welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

2013-06-05: Out Of Cookies
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Micius



Joined: 09 May 2013
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kjralon wrote:
I don't blame the porn over their personalities. I blame society for teaching them what is sexually expected of men, and I blame porn culture for promoting gender stereotypes and an "expected" sexual behavior for both men and women. I blame them for being unable to question the media and society, preferring to pin it on "it's just biology, man".
If they had never been exposed to porn or if porn had never existed, do you feel they would have not been assholes? This sounds to me like where our opinions diverge. I suspect the majority of men who treat women badly would still treat women badly if porn wasn't around. If you look at less developed areas there is often worse treatment than in more developed areas. If you look at more developed areas where porn is illegal (China, Southeast Asia, North Africa), there are still assholes there. Maybe look at the US a 100 years ago, were there fewer assholes there? Perhaps you feel that your former boyfriends would just be not as big assholes as they had been? I think it has more to do with power structures and the idea of "traditional roles" than it does with porn culture.
Kjralon wrote:
Actually, I take back what I said. I do blame porn over their personalities. Don't get me wrong -- their personalities fucking sucked. Worst people I have ever met. BUT, I blame porn over their personalities because there is a giant, vast, huge, big, etc. CORRELATION that I can't bring myself to overlook. Every. Single. Time. I have dated a guy who was pushy, rude, sexually deviant and sexist in a negative and harmful way (which is very, very, very, very often), he has also been completely into porn, and has also completely denied the fact that porn is derogatory or harmful.
Could it be that men who are pushy, rude, sexually deviant and sexist in a negative harmful way are more attracted to porn and thus your correlation? Correlation does not prove causation. I think you give porn too much credit. And I am most apologetic that you have so often found and dated such characters, they are not uncommon.
Kjralon wrote:
I would also like to point out that I know, for a fact, that this is NOT exclusive to the men I date, because every single woman I know and have discussed this exact topic with has had the same experience I have. Some are just quieter about it than others -- because we are taught it is something that is wrong with US. Not something that porn culture and rape culture has created in the men in our society. We are supposed to be quiet about it because it's embarrassing, and shameful, and that allows the rest of society to go on thinking that our circumstances aren't the norm.
Not exclusive to the men you date, but hopefully you don't consider a characteristic of all men. I have met some men who watch porn and are not assholes. Unfortunately, assholes can be found in abundance wherever you turn. I am more inclined to point to rape culture than porn culture.
Kjralon wrote:
Unfortunately, our circumstances ARE the norm. I don't have a single girlfriend or female acquaintance my age who hasn't been sexually abused, date raped, molested, etc. ... and, I should mention, some male friends who have experienced this from other men, as well.
I have been sleep raped twice in my life by two different women (as in, I fell asleep somewhere that others had access to and woke up in the act of intercourse that was not solicited or wanted), so I at least have some understanding of where you are coming from. Still, I don't know that you can blame porn on men being assholes; I think the majority of assholes would still be assholes if there was no porn involved.

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
I'm not suggesting anything, i'm stating out loud, that there is yet another person in this thread who has had their life negatively affected by the use of pornography in a serious manner. I'm not entirely sure why I decided to over-share like that but likely it was the anecdote about a room full of guys experiencing "male bonding" by sitting in a room watching porn together, because that was the basic scenario of the beginning of my abuse.
Well, assuming that your scenario has to do with such a "male bonding" scenario, it wasn't what I thought you were describing, which is all that I meant (that you could possibly be referring to a different scenario than the one I imagined in my head based on your comment).
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
"The fact that there happens to be a small portion of pornography out there that is sex positive and non exploitative does not change the fact that such porn is basically a peanut floating in a vast sewage treatment plant full of misogynistic rapey bullshit."
I recognize that and have suggested as much myself. The fact that "sex positive and non exploitative" porn exists is all that I had said in my initial post in this thread. However, when you make statements saying "porn is bad" I am pointing out that you are incorrect to do so because you recognize the existence of "sex positive and non exploitative" porn, even if it is not the most common. What you should be saying is "bad porn is bad" or "porn is bad with the exception of good porn."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1055

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Assholes would still be assholes, but we don't have to culturally channel that assholery into acts of sexual violation via porn tropes, and simultaneously normalize the idea to the point that it becomes more difficult for the victims to identify that what was done to them is wrong, and is more than just an asshole being an asshole. You make it sound like sexual assault is on par with double-parking or stiffing the wait-staff, which is confusing considering you say you've experienced it, yourself.

Sexual violation is NOT just an asshole being an asshole. Somewhere along the line, the asshole learns what he can and can't get away with, and porn and porn culture make it easier for the asshole to learn and justify some truly vile behaviors.

And for whatever number out there that would still be sexually violent even without porn tropes informing their actions, getting rid of that kind of mentality would still help victims speak out and be taken seriously in the aftermath, and would make it easier to warn other potential victims away from the assholes because YES THEY'RE THAT BAD, it's not normal, and it's not an overreaction to call it what it is, take it seriously, and shame the perp for doing something truly terrible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Micius



Joined: 09 May 2013
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rune wrote:
Assholes would still be assholes, but we don't have to culturally channel that assholery into acts of sexual violation via porn tropes, and simultaneously normalize the idea to the point that it becomes more difficult for the victims to identify that what was done to them is wrong, and is more than just an asshole being an asshole. You make it sound like sexual assault is on par with double-parking or stiffing the wait-staff, which is confusing considering you say you've experienced it, yourself.
I agree with you. However, this is not a problem with all porn, just the majority of it, which suggests that porn is not an inherently bad thing. A number of people in this thread use blanket statements suggesting that all porn is bad, but this is not the case.
Rune wrote:
Sexual violation is NOT just an asshole being an asshole. Somewhere along the line, the asshole learns what he can and can't get away with, and porn and porn culture make it easier for the asshole to learn and justify some truly vile behaviors.
Here you are making a blanket statement. All porn does not necessarily 'make it easier for the asshole to learn and justify some truly vile behaviors,' certain porn does.

Claim #1: Porn causes folks to develop unrealistic expectations of sexual activity.
1) Not all porn provides unrealistic depictions of sexual activity.
2) Not all unrealistic depictions of sexual activity are convincing.
3) Not all convincing unrealistic depictions of sexual activity cause their viewers to change expectations for their own sex life.
4) There is information available to viewers to suggest what are and are not realistic sexual activities.

Claim #2: Porn causes folks to develop harmful expectations of sexual activity.
1) Not all porn provides harmful depictions of sexual activity.
2) Not all porn with harmful depictions of sexual activity cause their viewers to change expectations for their own sex life.
3) There is information available to viewers to suggest what are and are not harmful sexual activities.

Rune wrote:
And for whatever number out there that would still be sexually violent even without porn tropes informing their actions, getting rid of that kind of mentality would still help victims speak out and be taken seriously in the aftermath, and would make it easier to warn other potential victims away from the assholes because YES THEY'RE THAT BAD, it's not normal, and it's not an overreaction to call it what it is, take it seriously, and shame the perp for doing something truly terrible.
I am all for getting rid of bad porn. I am not for getting rid of porn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3352

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you do the "not all porn" thing again im going to tear into you so fucking hard dude? You don't even know.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1055

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Porn, right now, is not just a depiction of sexual activity. You can find depictions of sexual activity in medical books, and even instructional "kama sutras," without it being porn. Clearly, it is not just a depiction of sex that defines porn. So, the question then is, what is the distinction, and where is the line?

What we can go by right now is the preponderance of evidence, and the preponderance of evidence, what most things that call themselves porn are like, is that porn is a degrading, unrealistic, substanceless, quick-and-dirty wank fuel. That there are some few exceptions under that name does not change the fact that that is what porn is. As a thing, as an industry, that is porn. That is what it is, that is what it does. When the bad porn is nearly freaking all of it, then that's what porn is by any reasonable definition. Eventually, eventually, maybe the term can come to mean less disgusting depictions of sexuality, but that is NOT what it means now. (And considering the word itself still has an etymology that roughly reads, "depictions of sex slaves," I'm not all that invested in keeping it, rather than just making a distinction between porn and erotica.)

When people talk about porn, they're talking about PORN, as it is in current reality rather than supposed imagination, and constantly taking it back to demand re-definition is not helpful, nor useful to the conversation. What we mean by porn is what porn means right now, in reality.

And what porn is right now is a sick dog that needs to be put down. If the little boys are going to cry about it, maybe you can buy them a healthy new dog, and put the old one's collar on it, and call it by the same name, but the old dog still needs to die.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17588
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Micius wrote:
this is not a problem with all porn, just the majority of it, which suggests that porn is not an inherently bad thing.


do you actually read the things your write? you admit yourself that the MAJORITY (i.e., more than half) of porn is bad - and then you say that proves it's not inherently bad.

well, ok, maybe it's not inherently bad - but you yourself say, most of it is bad. and it's bad in pretty nasty ways. (this quote is in response to a comment by Rune about porn normalizes ideas about sexual violation. which is rape. which is bad.) so why not react to the bad that is the MAJORITY of porn? why spare a lot of bad stuff, because a little of it may be ok?

seriously, if the majority of apples people ate were poisonous, would you be arguing about the inherent non-poisonous nature of apples, or would you be trying to protect people from apples BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE POISONOUS?
_________________
aka: neverscared!


Last edited by mouse on Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17588
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dennis J. Squidbunny wrote:

Quote:
On a slightly separate note do you have any idea how much prostitutes in my area charge men? Over 300 dollars a frickin hour. I agree it's exploitative, against men that is. 300 dollars an hour... that's more than some CEO's make.

Geezes... they make more money in an 8 hour day than I pull in an entire month.


This isn't the first time I've brought this up but now I'm genuinely interested -- was this a joke? It reads like some pretty awful standup that you're liable to hear on Tosho stand up special, followed by the joke "HAY YOU KNOW THEY FOUND A CURE FOR LESBIANISM... IT'S MY DICK."

Are you genuinely expressing shock at how much prostitutes make? Or is it a joke?


that reminds me - i meant to ask: arthain, how did you come up with this number? you provide no data on variance - is this the flat rate for all prostitutes, or the mean or median rate? if the latter, what was the range? did you survey the local prostitutes? and if so, what was your sample size? what is the population sample size? or are the rates for local prostitutes posted somewhere? are rates for all prostitutes posted, or just the high end ones? is there some sort of prostitute-minimum-wage law in force in your community? (and if so, is there also any cap on prostitute work hours? are you sure they are allowed to work a full 8-hour day? does this include breaks?)

really, if you are going to throw out numbers like that, you need to give us some notion of their statistical validity.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1212
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
Dennis J. Squidbunny wrote:

Quote:
On a slightly separate note do you have any idea how much prostitutes in my area charge men? Over 300 dollars a frickin hour. I agree it's exploitative, against men that is. 300 dollars an hour... that's more than some CEO's make.

Geezes... they make more money in an 8 hour day than I pull in an entire month.


This isn't the first time I've brought this up but now I'm genuinely interested -- was this a joke? It reads like some pretty awful standup that you're liable to hear on Tosho stand up special, followed by the joke "HAY YOU KNOW THEY FOUND A CURE FOR LESBIANISM... IT'S MY DICK."

Are you genuinely expressing shock at how much prostitutes make? Or is it a joke?


that reminds me - i meant to ask: arthain, how did you come up with this number? you provide no data on variance - is this the flat rate for all prostitutes, or the mean or median rate? if the latter, what was the range? did you survey the local prostitutes? and if so, what was your sample size? what is the population sample size? or are the rates for local prostitutes posted somewhere? are rates for all prostitutes posted, or just the high end ones? is there some sort of prostitute-minimum-wage law in force in your community? (and if so, is there also any cap on prostitute work hours? are you sure they are allowed to work a full 8-hour day? does this include breaks?)

really, if you are going to throw out numbers like that, you need to give us some notion of their statistical validity.


Arthain appears to have an intimate knowledge of the local price of prostitutes. 'Original Research' perhaps?

Oh come on, someone had to make the joke.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adyon



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 1168
Location: Behind my Cintiq

PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
seriously, if the majority of apples people ate were poisonous, would you be arguing about the inherent non-poisonous nature of apples, or would you be trying to protect people from apples BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE POISONOUS?

Love it! Seriously.

Micius, as people have repeated time...and time again...People on here (for the most part) that are against against porn, are not against the "concept" of porn. They're against what porn CURRENTLY IS in our society. It's how you said the majority is bad now. Currently, Mouse's apple analogy is spot on. The fact that porn is the way it is currently is why people have a problem with it. So in its current form, it's worth condemning.
_________________


Last edited by Adyon on Sat Jun 08, 2013 5:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10952
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 4:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't handle subtlety like that! You either love or hate things, there is no nuance!
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Micius



Joined: 09 May 2013
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
If you do the "not all porn" thing again im going to tear into you so fucking hard dude? You don't even know.
Oh no, people on the internet are going to say mean things to me. Oh the humanity. Underneath you in the thread there is Adyon's post:
Adyon wrote:
Kjralon, as people have repeated time...and time again...People on here (for the most part) that are against against porn, are not against the "concept" of porn. They're against what porn CURRENTLY IS in our society. It's how you said the majority is bad now.
And that is exactly what I am saying, but there are multiple people who supposedly hold this opinion in this thread and then say "porn is bad" without providing any qualifiers. If you have 10 apples, 9 red and 1 green, you cannot point to them and correctly say 'my apples are red.'


Rune wrote:
Porn, right now, is not just a depiction of sexual activity. You can find depictions of sexual activity in medical books, and even instructional "kama sutras," without it being porn. Clearly, it is not just a depiction of sex that defines porn. So, the question then is, what is the distinction, and where is the line?
Where the line is: "I know it when I see it" - US Supreme Justice Potter Stewart. I personally go by: "Media which is purposefully sexually arousing."
Rune wrote:
What we can go by right now is the preponderance of evidence, and the preponderance of evidence, what most things that call themselves porn are like, is that porn is a degrading, unrealistic, substanceless, quick-and-dirty wank fuel. That there are some few exceptions under that name does not change the fact that that is what porn is. As a thing, as an industry, that is porn. That is what it is, that is what it does. When the bad porn is nearly freaking all of it, then that's what porn is by any reasonable definition. Eventually, eventually, maybe the term can come to mean less disgusting depictions of sexuality, but that is NOT what it means now.
The vast majority of American politicians are old white men, however that does not change the definition of politician to "old, white man." That the majority of apples are red does not make it so that red is incorporated into the definition of an apple. When you are referring to 'bad porn,' you need to clarify 'the porn that is not good' or you are just wrong on technical grounds every time you say something about it.
Rune wrote:
(And considering the word itself still has an etymology that roughly reads, "depictions of sex slaves," I'm not all that invested in keeping it, rather than just making a distinction between porn and erotica.)
'Canary' (the bird) comes from 'canis' (meaning dog) and I am not sure that that is at all relevant to its modern usage. When you go to the Canary Islands you expect to see birds, not dogs.
Rune wrote:
When people talk about porn, they're talking about PORN, as it is in current reality rather than supposed imagination, and constantly taking it back to demand re-definition is not helpful, nor useful to the conversation. What we mean by porn is what porn means right now, in reality.
There is porn that has been made contemporaneously that does not have any of the negatives those in this thread have associated with 'bad porn.' In modern diction, the word you use to refer to that porn is porn. Current reality, not imagined, relevant to the conversation as it exists today right now.
Rune wrote:
And what porn is right now is a sick dog that needs to be put down. If the little boys are going to cry about it, maybe you can buy them a healthy new dog, and put the old one's collar on it, and call it by the same name, but the old dog still needs to die.
If you said "And what the porn industry is right now" instead of "And what porn is right now" you would be correct. There is porn that you can find right now that is "healthy."


mouse wrote:
do you actually read the things your write? you admit yourself that the MAJORITY (i.e., more than half) of porn is bad - and then you say that proves it's not inherently bad.
Inherent: existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute. If 'badness' can be separated from some of a particular thing, than it is not inherently bad and can exist without said quality. That the majority of it and not all of it is bad means that it is not inherently bad.
mouse wrote:
well, ok, maybe it's not inherently bad - but you yourself say, most of it is bad. and it's bad in pretty nasty ways. (this quote is in response to a comment by Rune about porn normalizes ideas about sexual violation. which is rape. which is bad.) so why not react to the bad that is the MAJORITY of porn? why spare a lot of bad stuff, because a little of it may be ok?
I do say that the majority of porn is bad, I don't say porn is bad. This is the distinction that the rest of you are not making.
mouse wrote:
seriously, if the majority of apples people ate were poisonous, would you be arguing about the inherent non-poisonous nature of apples, or would you be trying to protect people from apples BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE POISONOUS?
If most apples were poisonous we should get rid of most apples, however that doesn't mean that we should get rid of ALL apples. If you use the blanket statement 'porn is bad' you refer to ALL porn, not some porn.

Adyon wrote:
Currently, Mouse's apple analogy is spot on. The fact that porn is the way it is currently is why people have a problem with it. So in its current form, it's worth condemning.
In it's current form, the majority of porn is worth condemning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6182
Location: California

PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Micius sure is working hard to define and handwave away all the bad parts of pornography and the Porn Industry, including ridiculous locutions like "well, yes, most porn is bad, but that doesn't prove anything," until no criticism of pornography or the Porn Industry is possible on Micius' terms.

imagine if this wasn't transparently obvious! then you might be getting somewhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adyon



Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 1168
Location: Behind my Cintiq

PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Micius wrote:
Adyon wrote:
Micius, as people have repeated time...and time again...People on here (for the most part) that are against against porn, are not against the "concept" of porn. They're against what porn CURRENTLY IS in our society. It's how you said the majority is bad now.
And that is exactly what I am saying, but there are multiple people who supposedly hold this opinion in this thread and then say "porn is bad" without providing any qualifiers. If you have 10 apples, 9 red and 1 green, you cannot point to them and correctly say 'my apples are red.'

Actually the reason people don't use qualifiers, is we already kinda get the concept that it's the porn industry, not just all porn. We don't feel the need to be so politically correct. It's understood to us. We've had this conversation.
Micius wrote:
I do say that the majority of porn is bad, I don't say porn is bad. This is the distinction that the rest of you are not making.

So yes, we are making the distinction. In fact, we've had that conversation time and TIME again. That's why no one wants to go into it. But it doesn't change the whole. And the "not all porn is bad" argument is used over and over to say we shouldn't change porn. That because SOME exists that's okay, the rest is fine too. That it's all just for people's tastes. So basically, by using that tone of argument, you've put yourself in with those people in everyone's minds like Monkey's. That's why he gets so pissed at the argument. People come all the time saying because there's good stuff, we shouldn't fight against the fact that bad stuff is common and mainstream and influences what a bunch of guys think is natural in sex...Because it's not that they're being influenced by that...it's just apparently their natural preference. Which anyone with any psychological concept of crowd behavior and a desire to fit in can say isn't true. People do what's expected of them, what's normal. So if all they see is the common porn, they think THAT'S what's normal. And they transfer that to their bed partners.

Micius wrote:
Adyon wrote:
Currently, Mouse's apple analogy is spot on. The fact that porn is the way it is currently is why people have a problem with it. So in its current form, it's worth condemning.
In it's current form, the majority of porn is worth condemning.

Micius wrote:
mouse wrote:
seriously, if the majority of apples people ate were poisonous, would you be arguing about the inherent non-poisonous nature of apples, or would you be trying to protect people from apples BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE POISONOUS?
If most apples were poisonous we should get rid of most apples, however that doesn't mean that we should get rid of ALL apples. If you use the blanket statement 'porn is bad' you refer to ALL porn, not some porn.

And here is the only place the forum diverges. Some members think to fight it at all, it's better to talk down to porn in general. (I know it gets complicated to you, since we all say "porn" meaning "mainstream porn industry porn") Think of it as the abstinence method. That way of thinking is simple. Because as that analogy goes, if the majority of apples were bad, you WOULD condemn them all if you don't currently have a method to make sure people are not exposed to them. You have no way of most people KNOWING whether it's a poisonous apple or not, because their is no labeling system or filter to stop you from accidentally eating a bad apple. The industry has put them out everywhere and made them unavoidable if you look for good apples. So people choose to say to avoid apples as it saves more people.

I am of course not one of those, because I'm for specifically fighting the concept by encouraging change. However, the task of changing the porn industry is nigh impossible at present. Like the apples, it's impossible to avoid the other stuff. Even with my own particular interests for porn, the few times I ever looked on the internet, 5 billion other images completely contradictory to what I was looking up were on the websites. Like it's so forced you CAN'T GET AWAY FROM IT. Heck, you find it by ACCIDENT with pop-ups.


TL;DR
But the bottom line...we KNOW it's not all porn. When we SAY porn, we mean the majority of porn. We've just had this conversation too many time to keep clarifying. It's just commonly understood by us, and you're taking a point that seems like you're trying to wiggle around back to argue what many have before, that there's good porn out there, so there's nothing wrong with the system. Maybe you're not. Maybe you just want us to be incredibly politically-fucking-correct and only say "the porn industry's influence and manipulation of what is common is bad" every time. I hope it's the latter, even though that's just annoying when we know what we're saying. I'd still rather you be against our tone than just another porn (I mean "porn industry behemoth" Rolling Eyes nyuck nyuck nyuck) defending douche.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rune



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 1055

PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, yay. We've got another high-school debate club tergiversationist who thinks he's winning points by abstracting the conversation out to an oversimplified caricature of anything remotely meaningful.

Micius, you are committing grievous rounding errors by applying specious logic after things have been removed three steps from relevance.

And, really, canaries? You think there is any kind of equivalence or relevant history to be broken away from in that name? Is there some kind of dog-related stereotype or harmful paradigm to save the poor little birdies from? Don't be a twit. I know there are a lot of words far removed from their original etymologies or that arose from colorful and metaphorical ideas. You know what the problem with "pornography" is? It's not nearly far removed enough.

And your politician example is actually quite telling, because for the long history of the western world, most politicians have been old white men, but there have been exceptions by both color and gender, (though not often both.) Not enough to make a dent in the system as it was understood to be, but there were certainly exceptions. That doesn't change the fact that it has taken movements and amendments and explicit corrections and additions to legal thought and arrangements to change the understood definition of what not just politician, statesman, or leader meant, but even just plain ol' citizen. Because in spite of the minescule presence of exceptions, "politician" HAS, for most of western history, been understood to include the characteristics of older, established, land-owning white men. Equal rights had to specifically be written into the US constitution because of the way that sort of "the way things are" was understood at the time it was originally written.

Also, no one is talking about wiping out old male politicians, just adding variety to that mix. We kind of are talking about eradicating the predominant cesspool that sloshes around under the "porn" heading. Go, revel in good smut if you can find it, but seriously, you're not helping the good guys by nit-picking semantics on this one. You've been told several times now what most of us here mean when we say "porn." Either you get what we're saying, or you don't. If you do get it, and are still insisting that the discussion go on according to your own terms, then you're just bloviating, and that's annoying and derailing, please stop.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zhuinden



Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 290

PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Micius wrote:
I personally go by: "Media which is purposefully sexually arousing."


I'd rather go with "recording of sexual activity". I somewhat wish the industry wasn't trying to create it 'purposefully sexually arousing', you'd think it being a record of sexual activity would be enough. But then they include all these random fantasies of plumbers, bondage, anal sex and rape that honestly make no sense and I'm not sure how it contributes anything to the 'sexually arousing' part, in fact, it just makes these events seem "perfectly normal" and help support this type of deviant behavior.


Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
ktern wrote:
well, yes, actually

i don't agree with "guns don't kill people, people do" being used as an argument against gun control: there are violent people out there and they shouldn't have guns. but i think the phrase itself is true in the sense that people should be held accountable for what they do

monkey, i would wager that if you saw a pornographic video you would not be brainwashed into being a rapist. even if you saw several, it would probably not happen

now this doesn't make porn harmless, as i think it's one of several contributing factors that points people toward fucked-up morals. but i think that one of those factors is also the very perception that media can control you so thoroughly that the evil things you do might not be your fault. that lack of accountability gives people a perceived out which they shouldn't have, this way to justify their actions to themselves

maybe i'm missing what's unsatisfactory to you here but i don't really have much to work with, sorry


Pornographic videos were used extensively in my sexual abuse from age 11 to 14 actually.


Wait, what? Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 8 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group