Page 1 of 3
Pornography
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:34 am
by Cambo
Let's see whose willing to talk about
this one!
Is porn the best thing since sliced bread? Is it evil? Degrading to women? To men? Is it just a harmless pastime, or symptomatic of soceties moral degeneration?
I'll leave off my opinions for a bit, I'm interested what other people's first reactions are.
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:23 am
by Orlion
I like to compare pornography to alcohol. Like alcohol, it's fine and mostly harmless if used responsibly. However, once again like alcohol, it can be abused to the detriment of the user and those around him. How does this happen?
I) Addictive personality.
II) Exposed to it too early
III) Under-educated about such matters.
I) is pretty self-explanatory... some people just have a greater tendency to be addicted to things.
II) if one is exposed too early, it could...pervert... normal sexual growth. It's at this point that the person could get so involved with pornography that he forgets to seek a relationship with a real person. This could lead to the objectification of the opposite sex, an inability to interact properly with the opposite sex, and just lots of wasted energy that could have been used to do something else.
III) So, how should one view pornography? If one doesn't learn this early on (whatever the answer is, I don't know
) they'll find some other purpose, which could be detrimental.
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:20 pm
by Cybrweez
Porn is laziness. I heard, forget who, a rock star complain that sleeping w/his groupies was too much work, having to spend some effort to get them in bed, then dealing w/them the next morning and getting them out. I always thought that wasn't too much work for famous people, but this guy said it was, and so he spent more time w/porn b/c he didn't have to bother w/all that work.
I think this is a big drawback, which affects quite a lot in our relationships w/women. To somewhat go along w/the other topic, laziness among men is rampant.
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:56 pm
by aliantha
One of my favorite George Carlin lines: "Pornography proves that America is a nation of spectators."
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:09 pm
by rusmeister
Is any answer actually central truth, and not merely another personal opinion?
Can any answer offered be what really is, revealing other answers to be misled or false?
Re: Pornography
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:26 pm
by High Lord Tolkien
Cambo wrote:
Is porn the best thing since sliced bread?
yes
Cambo wrote:Is it evil?
Yes
Cambo wrote:Degrading to women?
yes
Cambo wrote:To men?
yes
Cambo wrote:Is it just a harmless pastime
,
yes
Cambo wrote:or symptomatic of soceties moral degeneration?
yes
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:28 pm
by Fist and Faith
Like most things, it can be good or bad. I'm a long-time fan. Ever since... forever, I guess. Checking out Playboys with friends when one or another stole their father's issue. Some gorgeous women, God bless them, are exhibitionists. One day in the grocery story, I heard a girl who couldn't have been more than 17 asking, with a sparkle in her eyes, a couple male friends if they thought it was ok for a girl to be a stripper. If a woman wants to be a stripper, or porn actress, or whatever, it's her choice.
But it seems obvious to me that some of the women in the movies have been raised by monsters who the world would be better off without. You can't raise a girl in a loving, nurturing environment, and have her turn out to do the things you can find in porn.
And the worst, of course, is child porn. Those who film it should be tortured to death over a period of not less than a week. Those who sell it should be in jail for the rest of their lives. Those who buy it should be registered sex offenders, never allowed to actually touch a child again in any way, etc.
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:56 pm
by High Lord Tolkien
Fist and Faith wrote:But it seems obvious to me that some of the women in the movies have been raised by monsters who the world would be better off without. You can't raise a girl in a loving, nurturing environment, and have her turn out to do the things you can find in porn.
Not necessarily.
It doesn't even have to be "monsters".
Howard Stern (back when he was free and I was an avid listener) always used to ask the strippers and porn stars he had on about their childhood. Around 99% of them didn't have their dads growing up.
I don't know what psychology is in play or what other outside influences there has to be but not having a daddy growing up makes a huge difference.
Now, before the "i didn't have a dad and I turned out fine" ladies chime in: does every girl without a daddy grow up to be a stripper? no.
But do most strippers have their dads in their life? no.
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:57 pm
by Vraith
High Lord Tolkien wrote:Fist and Faith wrote:But it seems obvious to me that some of the women in the movies have been raised by monsters who the world would be better off without. You can't raise a girl in a loving, nurturing environment, and have her turn out to do the things you can find in porn.
Not necessarily.
It doesn't even have to be "monsters".
Howard Stern (back when he was free and I was an avid listener) always used to ask the strippers and porn stars he had on about their childhood. Around 99% of them didn't have their dads growing up.
I don't know what psychology is in play or what other outside influences there has to be but not having a daddy growing up makes a huge difference.
Now, before the "i didn't have a dad and I turned out fine" ladies chime in: does every girl without a daddy grow up to be a stripper? no.
But do most strippers have their dads in their life? no.
Most of the research I've seen is pretty much on your side...no significant males, and/or childhood abuse [we're talking performers here, not watchers].
Parallel topic, but somehow related or not? I don't know? ...but there's some research that shows availability of porn and reduction of sex-crimes are connected. I don't have access to databases I used to...when I did, it was showing correlation, not causation...but the two issues bug me taken together. It's like re-abusing victims to prevent other victims.
A completely politically incorrect [and female!] friend of mine said these women were making lemonade from lemons...but I'm not sure I buy it.
And re: an earlier post...yes, those who make child porn are really the only people I'm in favor of death penalty for.
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:27 pm
by Cambo
Good posts people!
My personal view on porn is that there is much about the nature of mainstream porn that it completey unnecessary- the denegration of women (look and the language- sluts, whores, bitches), the ridiculous/non-existent plots, horrible acting, etc. By unnecessary, I mean that it is entirely possible to make pornography without these things. Pornography is really just visual erotica, which I fully support in principle.
Erotica is just media with a focus on sexual arousal...and that's it. After that, it can be anything the producer chooses to make it. You CAN have porn that isn't sexist, misogynistic, or racist. People do make this porn. Hell,
feminists make porn. The internet is full of normal, real life people choosing to share their sexual exploits. This kind of thing, given that it generally involves equal relationships, no misogyny, mutual pleasure, and sometimes- here's a radical thought- love
, is actually far more erotic. So my advice is vote with your eyes, people! There really is no need to accept the genre boundaries the porn industry has created.
Of course, that is all based on my opinion that there is actually nothing wrong with visual erotica per se...anyone care to challenge me on that one?
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:40 pm
by Cambo
rusmeister wrote:Is any answer actually central truth, and not merely another personal opinion?
Can any answer offered be what really is, revealing other answers to be misled or false?
Probably very few. I'd say that certain specific things about porn couldn't really be denied, such as objectification. But apart from a few bland facts, everythign else is just opinion, which is what makes it interesting!
What's yours?
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:53 am
by Avatar
Freedom of choice is everything, and porn is a triumph of capitalism.
--A
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:14 am
by Cambo
Hah I read a little allegory somewhere comparing the capitalist consumer to porn stars. Bend over and take it, then you'll get you're sweet sweet money...
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:36 am
by lucimay
porn, as a general rule i find, looks like fake sex to me.
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:10 am
by Cambo
It certainly is. I particularly like how they telepathically decide what position they'll try next
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:37 pm
by Vraith
lucimay wrote:porn, as a general rule i find, looks like fake sex to me.
hee hee. I basically went through the same process with porn as "action" flicks
Stage 1: WOW--SEX! [FIGHTING!]
2: Dumb story, bad acting, but interesting choreography.
3: Boring.
Interesting short story I read once: tech advanced to where peeps could "watch" porn, wired in for full sensory experience...in the end it was revealed the whole thing was a plot by a weird religious cult to stop people from ever having actual sex with each other...it worked, too, if I remember ending correctly.
I have a pool going with some friends from college on who will put full-sense rigs in place first: MMORPG's, or Porn.
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:31 pm
by rusmeister
If people are REALLY interested in opinions, rather than truth...
Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no
getting away from it: the old Christian rule is, "Either marriage, with
complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence." Now this
is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that obviously either
Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong.
One or the other. Of course, being a Christian, I think it is the instinct
which has gone wrong.
But I have other reasons for thinking so. The biological purpose of sex
is children, just as the biological purpose of eating is to repair the body.
Now if we eat whenever we feel inclined and just as much as we want, it is
quite true that most of us will eat too much: but not terrifically too much.
One man may eat enough for two, but he does not eat enough for ten. The
appetite goes a little beyond its biological purpose, but not enormously.
But if a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt
inclined, and if each act produced a baby, then in ten years he might easily
populate a small village. This appetite is in ludicrous and preposterous
excess of its function.
Or take it another way. You can get a large audience together for a
strip-tease act-that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose
you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a
covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let
every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton
chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something
had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had
grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about
the state of the sex instinct among us?
One critic said that if he found a country in which such striptease
acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of that
country were starving. He meant, of course, to imply that such things as the
strip-tease act resulted not from sexual corruption but from sexual
starvation. I agree with him that if, in some strange land, we found that
similar acts with mutton chops were popular, one of the possible
explanations which would occur to me would be famine. But the next step
would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact, much or
little food was being consumed in that country. If the evidence showed that
a good deal was being eaten, then of course we should have to abandon the
hypothesis of starvation and try to think of another one. In the same way,
before accepting sexual starvation as the cause of the strip-tease, we
should have to look for evidence that there is in fact more sexual
abstinence in our age than in those ages when things like the strip-tease
were unknown. But surely there is no such evidence. Contraceptives have made
sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer outside it
than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit unions and
even to perversion than it has been since Pagan times. Nor is the hypothesis
of "starvation" the only one we can imagine. Everyone knows that the sexual
appetite, like our other appetites, grows by indulgence. Starving men may
think much about food, but so do gluttons; the gorged, as well as the
famished, like titillations.
CSL
MC
Personally, I am skeptical of other people's interest in mere opinion, except as titillation. I think the question of truth far more fascinating.
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:20 pm
by I'm Murrin
rusmeister wrote:Is any answer actually central truth, and not merely another personal opinion?
Can any answer offered be what really is, revealing other answers to be misled or false?
No.
Personally, I am skeptical of other people's interest in mere opinion, except as titillation. I think the question of truth far more fascinating.
Then your time in this topic is wasted, no? If you're only interested in truth or fact, there's a science forum here. Issues of society and culture will never be about anything but opinion.
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:29 pm
by High Lord Tolkien
lucimay wrote:porn, as a general rule i find, looks like fake sex to me.
I agree.
There's also an aspect of the internet desensitizing me to normal porn.
After 10 years browsing the dark side of the internet I find the "sex" on HBO latenight, for instance, laughable.
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:29 am
by rusmeister
Murrin wrote:rusmeister wrote:Is any answer actually central truth, and not merely another personal opinion?
Can any answer offered be what really is, revealing other answers to be misled or false?
No.
Personally, I am skeptical of other people's interest in mere opinion, except as titillation. I think the question of truth far more fascinating.
Then your time in this topic is wasted, no? If you're only interested in truth or fact, there's a science forum here. Issues of society and culture will never be about anything but opinion.
Hmmm. So the physical sciences are"truth" and the metaphysical simply imagination? So you have a materialist philosophy. :shrug:
The modern idea that we can "know" physical things and only "believe" metaphysical/spiritual things is simply and definitely false. As Fr Tom Hopko said, you have to believe things in order to know them, and know them in order to believe them.
I believe/know that my mother loves me, and there is no scientific way of proving it.
My purpose in my comment is to point out that if people cannot arrive at any true answer, then THEY are wasting their time in mere entertainment - as I said, 'titillation'.
How about Lewis, though? Anything intelligent to say to that?