that it would apply to everyone else too.

Basically you can't just pull a fuzzy statement out of context and add extra precision of your own where there was no mention either way.
 
Whiplash said:
Ben, I understand completely where you are coming from.. but at the same time.. that mentality can be taken to the point where no single living soul on this planet has any right to ever suggest moral behavior to anyone else, ever, anywhere. We are all flawed and unworthy of doing so.

Yet we find places we can all agree (at least on some issues) and try to enforce them as best as we can. I can't imagine a world dominated by the moral relativistic mindset of no one being able to ever tell anyone else they were wrong, or immoral, or evil, or anything of the sort. Talk about free for all, anything goes pure chaos.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know exactly what Ben meant, of course, but I think it was another statement that was fuzzy and lacking context. What most of us meant -- and some of us even spelled out -- is basically an, "as long as it harms nobody else" qualifier there.

For acts that actually harm someone else, sure, we can all agree that there have to be some rules.

I read the "don't tell people what to do" kind of statement, more in the context that we already have laws for what we don't want done. I.e., if you're at the point of imposing _your_ judgments upon others, it must already be something where it's really just your judgments, and the laws or ordinances would see nothing wrong about it. Since, you know, otherwise there wouldn't be much point in hammering on a "but _I_ am disgusted" when a much more powerful "but it's _illegal_" point could be made.

Briefly: I'd take it more like an "if it's not illegal, bugger off" statement than literally.
 
Southwind17 said:
Only that you and JFrankA proceeded to jointly psycho-analyse me like a couple of snidey grinning Cheshire cats and, at worst come up with, and at best imply, erroneous and, frankly, highly personal and somewhat offensive conclusions to say the least. That's all. I thought that was a pretty low blow (and, incidentally, bordering if not crossing the threshold of certain Forum Rules).
Click to expand...

Okay, whoa there a minute. First, I apologized for having the wrong perceptions, secondly, I wasn't "psycho-analyzing" you (I'm not qualified), and finally, what happened to the guy who likes to use extremes to make points?

Now I'm sorry, but...it seems to me that you've set the tone of the conversation and proudly declared your love of extreme examples. What purpose is there, then, in you being offended when we therefore go to extremes in our attempts to understand? Again, that seems like a disconnect.
 
Southwind17 said:
"In the right context". "For a limited time". You're so altruistic turtle, just like fuelair, oh so willing to run to other posters' defence when you spot their parapraxes, before they have time to respond and dig themselves in even deeper. You should be commended. Oh, and for the benefit of anybody who hasn't spotted it, here's what's prompted turtle's panic attack on this occasion:
Click to expand...

I don't think ponderingturtle was "running to" anyone's defense. I simply think ponderingturtle understood my meaning moreso than you. As is obvious by "parapraxes". I think it is actually, if we're pluralizing, technically parapraxi...but whatever. You think that I do not know why I say things in the ways that I say them, but I do, Southwind17. You think that I do not understand why I am the way that I am, but I do. You think that I have "mental" issues...I do not. I do have anxiety issues, and I am prone to panic, but I am in no way delusional. I understand how I feel, why I feel that way, and am in no way "digging myself in deeper". There is no hole to dig. *YOU* may feel that there is, but...you aren't correct.

And that is part of the issue here. You want to talk about "most people" and "normal"...but...when you do so, you are making many assumptions and also at the same time setting a standard, "normal", that you can only define by your experiences in life. You do not know me (or perhaps you do...?), or ponderingturtle, or JFrankA, or Belz...and before you think I am jumping to anyone's defense, I am not. I am simply saying that what is "normal" to YOU? May not be what is "normal" for someone else.

I did not grow up in a home where mom was in the kitchen in a skirt past her knees frying chicken. "Modesty", to me, is demeanor more than dress. Thus I don't get the whole skimpy clothing arguments. People are, in private, in *my* experience, very different than they portray themselves in other environments, such as work or church or the local PTA meeting. "Most people" I know? Exploring sexuality in the ways you seem to find wrong is "normal". And it has different effects on different people. I've seen good, and I've seen bad, and I've seen people who do some dangerous things just to try to "feel", or get the "feelings" that everyone tells them is "normal". And it leads to harm, this trying to fit someone else's definition of "normal".

We can get into the deep and dirty of my "parapraxes" if you wish, but I ask that, because this is in the general discussions, we keep it as clean as possible. It bothers me to think that the level of discussion has to go down to things that you made a list of, instead of more carefully wording them. I can be as crass as the next person, but...I just ask that we be more careful of the words we use here. This isn't a porn site. And I *want* to have this discussion...but...this isn't my house to dirty up. There are respectful ways (respectful of other people who might be reading this...we don't have to respect one another if you don't want) to have it.
 
Quick note. Southwind17, I had to check myself. Parapraxes is the correct plural. *bows to your superior knowledge*
 
sugarb said:
I don't think ponderingturtle was "running to" anyone's defense. I simply think ponderingturtle understood my meaning moreso than you. As is obvious by "parapraxes". I think it is actually, if we're pluralizing, technically parapraxi...but whatever. You think that I do not know why I say things in the ways that I say them, but I do, Southwind17. You think that I do not understand why I am the way that I am, but I do. You think that I have "mental" issues...I do not. I do have anxiety issues, and I am prone to panic, but I am in no way delusional. I understand how I feel, why I feel that way, and am in no way "digging myself in deeper". There is no hole to dig. *YOU* may feel that there is, but...you aren't correct.
Click to expand...

Hey when I thought you might be arguing a position I disagreed with I took you to task. Now as you seem like a decent and thoughtful person I suspected that it was a poorly chosen line. If I agree with people or want to expand on my agreement with them I will post, and if I disagree with someone I will post.

Do I think you have mental issues, probably, it seems most people do. Is this a symptom of that? Who cares, the important issues to deal with are those that negatively impact someones life. If you have found a kinky lifestyle that works well for you that is great, and in my own view fairly hot.

He just seems to be going the way a lot of these things go, if I like it, it is normal, if I don't like it, it is perverted.

And that is part of the issue here. You want to talk about "most people" and "normal"...but...when you do so, you are making many assumptions and also at the same time setting a standard, "normal", that you can only define by your experiences in life. You do not know me (or perhaps you do...?), or ponderingturtle, or JFrankA, or Belz...and before you think I am jumping to anyone's defense, I am not. I am simply saying that what is "normal" to YOU? May not be what is "normal" for someone else.
We can get into the deep and dirty of my "parapraxes" if you wish, but I ask that, because this is in the general discussions, we keep it as clean as possible. It bothers me to think that the level of discussion has to go down to things that you made a list of, instead of more carefully wording them. I can be as crass as the next person, but...I just ask that we be more careful of the words we use here. This isn't a porn site. And I *want* to have this discussion...but...this isn't my house to dirty up. There are respectful ways (respectful of other people who might be reading this...we don't have to respect one another if you don't want) to have it.
Click to expand...

Generaly such discussions are OK as long as kept in more technical basis, it might be moved to the members only area though.
 
It sounds like you are talking about role-play in the bedroom. (Objectification)

So far it sounds like SW17 objects to some kinds of sex and women making porn.
There have not been any logical explanation for it, and I don't think there is one.

Human emotion are not always logical, the point to remember is not to judge others based on ones own irrational biases.

I try not to think less of the chief engineer even though he play that ridicules game "Golf".
 
Ponderingturtle, good evening! I, too, was thinking that maybe a members only area would be better suited for the discussion were it to become too personal.

And I like the way you're quick to take things to task...you make me laugh :) But it is very constructive. In fact you are one of the posters I enjoy the most, because your questions make me think.

I think that just about everyone has a mental issue of some sort, too. Further, I think that when we become aware of them, and find ways to deal with them that aren't destructive, it is a wonderful thing. If that was unhealthy, then one would have to wonder why non-medicinal pain management techniques are considered good ;)
 
I don't think porn is entirely harmless. I think some people might not make the effort to find companionship if their needs are met by porn. But that is only problem if the person would like companionship.

Personally I like porn. However in my early twenties I sought therapy for a serious addiction to it. I think it was brought on by religious prohibition against premarital sex. The sex drive is like a river. You can't keep it from flowing. You can only change its direction (paraphrased from what my therapist told me).
 
quadraginta said:
Frankly, his comment suggests to me that he actually had read all 735 posts.
Click to expand...
So you figured it appropriate to "chip in" before allowing him to confirm one way or the other. That's OK, though - I'm not really getting hung up over any "ganging up" suggestion - it's just an observation, that's all. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to "chip in" whenever and wherever you wish (except on the golf course, of course, where a certain etiquette must be observed!). ;)
 
Rika said:
I dunno. Southwind (appears! I could be wrong) to be saying that objectifying people are wrong, and that we shouldn't.

Or something. Maybe he'll clarify my post.
Click to expand...
Of course(!) that's what I'm saying, although I'm not sure "wrong" is the "right" word. It's clear that some people here, at times, and under certain circumstances, objectify other people, or at least agree with such objectification, and I'm pretty sure, although not certain, that that includes me. I don't have the time to self-analyze on this point right now, and I'm not sure I'm even qualifird to do so even if I did have that time. I'm happy to engage in further discussion on this sub-topic, though, and explore it further.
 
sugarb said:
Quick note. Southwind17, I had to check myself. Parapraxes is the correct plural. *bows to your superior knowledge*
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be so proud as to call it "knowledge". As I wrote earlier, I try to choose my words carefully (which extends to spelling and grammar), especially here(!), but it's a big part of what I do in my work time to keep the wolves from the door. Whilst I will admit that on this occasion I, arguably, took a bit of a flyer in assuming, albeit through some application of logic and probability theory, I hasten to add, that "parapraxes" is the plural of "parapraxis", it seems the (low-risk) gamble paid off! I will confess to having my trusty Chambers dictionary and thesaurus always to hand, though, and I'm certainly not infallible. That said, any detection of a seeming deterioration in my literary abilities here over the last few months does, I believe, correlate with my having lasek eye correction surgery in May, which has definitely diminished my short-distance vision slightly. Well, I'd like to think that's the reason - I'm certainly not getting any younger!
 
HansMustermann said:
So, basically, a silly semantics play? People aren't compilers, and natural language is full of vagueness and of things that can mean more than one thing. Saying that "The idea of drinking urine disgusts me" is really just a fuzzy piece of human language which really _lacks_ a qualifier as to whom it applies. It may be about others, it might be just thinking about oneself, or even miss a lot of details as to what extent and whether any restrictions apply. You can't really nail it squarely to mean "the behaviour of others" unless a lot more context is provided.

And it's quite common to imply a "my" in there. E.g., an actual random quote:

"I certainly didn’t want to go to Vietnam, but in my particular case it wasn’t because I was unwilling to serve my country. I wanted no part of the military, period. I was a “sensitive” boy, you see. (OK. I was gay.) The idea of having to serve in the military had always scared the bejesus out of me. I wasn’t “man” enough and didn’t want to be — in fact, the very idea filled me with dread."

You'll notice that in the emphasized parts it's the same construction as the second of your statements. But the author actually makes it very clear in the context that it applies to _his_ serving in the military. There is nothing in there to justify thinking he as getting the same dread if someone else goes to war. And the reason he gives for it, it's pretty clear that he's not assuming that it would apply to everyone else too.

Basically you can't just pull a fuzzy statement out of context and add extra precision of your own where there was no mention either way.
Click to expand...
When the intended meaning of something verbal hangs on the precise expression of such verbalisation it's important to get it right. If what you say is valid, then we'd might as well all call it a day here. If you're prepared to accept carelessness or apathy as normal when it comes to verbalising, particularly in a debate such as this, where nuances in meaning can be critical (evidently), that's your prerogative, and you'll pay the price (at least to me). I, however, prefer to observe higher standards, and that's served me well in life so far, which is why I do what I do most days and get paid well for doing it.
 
Southwind17 said:
Of course(!) that's what I'm saying, although I'm not sure "wrong" is the "right" word. It's clear that some people here, at times, and under certain circumstances, objectify other people, or at least agree with such objectification, and I'm pretty sure, although not certain, that that includes me. I don't have the time to self-analyze on this point right now, and I'm not sure I'm even qualifird to do so even if I did have that time. I'm happy to engage in further discussion on this sub-topic, though, and explore it further.
Click to expand...

Well, to put it in a nutshell, what steps do you take to affirm the full humanity of each clerk, waitperson, attendant, radio DJ, traffic cop, co-worker, employee, supervisor, bartender, and bloke ahead of you in line that you run into every day?
 
Southwind17 said:
When the intended meaning of something verbal hangs on the precise expression of such verbalisation it's important to get it right. If what you say is valid, then we'd might as well all call it a day here. If you're prepared to accept carelessness or apathy as normal when it comes to verbalising, particularly in a debate such as this, where nuances in meaning can be critical (evidently), that's your prerogative, and you'll pay the price (at least to me). I, however, prefer to observe higher standards, and that's served me well in life so far, which is why I do what I do most days and get paid well for doing it.
Click to expand...


You know, I'm willing to bet that when faced with questions you don't have a personal stake in one side of, your ability to analyze context will return at full power.

But that's just me being the generous-minded fellow that I am.
 
sugarb said:
Okay, whoa there a minute. First, I apologized for having the wrong perceptions, secondly, I wasn't "psycho-analyzing" you (I'm not qualified), and finally, what happened to the guy who likes to use extremes to make points?
Click to expand...
He's still here, and he maintains that extreme examples are often good for making or reinforcing a point. "Examples", though, are very different from personally-targeted diatribes.

That said, I re-read both your and JFrankA's posts to which I alluded, following my mod reprimand, and I realize that they were not so "psycho-analytical" and personal as how I received and interpreted them when I first read them (you, too, chose your words carefully, and I allowed myself to read certain words between the lines that I can't validly claim are there). I think I may momentarily have allowed my emotions to interfere with my objectivity and judgment, which I have now duly self-reprimanded myself for, and I apologize to both you and JFankA for accusing you of having warped minds, and anything else derogatory that I might have unjustly written or implied.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Well, to put it in a nutshell, what steps do you take to affirm the full humanity of each clerk, waitperson, attendant, radio DJ, traffic cop, co-worker, employee, supervisor, bartender, and bloke ahead of you in line that you run into every day?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what this question is alluding to, or what "full humanity" is intended to mean, but it seems rhetorical to me. If it's not, and you really want an anser from me, perhaps you could clarify.
 
quixotecoyote said:
You know, I'm willing to bet that when faced with questions you don't have a personal stake in one side of, your ability to analyze context will return at full power.

But that's just me being the generous-minded fellow that I am.
Click to expand...
I so wish I was like you. You must feel so good about yourself!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom