Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,877 Year: 4,134/9,624 Month: 1,005/974 Week: 332/286 Day: 53/40 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   For those concerned with Free Speech (or Porn), it is time to get active.
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 304 (220501)
06-28-2005 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by robinrohan
06-28-2005 2:03 PM


Re: A different thought
quote:
Master/slave implications.
Perhaps I need to do more *ahem* research on this. Unfortunately, what little porn I have seen since my post-adolescent porn days has been a few short clips and a few still pictures -- very little suggestive of a master/slave relationship, but perhaps I need to see the entire context.
But certainly the films I saw in their entirety -- back in the bad old Linda Loveless days, incidently -- I saw no overt master/slave relationships. Women were as likely to be initiators as men, and I remember very little in the way of dominant/submissive relationships in the sexual acts. But perhaps this is a case of selective memory.
I am not disputing the notion that the pornography at that time, or even today, is degrading -- other people here seem to know more about that than I. I am just curious as to what makes some porn degrading, and whether these features are as prevalent as is being implied.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by robinrohan, posted 06-28-2005 2:03 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by coffee_addict, posted 06-28-2005 2:38 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 304 (220503)
06-28-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Modulous
06-28-2005 2:15 PM


Re: A different thought
That's interesting. Most of the women I discussed this with (including a now ex-girlfriend and my sister) are quite porn-negative.
On the other hand, back in my high school and college days, I rarely saw a porn film where the audience did not include women brought by their boy friends.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Modulous, posted 06-28-2005 2:15 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by nator, posted 06-28-2005 6:15 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 304 (220516)
06-28-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by robinrohan
06-28-2005 2:56 PM


Re: A different thought
Oh God! Now someone is going to post a picture!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by robinrohan, posted 06-28-2005 2:56 PM robinrohan has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 304 (220534)
06-28-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by gnojek
06-28-2005 4:01 PM


Re: Ted Bundy
Well, that's one concern out of the way.
Do you watch the porn that has all those underage illegal immigrants?
Do you feel the urge to go on a serial killing rampage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by gnojek, posted 06-28-2005 4:01 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by gnojek, posted 07-05-2005 6:01 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 304 (220560)
06-28-2005 6:11 PM


curious reasons
So, it appears that no one seriously believes that the use of minors in pornography is a serious issue. Not does it appear that the use of illegal immigrants is much of an issue.
I still haven't heard anyone from our local anti-porn crowd comment on our law enforcement officials' use of spurrious reasoning to justify laws that are clearly meant to harrass a specific target.

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 304 (220570)
06-28-2005 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by nator
06-28-2005 6:15 PM


Re: A different thought
quote:
...which doesn't mean they exactly wanted to be there.
Hello, schraf.
Yes, I am aware that their presence didn't mean that they wanted to be there. On the other hand, this was when we were all in high school and college, and a lot of the attraction to pornography at this time was plain old curiosity -- this was in the late 70s and early 80s when there was very little explicit sexuality anywhere. I simply point out the possibility that some of these young women may have been as motivated by curiosity about sexuality as most of us men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by nator, posted 06-28-2005 6:15 PM nator has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 304 (220574)
06-28-2005 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by CK
06-28-2005 6:51 PM


Re: Framing the debate
You're British, right? Let me inform you that here in the US, once the topic turns to sex people's brains pretty much turn off, and there is a good chance of outright hysteria setting in (especially when the topic is teen sex). It is pretty difficult to have a serious conversation about sex in this country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by CK, posted 06-28-2005 6:51 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by CK, posted 06-28-2005 7:03 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 304 (220578)
06-28-2005 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by CK
06-28-2005 7:03 PM


Re: Framing the debate
That is funny -- here in the US it is so important to compare how much we earn with each other that we tatoo our salaries on our foreheads. (My paycheck is about $2200 a month after taxes, by the way.)
I actually have no opinion on whether or not porn is demeaning to women. I find what others have to say about it interesting. However, even if the majority of porn that is currently produced is demeaning, I figure that is simply part of being in a culture that is still intrinsically patriarchal. The solution, in my opinion, is to work toward a society that really does respect and value women as equal human beings (and pointing out misogyny in porn may be a part of this) -- then erotic art would naturally transform into a healthier expression of human sexuality -- fit, perhaps, even for children.
At any rate, I have never understood why those who are sincerely concerned with the well-being of women want to solve the "porn problem" by giving political power to a movement that is so overtly antagonistic to the well-being of women.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by CK, posted 06-28-2005 7:03 PM CK has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 304 (220744)
06-29-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by docpotato
06-29-2005 3:09 PM


Re: Porn good bad or neutral
quote:
...Whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
Well, at the risk of earning some peoples' displeasure, I will say that this is a fairly accurate description of a lot of the porn I have seen. So someone obviously finds it stimulating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by docpotato, posted 06-29-2005 3:09 PM docpotato has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 304 (220756)
06-29-2005 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Modulous
06-29-2005 3:32 PM


Re: The porn industry
quote:
However, regardless of the morality of porn, it is legal. The government is stepping in to a legal industry, increasing the bureaucracy and making it almost impossible for the smaller business to keep up; ruining them.
This, of course, is the main point of holmes' OP. Those pushing the law are (cynically and hypocritically, in my opinion) saying that the laws are necessary to prevent the use of minors and illegal immigrants in the making of pornography. Yet, in all of this thread, no one has even claimed that child exploitation in pornography, or the use of illegal immigrants, is a huge problem that needs to be addressed, let alone that the specific laws mentioned in the OP are the correct way to go about them.
And it was also mentioned before that these laws may end up having very little effect on the larger businesses that produce much of the porn that is claimed to be demeaning while shutting down smaller businesses and amateur outfits that could produce a healthier and more diverse form of erotica.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2005 3:32 PM Modulous has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 304 (221111)
07-01-2005 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by nator
06-30-2005 3:00 PM


Re: Schrafinator
quote:
It is really, really difficult to mentally combat all of that as a woman. It is relentless, everywhere, all the time.
Have you tried turning off the TV?
I'm not trying to be smart here. While it is true that these types of images are everywhere, they do seem to be more concentrated in certain areas of our culture, and certain types of media are more effective at promoting changes of attitude and expectations than others.
The only time I watch a lot of TV is when I visit my mother -- there isn't much to do in my old home town, and my mom has cable. When I am watching TV I can actually feel my attitudes and desires being manipulated -- in fact, they are changed, even though I recognize that they are changing. Fortunately, once I am back home they change back to normal.
I also note that studies done with women in East Asia seem to indicate that once American style advertising becomes the norm, women there also experience a drop in their self-esteem and body image. I don't normally watch much TV, and the only magazines I subscribe to are current events/political so I don't get a lot of advertising in my life.
At any rate, I do sympathize with you. As a chronically underweight male (when I was in my 20s I was 6'2" and weighed only 135 lbs) I, too, grew up with a poor self-image. As a child it was always foremost in my thoughts and really affected how I thought about myself and how I related with other people. I hope you find a way to overcome this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by nator, posted 06-30-2005 3:00 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by nator, posted 07-01-2005 4:31 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 304 (221992)
07-05-2005 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by nator
07-05-2005 7:05 PM


Re: Ted Bundy
quote:
Like, you think they're hot but you wouldn't want to have sex with them?
If you define hot to mean provoking a desire to have sexual intercourse with them, then this is indeed an oxymoron. Not an unreasonable definition.
By another reasonable definition for hot is to be visually attractive, eye-candy, and/or possessing charisma that together provokes a desire to enjoy their company.
I don't know which is the preferred definition, but for the past few years my libido has been exceptionally low -- I rarely feel the breeding urge any more -- yet I still find many women very, very attractive.
Either I am suppressing something; finding women attractive and feeling the urge to have sex are different neurological systems; finding women hot and wanting to have sex with them are different learned behaviors; or some combination of these.
(Signed) A happily celibate Chiroptera who still enjoys women.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by nator, posted 07-05-2005 7:05 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by nator, posted 07-05-2005 7:35 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 304 (222000)
07-05-2005 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by nator
07-05-2005 7:35 PM


Time to change the subtopic.
That may be true. That may be the intention, and perhaps most men do want to have sex with those women. However (at the risk of sharing too much) I have checked out the links provided in this thread, and I often run across a porn site when I am web surfing, in which case I will linger a bit to see what's in it, so I can't say that I find naked women or people having sex to be uninteresting. Yet, I can truthfully say that I, personally, do not feel any particular desire to have sex with them myself. I wonder what this means?
Anyway, my condolences to you, but my congratulations to your spouse. Myself, I am at the point where I am going to have to admit that the dissertation is not going to happen and withdraw from the program sans PhD. But, having experience graduate school twice and not enjoyed one aspect of it, I will agree that graduate school is evil.
Edited to correct a major typo.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 06-Jul-2005 12:03 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by nator, posted 07-05-2005 7:35 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by nator, posted 07-05-2005 8:02 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024