Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[tesscaline]

I am not sure that the part of Southwind's argument you refer to has so much to do with pornography being powerful enough to motivate someone to harm a child.

Except that he's said precisely that it is several times. Why would you assume that his argument is precisely contrary to what he's actually posited?

Whenever society accepts things as legitimate, we see an increase in it.

And why is that? Is it actually because more people do it? Or is it because more people ADMIT to doing it when it ceases to be illegal?

Example: Autism. A formal diagnosis for autism has become acceptable, and considered legitimate. We are now seeing a rise in autism rates. Is this because more people have autism than before? Or is it because more cases of autism are being identified and reported than they used to be because of the wide acceptance of the diagnosis as legitimate?

For example, we used to think that taking phone calls at the dinner table was unacceptable. Now, go into any food establishment and there will be cell phones going left and right. Small example, but it illustrates what I'm saying. Cell phones and driving are dangerous, but we see it every day now. Things considered "wrong" or "dangerous" slowly gain acceptance, and yes, it DOES cause harm, which means we later need laws to curb behavior that was at one time unacceptable anyway...like multitasking while driving.

Please provide evidence that the cause of more people using cell phones in inappropriate places is due to that behavior being "legitimized", instead of it being caused by greater accessibility to cell phones for the average person. Also please demonstrate that the "unacceptable" behavior you are referring to has been "legitimized" by society.

I would argue that if laws are being put in place to combat something, it has not been "legitimized" by society at all, and instead is being actively discouraged.

 

[JFrankA]

LOL! I have to answer the last question first, lol. Indeed I do! I think it's INTENT was to be amusing, and he was quite crafty in making that happen, lol. (it really WAS funny, totally unexpected, but funny).

I found it droll way to dodge a question.

But is it art?

As to movies...I have admittedly never seen the one you selected, and will have to consider it on our next movie order.

The first scene with the brunette in the black dress with a white background is incredibly sexy.

Here's Andrew Blake's website. (NOT SAFE FOR WORK) EDIT TO CHANGE: This was a link to an adult site containing nudity and sexual situations. If you want the link, please pm me and I'll be happy to send all the links in this post to you. I didn't want to leave it up because I'm not sure of the forum rules.

JFrankA, believe me, I completely understand how you can see beauty everywhere. I do, too! Which is really annoying to most people because things I find beautiful cause me to cry. Yes, I cry, even in public, if I see a certain kind of beauty....and that can even be in something as mundane and depressing as watching my husband give a homeless guy some money or coffee or a fast food lunch. I see beauty in actions as much as in things. So I really don't think we differ much in that regard...but I also understand people who do not, because my husband is one of those people that rarely tears up at very moving things, and would probably never cry in public at the things that move me so much. Part of performing, for me, was problematic, because when music hits me a certain way, I tear up. I can't help it, that's just my response to beautiful things. I don't think you are "too easily impressed". I think you just look at the world in a way many people do not...and I also think that is a good thing.

Might I suggest something, since you are in the position to actually attempt it: I'm unfamiliar with how the movie industry works, but I have to tell you, I find myself often disappointed with "award winning" films, so yes, I assume there is of course a lot of politics. Why don't you just try a project that goes beyond the basic understanding of pornography? I think that if there was a level that has yet, as far as I know, to be obtained by any pornography producers, a level of something truly artistic, I see no reason why there couldn't be competition equally among films.

They have. Check out this movie:

(WARNING NOT SAFE FOR WORK) EDIT TO CHANGE: This was a link to an adult site containing nudity and sexual situations. If you want the link, please pm me and I'll be happy to send all the links in this post to you. I didn't want to leave it up because I'm not sure of the forum rules.


Also, every year AVN has a seven minute film contest for beginners. I had an entry this year but I didn't get nominated. The website is here (NOT SAFE FOR WORK) EDIT TO CHANGE: This was a link to an adult site containing nudity and sexual situations. If you want the link, please pm me and I'll be happy to send all the links in this post to you. I didn't want to leave it up because I'm not sure of the forum rules.

For those of you who are curious, here is my entry. The film has nothing to do with my fetish. My entry next year will. (NOT SAFE FOR WORK) EDIT TO CHANGE: This was a link to an adult site containing nudity and sexual situations. If you want the link, please pm me and I'll be happy to send all the links in this post to you. I didn't want to leave it up because I'm not sure of the forum rules.

One of my most favorite performers from the early '80's, Hyapatia Lee, made a porno called "Hyapatia Lee's the Ribald Tales Of Canterbury" which is based on exactly what the title is. She (Hyapatia Lee) performed and produced it, her husband directed it. The costumes are accurate, the backgrounds are absolutely beautiful, there's a plot and the acting is good.

So what you are suggesting is being done and has been for quite a while.

And I think that perhaps in making such a thing, as there have been some good films that could have easily gone "pornographic" but were toned down for the "big screen", you might just surprise the world with your artistic abilities. I would like to see something like that, something that defies preconceived notions. I ALWAYS love to see things like that!

The Pirate movie has been cut and re-cut to an R rating, to be shown in different countries (such as, in Japan (I think), it's illegal to have food and sex in the same scene in a porno), so the studio made quite a few versions of this film.

As to films, I have several favorites, but there are some with scenes that just blow me away for whatever reason. In The Village, for example, the porch scene...it has nothing to do with the "creatures", nothing really to do with the plot, but I just find that to be a really moving scene...and romantic in a fascinating way. Elizabethtown. There certainly isn't anything fascinating in the way it is filmed, but to me the art is the getting inside of the characters mind...I like films that do that. I'm a bit of a geek, so I confess I love the Star Wars movies...but without the music? I probably wouldn't. I'd rather just read the books. Last of the Mohicans, that's a gorgeous movie, I think. And of course horror films, but those, to me, are for mindless entertainment.

I have many films I love, but you asked me for my opinion of the most artistic. Andrew Blake's was the first I thought of.

I am not sure that the part of Southwind's argument you refer to has so much to do with pornography being powerful enough to motivate someone to harm a child.

That's exactly his reasoning. He's confirmed it several times.

I think we need to flip that around a bit, and it is that the adult viewing the child pornography is MORE powerful than the object of their "fetish" (I'm using that term loosely here, because I don't think being a pedophile is a fetish, really)...children.

It is a fetish.

Pedophila -noun
sexual desire in an adult for a child.

The thing is, like all fetishes, (and I've said this before) as long as it remains a fantasy and does not cross the line into reality, then it's harmless.

And the possibility certainly exists that if there is a type of child pornography that society accepts as "legal" or "okay", then that makes the "fetish" that person has seem more legitimate, and THAT could be what would lead to an actual child being harmed.

Making VCP legal will not make child molestation "more legitimate" in the mind of a potential child molester. I'll say it again: If someone chooses to molest a child, then that person is going to do it no matter what. That person will use anything as a trigger.

Whenever society accepts things as legitimate, we see an increase in it. For example, we used to think that taking phone calls at the dinner table was unacceptable. Now, go into any food establishment and there will be cell phones going left and right. Small example, but it illustrates what I'm saying. Cell phones and driving are dangerous, but we see it every day now. Things considered "wrong" or "dangerous" slowly gain acceptance, and yes, it DOES cause harm, which means we later need laws to curb behavior that was at one time unacceptable anyway...like multitasking while driving.

I think SkeptiChick answered that perfectly.

I think I probably missed a few things. I'm sorry if I did, I've got dinner cooking as well, so...I'm not a good multi-tasker LOL.

It's okay.

 

[Southwind17]

You are expressing yourself, showing the world who you are with your words. How is that not art?

Since when was a commonly accepted meaning of art "expressing oneself; showing the world who one is with one's words"?

You don't think it's worth going to jail to stop one child from being molested?

Notwithstanding that there is no such simple exchange mechanism available I don't consider it's worth me going to jail, no. If there were such a simple exchange mechanism available I'd certainly support your choice to go to jail, provided nobody was harmed in the process and you met all legal and accommodation costs from your own means.

After all, I am doing what you believe: give up freedom to stop the possibility of one child being molested.

I believe I endorsed the giving up of a component of, arguably, free speech in the interests of children's welfare, nothing more.

You said it yourself. The cost value of the chance of one child being molested is well worth the sacrifice of freedoms one makes.

Please quote me.

Therefore, I will do my VCA with the intent of making people feel the pain a child feels and if I go to jail, sacrifice my freedom for safety, so be it.

Your choice.

....maybe I am more extreme than you.

Not to mention all of your other apparent idiosyncrasies.

You.

That's "who", not "what".

Why? Does it make it easier for you to ignore points that you can't defend?

As I wrote, it's enough.

At any rate, in the interest of fairness, I will start doing the same to your posts.

Suit yourself. Your reasoning and logic can hardly get any worse anyhow.

 

[Southwind17]

Sure if your a virus or something else that hasn't got a mind. This also means that the concept of absolute freedom can't be applied to humans.

So be it. If humans and absolute freedom are mutually exclusive that alters my viewpoint not one jot.

We have to agree to disagree on that then.

I'm pleased to see that you've finally stepped back from the burden of proof stance.

Actually I don't have a right to surf the web, if it was a right then I would be able to demand internet access.

You have the right to subscribe with an ISP who will grant you access. If all you had to do, technologically, was turn on your PC/laptop and start Internet Explorer or such like with no ISP than you'd be free to surf away, all day, every day. As it happens there's a financial cost involved, similar to how there is with societal living generally, except that's a cost to freedom, as I've expounded previously. If you disagree with this please show me a law that prohibits you from surfing the internet.

 

[quadraginta]

Since when was a commonly accepted meaning of art "expressing oneself; showing the world who one is with one's words"?

<snip>

"Commonly" is a weasel word, included only to give yourself an opportunity for another of your childish evasions when challenged.

The statement itself would find acceptance as a meaning of art with anyone who appreciates language as a means of communication.

This will probably find company with some of your other more stunningly clueless comments.

Perhaps we should start up a list.

 

[Southwind17]

I honestly don't know what you mean by this. I know I assumed that you think that my art doesn't belong in a museum. If that is what you are talking about, then my apologies for assuming. But I still think I'm right in thinking that you think it doesn't. If I am wrong, please tell me otherwise.
Here is the conversation:

No. This is the initial exchange:

The intent of my art is to use the medium of porn to show beauty of a humans when they express pleasure. That's my intent. If you get aroused or not, viewing it, then that's you. It is not my intent to arouse.

You seriously don't realize what a complete and utter contradiction this is, do you? You seem not to have even a perception of what porn is. No wonder this thread has dragged out for so long!:

por·nog·ra·phy (pôr-nŏg'rə-fē)
n.

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal [emphasis added].
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: "Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the ... pornography of the era" (Morris Dickstein).

[dictionary.com]

But you definition just confirmed it for me. Since one of the definitions of porn is

Lurid or sensational material

Then I say again: The intent of my art (a medium of artistic expression) is to use the medium of porn (lurid or sensational material) to show beauty of a humans when they express pleasure. That's my intent. If you get aroused or not, viewing it, then that's you. It is not my intent to arouse.

... qualified by example thus: "Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the ... pornography of the era" (Morris Dickstein).
Please explain how the porn we're discussing here fits into that particular, third-ranked context [emphasis added].

At which point you carelessly misread (no doubt in your haste to throw another haymaker) "third-ranked" and proceeded to lose the plot and go off at a tangent with this:

One other thing. If you haven't seen my porn, how do you know it's third-rate [emphasis added]? How do you know what an art critic would say? Are you a mind reader? Are you someone who claims to see the future? Maybe you should apply for the million dollar challenge?

So I checked you:

Maybe you should read more carefully. I think you'll find I wrote "third-ranked", as in that meaning numbered 3 in the list of dictionary.com meanings, i.e. the least used meaning of the word "pornography"! No wonder you're confused. I'm being deadly serious now, JFrankA, but, and with great respect, this shows that you are not following the thread properly, picking up on a single word, term or phrase, and applying it completely out of context. You've been doing this right from the out. Don't get me wrong - I'm not criticizing you personally - I'm sure it's not deliberate, but nonetheless I'll not tolerate it any longer. It's a huge waste of my time and effort, and yours too, I'd venture to suggest.

Which you completely failed to follow, given this response:

Interesting you've chosen to see my postings as such. You are the one who keeps posting this smiley: and keep asking me to clarify.

So I sought clarification thus:

Are you denying you read "third-ranked" as "third rate" and proceeded to bark not only up the wrong tree, but in the wrong woods?

Which you omitted to duly consider and simply repeated this nonsense:

I didn't deny anything. I simply said you are the one who is saying that you are confused and using the "" smilely.

So I sought clarification again:

So you admit that you read "third-ranked" as "third-rate", incorrectly assumed an inference and context and proceeded to bark in the wrong forest then.

And that's where we're at. I'm still waiting for you to explain how the porn we're discussing here fits into that particular, third-ranked context.

Again, I did make the assumption that you feel that my art doesn't belong in a museum, so I apologize for making an assumption. However, and I'm sorry to say this, I still choose to believe that my assumption is correct unless you tell me that that isn't your intent.

As I wrote before, I haven't seen your "art", so I can't comment one way or another where I think it "belongs".

I've pointed it out already. Others have seen it, too. If you can't see it, I suggest you read back. I gave you a head start.

It's not a question of "pointing it out", it's a question of you explaining what you mean by "end". Without an explanation simply pointing at particular posts serves no meaningful purpose.

No, you haven't read it. You've admitted yourself that you just skimmed it. You completely missed the very first sentence when I started describing the art of the items you listed.

No. I actually read your nonsense. Thereafter, I only needed to know what the images were to realize that everything else you wrote is also nonsense.

Hint: I am not talking about your definition of child porn

I'm not interested in hints. If you can't carry on like an adult then I suggest you find something more aptly juvenile to waste your time on.

 

[Southwind17]

In addition, the courts would not be able to ban people from using computers, since that would violate their right to surf the web.

Since when did the courts have the power to remove one's freedom to use a computer?

 

[Southwind17]

How about an irrational one?

With an irrational imagination anything's possible. A camel could be a motor car, for example.

 

[Southwind17]

Hello, JFrankA. Liberty is a wonderful concept, and in our country we enjoy a great deal of it...however it isn't unrestricted freedom to do whatever we want. It is tempered with reason, with consideration for our fellow citizens, with consideration to the well being and continued well being of society as a whole. That is something we simply have to accept, or else we'd best move ourselves to our own little island or patch of woods somewhere and learn to live without the benefits society and being part of it offers us.
Oddly enough, JFrankA, that is something that many people at certain points in their lives consider doing. Have you ever dreamed of a remote cabin in a remote area far removed from "civilization"? We all from time to time like to think of an escape, long term or just temporary...but if we seriously consider making it our "way of life", then there are many, many things we have to be willing to let go of in order to have complete "liberty". We wouldn't have the constraints of utility bills, job schedules, education requirements, social security numbers and taxes to pay, we could drive as fast as we wanted, on roads we build ourselves of course...there just is no such thing as unhindered liberty, unless a person is willing to completely give up society.

Which eloquently (as usual ) illustrates my point.

 

[Southwind17]

Of course. Everyone on this thread has said the same, including me. The problem is, I think, and I mean this as no offense to SW, but he doesn't understand the philosophy of what rights are for the US.

Another typically curt, and hence shallow, "contribution".

 

[Southwind17]

I don't think someone can forget a concept that they don't even understand in the first place...
Liberty: 1 a : freedom from external (as governmental) restraint, compulsion, or interference in engaging in the pursuits or conduct of one's choice to the extent that they are lawful and not harmful to others. -- bolding mine.
Citation: liberty. Dictionary.com. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty (accessed: December 07, 2009).

As I wrote earlier, this definition of liberty is simply a subset of absolute freedom. I suppose we could talk about "absolute liberty" if we so wished. It would still, even then, be a subset of absolute freedom by the definition above. It's academic, though, given that, either way, it does not contradict what I've posited.

 

[tesscaline]

As I wrote earlier, this definition of liberty is simply a subset of absolute freedom. I suppose we could talk about "absolute liberty" if we so wished. It would still, even then, be a subset of absolute freedom by the definition above. It's academic, though, given that, either way, it does not contradict what I've posited.

There is no such thing as "absolute liberty" as such a thing would directly contradict the definition of liberty. By definition, liberty has boundaries.

As to "absolute freedom"... You have yet to prove that such a thing ever existed. If you're interested in the subject, however, you can read about how it could be a contradiction in terms here: http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/sartrelecture.htm

The ethics of absolute freedom, it would seem, are not absolutely free.

Now, would you like to discuss things that a) actually exist, and b) are germane to the discussion at hand (i.e. pornography), or would you like to continue with the mental masturbation you've been attempting to bait us all into taking part of?

 

[Southwind17]

Perhaps, but isn't appreciating beuaty also appealing to our more basic insticts? A portrait of a beautiful women - appealing to basic instincts. Arousal would be up to the viewer would it not?

Are you seriously suggesting that people can consciously control what does and doesn't arouse them (other than by looking away, of course)? This woefully misguided notion forms the basis for your complete misconception of pornography per se and has pervaded from your very first post.

If art is about expressing and evoking emotions and feelings, isn't porn doing that as well?

I've seriously lost count of how many times: the key charactaristic of porn is that it intends to arouse SEXUAL EXCITEMENT. See the distinguishing factor there?

Isn't part of SW's argument is that porn evokes so much arousal that it could cause some potential/actual pedophiles to lose control of themselves and molest a child?

SEXUAL AROUSAL

How can a visual/audio that powerful that makes someone lose control NOT be art?

OMG - by what possible fate of twisted logic?!

I think if we weren't such prudes and pornographic movies were included, the industry would make porn purposely to win those prizes.

And they'd be wasting their money, I can tell you.

You do know that there are plenty of films that deserve to win or be nominated but do not for inside the industry political reasons.

You don't say! Movies and politics? get away!

Truth is we don't know. The Academy Awards purposely leaves out sexual movies. So the porn industry doesn't try.

Truth is you don't know. We, however, do.

Most artistic? Blondes and Brunettes by Andrew Blake. I want to make movies like him. His scenes are amazingly sensual, and the sex looks like it is painted on the movie screen.

Admirably proving that your notion of art is so broad as to be meaningless.

Let me ask you this.
Didn't you find this....
...just a little bit artistic?

Witty, sarcastic (possibly), creative yes. Artistic, no (and I wrote it!).

 

[Southwind17]

Perhaps. But then there's a trail so you can defend your rights as to why you are suicidal.

Complete and utter nonsense.

 

[Southwind17]

Except that he's said precisely that it is several times. Why would you assume that his argument is precisely contrary to what he's actually posited?

I think that's a gross and disingenuous exaggeration of what sugarb is asserting, and I strongly suspect you know it, too:

I think we need to flip that around a bit, and it is that the adult viewing the child pornography is MORE powerful than the object of their "fetish" (I'm using that term loosely here, because I don't think being a pedophile is a fetish, really)...children. And the possibility certainly exists that if there is a type of child pornography that society accepts as "legal" or "okay", then that makes the "fetish" that person has seem more legitimate, and THAT could be what would lead to an actual child being harmed.

I have asserted exactly this, in different words, as an integral part of my reasoning for banning VCP.

And why is that? Is it actually because more people do it? Or is it because more people ADMIT to doing it when it ceases to be illegal?

It's both, of course.

Please provide evidence that the cause of more people using cell phones in inappropriate places is due to that behavior being "legitimized", instead of it being caused by greater accessibility to cell phones for the average person. Also please demonstrate that the "unacceptable" behavior you are referring to has been "legitimized" by society.

I think there are other, maybe better, examples that prove the point. Take rioting or looting. It usually starts with a small group but very quickly becomes widespread. Mass looting, when it happens, escalates because people who do it justify it as acceptable in their minds: "If everybody else is doing it I'm not going to be left out." But they sure wouldn't do it if nobody else was.

It's natural human behaviour to interpret what the majority do as "normal", because, by definition, it is normal, and "normal" is typically deemed acceptable by those involved.

 

[Southwind17]

I have many films I love, but you asked me for my opinion of the most artistic. Andrew Blake's was the first I thought of.

And therein lies your problem, generally. You respond with the first thing you think of and not what's been asked of you. You really should take the time to consider.

That's exactly his reasoning. He's confirmed it several times.

And here, in the very same post, immediately after the tacit admission, is a perfect example. See my last post before this as a reminder as to why this statement is invalid.

It is a fetish.

Possibly, but I believe you deploy that word as broadly as you deploy the words "art" and "beauty" simply to legitimize something in your own mind that you know is or should be illegitimate.

The thing is, like all fetishes, (and I've said this before) as long as it remains a fantasy and does not cross the line into reality, then it's harmless.

And here's the proof. Fetishes do not hinge on fantasy. Your definition might, but the commonly accepted definitions don't. Most fetishes are very "real" indeed.

Making VCP legal will not make child molestation "more legitimate" in the mind of a potential child molester. I'll say it again: If someone chooses to molest a child, then that person is going to do it no matter what. That person will use anything as a trigger.

Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just, at best, a reasonable supposition, or at worst, just your opinion? If a reasonable supposition what, exactly, is your reasoning?

I think SkeptiChick answered that perfectly.

I think SkeptiChick failed miserably, but then I did stop to actually consider what she wrote instead of simply blindly accepting it.

 

[AWPrime]

So be it. If humans and absolute freedom are mutually exclusive that alters my viewpoint not one jot.

If they are mutually exclusive, then why can you even use the concept in this discussion?

I'm pleased to see that you've finally stepped back from the burden of proof stance.

Actually I have not, I simply think that you won't ever present proof.

You have the right to subscribe with an ISP who will grant you access.

This is not the same thing as surfing the web. I believe that you take the definition of 'right' very broadly. Rights are something that can be demanded, please show how one can demand internet access.

If you disagree with this please show me a law that prohibits you from surfing the internet.

Convicted hackers can be banned from using computers, and thus they are also banned from the internet.

 

[quadraginta]

Since when did the courts have the power to remove one's freedom to use a computer?

You really don't know much about what you're talking about, do you?

Among the least of the rights denied by the courts to people convicted of (among other things) possesion of child pornography or sexual crimes involving the internet (including statutory sexual offenses) is their freedom to use computers. Violation of which would constitute a parole or probation offense and result in imprisonment. Not only is it common, it is routine, and it isn't unknown for the failure to include such a restriction to garner public criticism.

Please note that such restrictions are not limited strictly to sexual offenses (although that is the most common area). Many other sentences contain similar ones, most commonly with crimes related to or somehow involving computer use, but not always.

 

[Southwind17]

"Commonly" is a weasel word, included only to give yourself an opportunity for another of your childish evasions when challenged.

From The Chambers Dictionary (1998 reprint):

Using the dictionary

4.Definition(s)

Definitions in the dictionary entries are ordered and grouped with a view to clarity, ease of comprehension and use. Normally the most common meanings are given first, unless an earlier, perhaps more specific, sense serves to clarify or explain its subsequent use. [emphasis added]

Doesn't seem very "weasely" to me!

 

[Southwind17]

There is no such thing as "absolute liberty" as such a thing would directly contradict the definition of liberty. By definition, liberty has boundaries.

As I wrote, we could talk about it, if we wished.

As to "absolute freedom"... You have yet to prove that such a thing ever existed.

And you have yet to appreciate that discussion does not call upon proofs for its efficacy. Regardless, the question of whether absolute freedom ever existed is not important to my assertion. If it did, it did. If it didn't, then it didn't. The possible fact that every entity has always had some restriction placed on its freedom impacts on my assertion not even an iota. Indeed, the very idea that freedom has never been absolute suits me just fine, because I know for sure that "rights" (certainly in the sense of legal rights and probably generally) have existed for a mere blink of time.

If you're interested in the subject, however, you can read about how it could be a contradiction in terms here: http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/sartrelecture.htm

Yes - very philosophical. I believe there's a suitable sub-forum that might be worthy of a discussion on your link. Unfortunately, it's not this one.

Now, would you like to discuss things that a) actually exist ...?

Like freedom(!) of speech and rights, for example?