7
   

Porn - degrading to women? or"the all you can eat salad bar"

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Wed 21 Apr, 2004 11:36 pm
Used to be damned wabbits turned up everywhere - now it's damned dogs....

What hav edogs (or damned wabbits) to do with porn?

Oh - please don't go there...
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Thu 22 Apr, 2004 12:35 am
I saw an interview with a porn starlet once. She didn't seem to believe that she was being coerced into earning $38 000 a week!
0 Replies
 
Individual
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 10:09 pm
Is it possible that the only reason that we tend to think of porn as evil is because that's what the early americans knew to be true from their christian teachings?
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 10:11 pm
Porn is degrading and ...sorry.... kinky
0 Replies
 
Individual
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 10:24 pm
Why are you sorry? Are you saying that being kinky is bad?

Why is porn degrading? And to whom?
0 Replies
 
tell me why
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 10:24 pm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/
PBS did a special on the American Porn Industry not to long ago....I didn't watch it, but here's a link to the site...

I think those arguments against porn were pretty lame and there are better ones out there....I don't think we NEED it, but being of a religious persuasion I can't honestly go at this subject. I find it offensive, but then there's guy porn too....and it doesn't seem to bother most women.
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 10:26 pm
porn is perverse,bad,mad and degrading all peoples. porn is not really the nature.
0 Replies
 
Individual
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 10:29 pm
Please elaborate on your responses thok...

Why is porn perverse or bad? Because it's unnatural? Then why is it unnatural?

Why is it degrading? Simply based on the fact that it is perverse? If so, then why would you call it perverse?

Do you see where I'm going with this? I need a lot more proof than you're giving me because you aren't giving any.
0 Replies
 
tell me why
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 10:29 pm
I agree....don't get me wrong...
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 11:01 pm
Thok wrote:
Porn is degrading and ...sorry.... kinky

Well, the really good porn is, anyways.
0 Replies
 
David Henry
 
  1  
Mon 10 May, 2004 06:01 am
First up I have no problem watching gorgeous women do their thing, Yeahhhhhhh Razz

My only concern is the pretense that certain activities are desirable, eg, eating semen or what is known as Ass to mouthA2M{I hope I don't have to explain}.

Does anyone here really think there's nothing wrong with A2M?
Would you encourage your daughters or partners to do it?...I know I wouldn't and wouldn't participate in that sort of thing.

IOW, pornography is OK, but certain acts are disturbing and if genuinely "liked" by the actors would be the result of psychological drives, rather than biological ones, ie, sex is a biological drive, whereas sampling your own anal juices isn't....all clear?
0 Replies
 
kitchenpete
 
  1  
Mon 10 May, 2004 07:32 am
Interesting... Confused

I have very little problem with hard core porn, it's the women moaning and writhing at the pleasure of stroking their own breasts that seems utterly bizarre to me - that's more dangerous in my book - showing women as fantasy figures rather than active participants in sex (which is certainly what I prefer them to be!) Laughing

Here's one of my favourite jokes, which seems to be appropriate to this thread, if no other:

The world's biggest porn star found religion and decided to quit his job. So he went into the job centre and filled in all the forms and had the interview to find a new one.

The men at the job centre couldn't believe what they were hearing they thought he already had the best job in the world. But the porn star was adamant, so the staff checked the computer and (as he had no formal education) the only job they could find was pumping petrol at the local Texaco. So off he went.

Two weeks later the porn star was back, dejected he said they had let him go and he didn't know why. The job centre guys decided to call the manager of the Texaco station to find out what was going on.

The manager answered the phone and said that the porn star had been great. He was always punctual and polite to the customers particularly the women and his service was charming. But there was one frustrating habit that he couldn't break.











Whenever he was just about to finish filling a woman's tank, he'd whip out the petrol hose and spray it all over the windscreen. Laughing

[size=7]Edit - writhing not writing![/size]
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Mon 10 May, 2004 09:01 am
David Henry wrote:
My only concern is the pretense that certain activities are desirable, eg, eating semen or what is known as Ass to mouthA2M{I hope I don't have to explain}.

When did you become the arbiter of what is genuinely "desirable?" Given that pornography appeals to a limited range of emotional responses, one would presume that an activity depicted in porn appeals to someone, even if that someone occupies a minority position. Sade's 120 Days of Sodom, for instance, is replete with a bewildering kaleidoscope of sexual perversity (e.g. there's quite a bit of coprophagy going on -- that, and, of course, the rampant sadism), but it's still in print (anyone who's actually interested in reading it, don't bother: it's excrutiatingly dull).

Rather than being known for nuance, pornography is rightly regarded as putting its limited artistic wares on prominent display. As such, it is tremendously responsive to consumer demand (we can contrast that to mainstream films and literature, which take a much more varied and subtle approach to their products). We can, I think, conclude thereby that if it's on the screen, somebody must be enjoying it. Whether that somebody is psychologicall disturbed is, I think, quite another matter.

David Henry wrote:
Does anyone here really think there's nothing wrong with A2M?
Would you encourage your daughters or partners to do it?...I know I wouldn't and wouldn't participate in that sort of thing.

Chacun a son gout.

David Henry wrote:
IOW, pornography is OK, but certain acts are disturbing and if genuinely "liked" by the actors would be the result of psychological drives, rather than biological ones, ie, sex is a biological drive, whereas sampling your own anal juices isn't....all clear?

Certainly, sex is a biological drive. But if biology alone decided whether a particular practice was aberrant, then all non-procreative sex would be aberrant. And, frankly, some of the best sex is non-procreative.
0 Replies
 
David Henry
 
  1  
Mon 10 May, 2004 11:14 am
joefromchicago wrote:
[
When did you become the arbiter of what is genuinely "desirable?"


Whenever I choose, just as you do, although unlike you, I'm trying to establish an objective criteria for human activities, in this instance it happens to be WRT pornography.

If you happen to be a moral relativist, then presumably anything goes...I'm not, I think reason can establish certain boundaries and place limits within categories for acceptable behaviour, ie, sex is the category, and this is acceptable, but behaviours that have no real satisfactory explanation other than acts of self-degradation should be rejected as worthy of moral support and IMO should be banned* from normal commercial channels of sale.
*nothing can stop people performing whatever manner of debauchery they choose behind closed doors, but I think beasiality and other sickening behaviours should be banned from sale.

Furthermore we try and distinguish between pathological drives and meaningful/productive drives....and for the life of me I can't see how it's meaningful to perform A2M.

I hold the view that Eric Fromm holds, which is that we use reason to establish morality, and that whilst the outcome of our reasoning can be upgraded, a massive departure from reason based assessments "might" represent a pathological mentality, rather than an elightened individual.

Society should adjust to mans needs{defined by reason} rather than man adjust to the various themes/activities which individuals who comprise society engage in.

Quote:
Whether that somebody is psychologicall disturbed is, I think, quite another matter.


So you don't have an opinion yet??....WOW, I'm shocked, as you seem to be rather bright judging by your commentary in many other threads, so I'm forced to conclude there must be another reason why you're on the fence.

Quote:
Chacun a son gout


No comprehendo...!!

Quote:
Certainly, sex is a biological drive. But if biology alone decided whether a particular practice was aberrant, then all non-procreative sex would be aberrant. And, frankly, some of the best sex is non-procreative


Biology is rather important here, as we know that the colon contains waste products, and is to be expelled accordingly, it's not supposed to be tasted or eaten, that's why it stinks and looks fairly ordinary.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Mon 10 May, 2004 11:47 am
David Henry wrote:
Whenever I choose, just as you do, although unlike you, I'm trying to establish an objective criteria for human activities, in this instance it happens to be WRT pornography.

I agree that I am the best judge of what is desirable to me.

David Henry wrote:
If you happen to be a moral relativist, then presumably anything goes...

I do not consider myself to be a moral relativist.

David Henry wrote:
I'm not, I think reason can establish certain boundaries and place limits within categories for acceptable behaviour, ie, sex is the category, and this is acceptable, but behaviours that have no real satisfactory explanation other than acts of self-degradation should be rejected as worthy of moral support and IMO should be banned* from normal commercial channels of sale.
*nothing can stop people performing whatever manner of debauchery they choose behind closed doors, but I think beasiality and other sickening behaviours should be banned from sale.

I would agree that reason can establish boundaries and limits -- I wasn't disagreeing with you there. Rather, I was disagreeing with the particular boundaries and limits that you chose to draw and the rationale that you offered therefor.

David Henry wrote:
Furthermore we try and distinguish between pathological drives and meaningful/productive drives....and for the life of me I can't see how it's meaningful to perform A2M.

How much more meaningful/productive is oral sex? Or is that also on the list of proscribed activities?

David Henry wrote:
I hold the view that Eric Fromm holds, which is that we use reason to establish morality, and that whilst the outcome of our reasoning can be upgraded, a massive departure from reason based assessments "might" represent a pathological mentality, rather than an elightened individual.

Fair enough.

David Henry wrote:
Society should adjust to mans needs{defined by reason} rather than man adjust to the various themes/activities which individuals who comprise society engage in.

Well, I'm not quite sure I understand you here. Society and individuals continually adjust to each other, in an iterative process. If individuals -- who comprise society -- only adjusted to society, then there would be no mechanism for change.

David Henry wrote:
So you don't have an opinion yet??....WOW, I'm shocked, as you seem to be rather bright judging by your commentary in many other threads, so I'm forced to conclude there must be another reason why you're on the fence.

I offer no opinion because: (1) this thread is about pornography, not about aberrant psychology; and (2) I do not consider myself expert enough on psychological disorders to offer an informed opinion. Rest assured, however, that I do not hold other participants in these forums to my exacting standards.

David Henry wrote:
Quote:
Chacun a son gout


No comprehendo...!!

De gustibus non est disputandum. Whatever floats your boat.

David Henry wrote:
Biology is rather important here, as we know that the colon contains waste products, and is to be expelled accordingly, it's not supposed to be tasted or eaten, that's why it stinks and looks fairly ordinary.

And a mouth is full of sharp, pointy teeth. That fact, however, does not deter people from putting things in their mouths that, biologically speaking, have no business being there.
0 Replies
 
David Henry
 
  1  
Mon 10 May, 2004 12:08 pm
joefromchicago wrote:


I do not consider myself to be a moral relativist


Interesting as you don't seem to against certain behaviours that I consider are obviously weird and would upset most people's grandmothers, lol.

Quote:
How much more meaningful/productive is oral sex? Or is that also on the list of proscribed activities?


Oral sex is ok as I have no valid reason to reject it, OTOH swirling, gargling, swallowing semen is not ok{but not outrageously bad, not as bad as other activites} as what would be the valid reason based justification for it?




Quote:
Well, I'm not quite sure I understand you here. Society and individuals continually adjust to each other, in an iterative process. If individuals -- who comprise society -- only adjusted to society, then there would be no mechanism for change.


Society hasn't established in depth moral codes IMO, yet there is pressure to conform to societies wishes, those wishes usually being delivered by the elite academics/business people who are often moral relativists and wouldn't bother looking for an objective criteria as that would defy their mindset.

Quote:
I offer no opinion because: (1) this thread is about pornography, not about aberrant psychology;


I'm explicity suggesting that abberant psychology is what drives some pornographic/sexual behaviours.


Quote:
Whatever floats your boat.


But what does this mean?...why aren't you also saying that A2M is an obvious act of debauchery?

Quote:
And a mouth is full of sharp, pointy teeth. That fact, however, does not deter people from putting things in their mouths that, biologically speaking, have no business being there.


Yes, but this is my point....how do we define behaviours, we must "rely" on our knowledge of biological functions, and in conjunction with reason determine acceptable limits to behaviours.

There's nothing reasonable about A2M, but there's nothing unreasonable about oral sex....if there is something reasonable about A2M, what is it??
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Mon 10 May, 2004 12:25 pm
tooo weird, the only criteria I can think of is "if both (or more) people enjoy what they are doing it's good sex.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Mon 10 May, 2004 12:29 pm
Amazing to me that there can be a discussion of the merits of pornography while everyone is, at the same time, totally offended by the sexual degradation of Iraqi prisoners.

Does anybody else see this as weird?
0 Replies
 
David Henry
 
  1  
Mon 10 May, 2004 12:30 pm
dyslexia wrote:
tooo weird, the only criteria I can think of is "if both (or more) people enjoy what they are doing it's good sex.


I forget the names{Mira Lindy and someone} enjoyed what they described as ritualistic homicidal marriage....is that practice ok just because those people enjoyed it?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Mon 10 May, 2004 12:35 pm
David Henry wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
tooo weird, the only criteria I can think of is "if both (or more) people enjoy what they are doing it's good sex.


I forget the names{Mira Lindy and someone} enjoyed what they described as ritualistic homicidal marriage....is that practice ok just because those people enjoyed it?


is this a form of birth-control? I am not familiar with ritualistic homicidal marriage; but yeah if that's what they want and no one else is harmed, it's none of my concern. I do guess that I would consider it kinky but that's as far as I am willing to go.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 07:06:21