Porn?
I'm thinking about this .... hmmm ... The thing that sort of bothers me about porn is what I perceive as the dehumanizing aspect of it. Gratification for gratification's sake. Sex as an end in itself. I guess I just prefer it to have more to do with real people & real life. But then, everyone's different ... I just can't relate at all to dildos, sadism, fetishes, etc, etc ... Not a judgement, I just don't get it, really.
I am trying to gather data on Realm of the Senses. I see it is still considered very controversial. It threw me for a loop, when I saw it among many other films that bunch of months, when we pursued japanese films, so many so connecting to me, in ways whatever was at my local theater wasn't.
I don't think of Realm of the Senses as porn.. And, yet, some of the far reaches are the same. I don't live in these hinterlands but I can envision them. Unnatural, immoral? I don't know, but I don't think so.
Let me just say over a certain deep end.
Here's an amazon link, which happens to be listed first and thus is linkable to a2k. I don't put this here in a promo sense, trust me, but this link has various reviews, which interested me more than the ones listed immediately thereafter.
Hah, I forgot the link, freudian slip, back in a bit.
Realm of the Senses by Oshima
If you are actually looking for porn this will bore you.
I read the amazon reviews so far and don't relate to them. I saw the film in the context of about thirty other films of quotidian life in japan, and regarded this one as grasping a butterfly verrrrry tensely. Not easy, but not porn.
Why even bring this film up? A little hard for me to articulate this minute, but not every filmed thing about hardedged sexuality is degrading and/or immoral and edges are tricky to define.
kitchenpete wrote:[
Hear, hear, Deb!
I find this kind of attitude far more demeaning than any sexual proclivity, no matter how "icky"!
LOL, I'm entitled to reject{at a philosophy forum} those who can't think or won't....just as you are.
Rather than respond to the multitude of responses I've received, I'll just type this post for now.
I'm suggesting that we can define immoral behaviour, behaviour that we rightly consider offensive to the point of wanting it eliminated, IOW, I want what is intersubjectivley considered degrading banned from commerical sale...I don't want any of this insanity mixed in with other acceptable behaviours.
Intersubjectivity is the content of agreement between those who are sane/educated, IOW, we wouldn't take scientific advice from someone scientifically illiterate as they either don't know of the necessary conventions or don't won't to know....similarly, philosophers at a philosophy forum understand that the practice of intersubjectivity is needed to actually create a category of immoral behaviours, otherwise the dysfunctional can over-rule us with, "it's just your opinion", ie, subjective.
So when you examine the reasons why you reject certain pornographic* activities{and most of you have rejected the extremes}, these details form the objective criteria of an intersubjective undertaking.
*I watch pornography to see gorgeous women, but I don't want to see depraved acts which most of you have rejected, yet you're trying to take me to task for failing to understand something..!!
The practical outcome of defending depravity{if sucking a horses penis and then ingesting the semen isn't depraved, what the hell is?} is moral relativism, whereby, well I don't like it, but if they appear to enjoy it, who am I to interfere.....that attitude is moral relativism and enables truly degrading material to exist over open commercial markets.
Also, assuming that it's a sexual hang up I have is another form of moral relativism and is no defense of depravity which may have obtained some level of cultural support...IOW, sane/rational people determine what's best or what's best is relative and all these discussions are a waste of time.
David Henry, the problem is that you want to define offensive pornography by what you personally consider to be disgusting or unacceptable behavior rather than an objective standard such as the health and welfare of the persons involved (Boxing, for instance, may result in permanent physical damage to the brains and bodies of participants. Is ingesting horse semen or your own fecal material in any way hazardous?).
Why is it any of your business how people choose to express their sexuality, whether they do it in private or are paid to do it in front of a camera?
Suppose that you thought that the genitals were dirty, nakedness was immoral, and sex was only to be engaged in with your spouse, in the dark, in the missionary position, as rarely and quickly as possible and that anything else was disgusting and unnatural. Would you have the right to impose your narrow views of morality on everyone else? If not, where do you draw the line between the right to pursue happiness and the alleged right to forbid behaviors that make you unhappy?
Terry wrote:David Henry, the problem is that you want to define offensive pornography by what you personally consider to be disgusting or unacceptable behavior rather than an objective standard ?
Try reading the thread first Terry, and try and understanding what certain words mean, such as intersubjectivity leading to objectivity within the agreed frame of reference.
I keep asking you guys to
explain why you find behaviours disgusting/unacceptable and you overlook that those details are the content of our intersubjective agreement.
So whilst I personally announce that I find it offensive, it's quite likely that most of you agree with why I find it offensive and haven't figured out that this is the basis for categorizing it, otherwise you're moral relativists by virtue of your confusion and effective attempt to demonize my subjective assertions.
David, I have read the thread, thank you.
Try reading it yourself, particularly the many responses you got asking you to explain why your subjective opinion of disgusting should be applied to the behavior of people who are not as squeamish as you and may enjoy behaviors that you find unacceptable.
You never have answered that one.
Terry wrote:David, I have read the thread, thank you.
Try reading it yourself, particularly the many responses you got asking you to explain why your subjective opinion of disgusting should be applied to the behavior of people who are not as squeamish as you and may enjoy behaviors that you find unacceptable.
You never have answered that one.
Yeah, good one Terry.
I keep asking you guys to explain why you find the various activities as disgusting, and you keep refusing to provide the necessary content of a possible intersubjective agreement.
I've already mentioned that feces is a waste product and that it has undesirable qualities that alerts us to it's status.
I also keep informing you that my opinion being subjective{expressed by me} is irrelevant if you guys agree with it, but you keep ignoring that, and defending depravity because you can't understand the necessity of intersubjective agreement, IOW, if we left it to anyone to decide, then A2M/beastiality would be available at the local video stores.
Intersubjectivity is necessary to over-rule the dysfunctional, if you think it's unecessary and presumably undesirable, then open your mouth whilst I take a dump down there, who are you to object with your subjective notions of right or wrong...OPEN WIDE BABY
What I want to know, david, is why YOU think we think it's disgusting. We can't refute you until you post whatever it is you're going to post. And of course you wouldn't understand anything about cultural taboos, so it's pointless to explain them to you.
dlowan wrote:[David - you have not even answered my challenge to say why I should answer a question about sexual proclivities which relates them to murder
I was just pointing out the logistics, IOW, once we establish that which is immoral, we follow it up with action.
Quote:All of us can see your point - we simply disagree with it - and without necessarily being moral relativists.
Your laughable insults do nothing to assist your arguments.
You aren't assisting my arguments by withholding the details that form your disgust, once I have them I can point out to you that they're the basis of intersubjective agreement and the formation of an objective moral code amongst rational people....having said that, your evasion isn't a good sign in my book.
rufio wrote:What I want to know, david, is why YOU think we think it's disgusting. We can't refute you until you post whatever it is you're going to post. And of course you wouldn't understand anything about cultural taboos, so it's pointless to explain them to you.
Cultural taboos which lack legitimacy are for the dimwitted.
This is a philosophy forum, I had assume that many of you would have evaluated all manner of myths, taboos, whatever, using critical thinking skills and the realization that thinking and feeling co-define each other.
As for why YOU think it's disgusting, I'm not certain, so I've asked, but you seem embarrassed to explain yourselves.
No topic is off limits with me, ....all I ask is that people apply critical thinking rather than regurgitate what their mommy told them.
David, why are you so interested in the elements of everyone else's disgust, exactly? You are looking for intersubjective agreement? You wish to link some individual opinions to form a broad front, a moral code that you call objective?
Let's hypothesize that you find 72 people whose disgust fits precisely the same description as yours. You wish to make that the standard for others to follow? Perhaps the 72 people don't have precise points of agreement between their disgust and yours, then do you wish to make some other point the so called objective code?
Arranging a spam filter would probably be a more successful remedy for the concerns you express than trying to impose your individual disgust levels on the world at large.
Cultural taboos that lack legitimacy are for the dimwitted? It seems as if you are trying to legitimize yours with this thread, gathering a coding group. Nagging at folks for not telling you all about their disgust isn't useful for what seems to be the aim of your posts.
OUch, Osso and Dlowan, remind me not to cross swords with you. At least David has, for a moment, transcended dualism by acknowledging how thinking and feeling "co-define" each other. That's a rare observation in these parts.
ossobuco wrote:
Let's hypothesize that you find 72 people whose disgust fits precisely the same description as yours. You wish to make that the standard for others to follow? Perhaps the 72 people don't have precise points of agreement between their disgust and yours, then do you wish to make some other point the so called objective code?
I'm discussing the difference between a proper intersubjective moral code and moral relativism....as for any disagreements between details, I can only address those after receiving the details{which I've given}.
Quote:Cultural taboos that lack legitimacy are for the dimwitted? It seems as if you are trying to legitimize yours with this thread, gathering a coding group. Nagging at folks for not telling you all about their disgust isn't useful for what seems to be the aim of your posts.
People keep pretending to be bound by moral absolutes without knowing the objective criteria that defines the absolute code.
As I've said before, I don't create a moral code{the desire of non-relativists} amongst the opinions of dysfunctionals.
David Henry: I must confess, I find your "intersubjective agreement" to be just so much empty rhetoric. If you're looking for "morality by popular vote," then your search is in vain. Even if everyone here agreed with you, that would be no basis for any kind of "intersubjective agreement" on morality if, it turned out, all of us were wrong. In that event, we would all do nothing more than err "intersubjectively." And, as a practical matter, even if we all agreed, we may not all agree for the same reasons. As ossobucco cogently points out, where would that leave your "intersubjective agreement?"
Quote:David Henry: I must confess, I find your "intersubjective agreement" to be just so much empty rhetoric. If you're looking for "morality by popular vote,"
Joe.
It's the only way to do it.
If you think that millions of opinions by millions of people who are philosophically illiterate are the basis, then you're a moral relativist as there can never be agreement between dysfunctional people leading to absolute moral codes as they've rejected the whole idea because they have abnormal mindsets driving their behaviour.
Who other than people capable of critical thinking should create moral codes?
David Henry wrote:It's the only way to do it.
If you think that millions of opinions by millions of people who are philosophically illiterate are the basis, then you're a moral relativist as there can never be agreement between dysfunctional people leading to absolute moral codes as they've rejected the whole idea because they have abnormal mindsets driving their behaviour.
Who other than people capable of critical thinking should create moral codes?
I enjoyed these remarks more when I read them in the original German.
