Sexual expression: your opinion

I believe we all have a fundamental need for this kind of expression, though it may take many different forms. I also believe such expressions are a human right.It's intriguing that many "liberals" who believe that sexual orientation should not be discriminated against, often find sexualities they do believe should be discriminated against, and totally right off sexual expression as having anything to do with sexuality and sexual orientation.There is nothing which can be exhibited, no matter how odious to anyone, which can actually hurt the exhibitor. There is nothing which can be read (or viewed), no matter how odious to anyone, which can harm the audience.There may be legitimate questions of abuse in anything that involves humans interacting with other humans, especially if it is a for profit enterprise. So regulations are not inherently useless, or undesirable, regarding how "expressions" can be created... even if almost all in effect today are.Although there is no need for constraints on public expressions (as can be seen in places like Amsterdam where even bestial porn is visible to kids on the streets), there might be a reason to come to consensual agreements on what we will bar from public expression, just so people can get around without overtly offending others.I think a fair trade would be no blatant sexual activity in public, for no blatant religious activity in public. Those are both highly personal and highly charged forms of expression and so capable of offense. Though like I said, this is not necessary. I enjoy living in an area where people can see and show pretty much whatever they want.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm not sure I'd be trusting a survey by Durex on anything. That's like quoting a collection of Late Edition viewer's polls.However at Schraf's link was another link discussing the results of studies (better collections of research anyway) on the effects of sex. Sex keeps you healthy, and frequent sex makes you healthier (listed are some highlights)... Do it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I already have a thread on that exact topic. Yes the US is cracking down on porn already.My original thread was discussing the tightening of record keeping regulations in order to drive most people (except major corporations) from communicating using sexually graphic imagery.Over the last year the US has created an FBI taskforce to begin targeting adult porn businesses in order to hobble the industry.The reasons given are that it harms society because it does. That is all. There have already been govt studies which show that it doesn't, so that is no longer the question. It just does, contrary to all evidence.The religious fanatics at least have the excuse that they say their God says it is bad, which he never did and indeed Jesus defended a prostitute from state sanction in one of the more famous passages of the Bible. But hey, maybe he changed his mind. They say it is immoral, sinful, and so bad.The nonreligious antiporn fanatics, are usually zealots belonging to a wing of feminism. In this case they have anecdotal evidence, which apparently trumps scientific evidence. And they seem to run with the logic, we all agree that sex is bad (or men are bad) so pictures of it must be hurting women somehow.Yes, these are somewhat caricatured, but in fact what the arguments boil down to.Oh wait, they also all scream that this somehow protects children and that is a great way to defend any policy, especially when one has no evidence besides contrary evidence including about kids being harmed.No, none of them have a right to do what they are doing. But they are doing it anyway.America is not the only region affected by this growing antisex hysteria. It is sweeping the globe.I have no idea what the long term effects will be. Much the same (if they succeed) as any other repressive regime has for whatever amount of time they stay in power. People will be miserable until a large enough group wakes up to the fact that they don't have to be miserable. Its happened before in history and it'll happen again.I guess the only difference this time is that unlike past times in history globalization is going to prevent people today from moving away to escape oppression. There is actually a possibility of wiping out an entire form of communication from existence. Sexual expression is rated as equal to or more damaging than expressions of violence, and at any rate more damaging than nonsexual communication by people that are not rational. Unfortunately that appears to be a mounting majority.It is a cultural hysteria, but finding a home across all cultures. It is not religious, as religion can support all viewpoints (St Augustine argued for legal prostitution after all). However, it was driven by those using religion and believe it has a basis in their "true" religion. Unfortunately it also found a home among nonreligious feminist and liberal movements. Much of the hysteria can be traced back to the Progressive Movement in the late 1800s. They believed we could make society better, perfect, and because they were prudes they believed sex had to be removed to some degree to achieve such perfection.In away this is just a reemergence of the Victorian era, with atheists and theists joining together to hate sex once again... except for the sex that THEY like of course.I am hoping that it will change back in my lifetime but I doubt it. We have to hit rock bottom first. Just like the witch trials, just like Prohibition, just like the McCarthy red scare.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

There are no intrinsic bad effects with sex. That is what we were built to do and enjoy.Blaming sex for STDs is like blaming breathing among others for Pneumonia.Of course like anything else, one can damage onesself during a physical act. But that's an accident, and not part of the process.It is true that pregnancy can be a result and pregnancy can be life threatening. Of course it has been shown that the earlier in life a girl gets pregnant there is an added protection against breast cancer. Not sure what the trade off is.Pregnancy itself is life altering, but that is not a bad effect unless that is how you want to view it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

We can keep using this thread, unless this is going to get to detailed to your overall topic. You call the shots. The following three links discuss the formation of the new FBI taskforce, as well as the efforts by this administration (starting back under Ashcroft) to go after porn.http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../09/19/AR2005091901570.htmlMSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest VideosXtreme MeasuresThey don't view the income as legitimate, thus the tax revenue is besides the point. I'm sure there is something so egregious to you personally that no matter how much it made in tax money you wouldn't want it to exist as a legal entity. I don't know about Ireland but the US had Prohibition, where the entire liquor industry was pushed underground. Of course people that hate porn might say yes as well and point to the slave industry. The east had its own sexual taboos, but was not as hysteric about sexuality until Western nations came in and told them they had to be. We've been driving their moral systems ever since we gained financial and military advantage over them.Japan has a real interesting history regarding sexual expression. It used to be totally free. Then after we took over we imposed our own rules against graphic sexual imagery. Eventually sex was allowed to be shown but the naughty bits had to be censored. Of course they did not have the child sexual phobia that we had so they produced lots of child porn which they just thought was normal. Young kids also had the benefit of no pubic hair so they didn't have to be blurred.Within the last 10 years there was major pressure applied to them to change their laws so that they would match the rest of the world, show the naughty bits but do not show kids in a sexually stimulating way, or that they might like sex. Eventually they caved on the age issue, destroying rather large industries they had, but are still working on removing the original laws we forced on them to not show the naughty bits.Of course one of the answers to this change was the rise of Manga/Hentai which involves quite a bit of childpornish elements in cartoon form.From what I understand recently Cambodia's leader announced a war on porn in his nation and apparently that includes sex educational material. Good job!China tried to wipe out the Opium industry which the west used to rake in massive profits. The west shoved it down their throat until they didn't need the money anymore. Now the west tells everyone else not to do drugs, especially opium derived.Hmmmmmmmmmm.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Of course you are absolutely right. And intriguingly Bush and Co passed legislation so that no one from the US can go to a foreign country and have sex with someone below 18 (nevermind that within the US you can do that), yet they appear to staunchly defend the right of corporations to leave the US in order to get past US child labor laws.Yes, the signal is clear, children should not be sexually molested as that might interfere with their making my new shoes and a shitload of money for some millionaire. I am sure that in theory there is something that would offend my tastes enough that I would want it shut down.Although I honestly don't see why it could not be done safely with some oversight, I guess I am relatively amenable to not allowing a childporn industry. Its not so much the sex that is what would offend me, but I don't like people making loads of money off kids, and there is a reasonable argument it could encourage abuse... although I would love to hear why this would be so much more horrible than the abuse within the garment industry.I guess when one is wearing the products of child slavery, its less offensive than viewing it.To be honest I also would not mind putting a huge dent in the advertising industry as well as the televangelist industry.Oh yes... THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, though I would lump that in as accidental. Since it could happen in any other physical activity to lay that as something special on sex would be hypocritical. Dysfunction might be the right term. If their system was functioning, then they'd be sexually interested and active (though obviously everyone varies in how much). Then again this sounds like it could be used as a sort of judgement.Asexuality is a lack of orientation, but it could be considered a proper label and just as valid a behavior as those who have an orientation.The only truly dysfunctional people to me, in a sort of judgemental way, are those that have a functioning sexuality and then want to pretend they don't and that that is the inherent state of humans. Forced asexuality and the idea that that is innocence is to me one of the most perverse and malignant activties people can engage in.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I know it sounds that way because... unfortunately... western society has decided to judge things based on the norm of functions.Variation is fine but not truly accurate. I agree that within a functioning sexual system there will be a variety, a spectrum of drives. However it is true that a sexual reproductive system, when it is on and working will provide some sort of sexual drive. That is what they do.There are plenty of other systems which may not function in an individual, or function very slightly. I don't think it is an appeal to teleology to be able to measure when a system is functioning at all, or in very small amounts. Nor is it a judgement call. For example a low or high metabolism is not a judgement call. Self control and moderation is not what I was talking about. I meant people that actually pretend that sex is NOT natural and AGAINST what humans are or should be.Of course people with a totally different metaphysics than mine can say what they want. I was just saying what fit the judgemental dysfunctional definition for me.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I disagree with this. As long as a person doesn't feel they want something different, and thus their "deviance" is a "problem" to them, I don't think it matters what range of life's experiences a person will in fact experience. But we could go further. Bestiality, Pedophilia, Coprophilia, and plenty other sexual desires exist and add to the full range of sexual experiences. From time to time they weren't really even deviances. Would you be concerned to make sure to have those experiences?And the religious experience (experience of a higher power) is quite widespread. Is this something that you feel you would like to experience or that others are deficient for not having done so?Although I want as many experiences as I can, it is within the range of things I have an interest in. When I find interests that people have but I do not, and would not want, I do not feel I am missing out but instead am refreshed that life is so diverse and glad that others have different experiences.I can learn from them second hand if I wish, what their perspective delivers on the world.I had no heard of cisgendered.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Even for one's own partner? Some porn is made by married people of themselves. And a growing percentage of porn is watched by couples, specifically to spice up their own sex lives.Yes people lust when watching porn. But if you are interested in the spirit of laws, is using lust to make life with one's partner better really adultery?Indeed are you trying to say that Jesus was suggesting that ALL lust is adultery? Don't people lust for their partners during sex? I didn't say he sanctioned her actions. That was not my point at all. I was pointing out that Jesus, no matter what he thought of what people ought to do personally, specifically stated and set examples that people should not PUNISH or RESTRICT what others do.This thread was looking at state repression of sexual expression, not simply moral rules about such things.One might also mention he repeatedly admonished people not to judge one another. That is like the one thing I've never seen fundies put into practice. Is it too hard to remember? He derides this more than lust. I'm sorry, when did I say you could not have sex the way you want to, or express your sexuality the way you want to?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hey, long time no see.No I don't care to refine it, but I'll repeat it. There is nothing which can be exhibited, no matter how odious to anyone, which can actually hurt the exhibitor. There is nothing which can be read (or viewed), no matter how odious to anyone, which can harm the audience.In exhibiting or viewing snuff, how is the exhibitor or the viewer harmed?AbE: I might add that snuff isn't sexual expression, it's violence.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-25-2005 06:14 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think the cannibalism and consensual homicide cases are essentially the same issue. They are fantastic questions for social libertarians like myself. I honestly have not worked out exactly what the best solutions are for such cases, though I could give some opinions that I have right now...HOWEVER, these cases are not really about sex at all. Although they may have in passing involved some sexual elements, the active issue was power and violence and death. Killing is NEVER a sexual act, even if it may occur within a sexual act.Thus I think it is a bit wrong to throw it into the sexual expression question.Your BDSM question is certainly about sexual expression, though it does play with power and violence issues. Some practitioners may get so deep into it that they end up leaving behind sex to only deal with power and violence, but I don't think that's true for most practitioners.In any case, if the BDSM is consensual I think it shouldn't be controlled by the govt.By the way, you missed sexual asphyxia. That is undoubtedly, wholly sexual, yet may result in death.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Tricky. Still tricky. By exhibitor I meant someone showing something, not acting something out. Since the main subject was porn, I was trying to get at the fact that showing and viewing anything cannot cause damage. Okay in this I will address engaging in sexual acts, for porn or not. I assume we can agree that sex in front of a camera does not add risk.Sex does not inherently cause anything. Mistakes can cause injuries. Extreme sex acts which involve violence may increase the damage done. But these are mistakes that can happen anywhere, in any endeavour.As far as STDs go, sex does not cause disease, and one cannot hold sex responsible for the spread of disease. It is simply a vector like any other. We do not blame breathing for the flu and all the other fatal conditions for which breathing is a vector.Cooking/Eating is also a major vector for fatal conditions. But unlike sex, we do not blame it as an activity, but carelessness on the part of those that infect or are infected.I should note that it is pretty solid that John Holmes contracted HIV from drug use and not sex. This is not to suggest that people have not gotten HIV within the porn industry. Although it should be observed that when it did occur the spread was caught and ended because of testing, which does not occur OUTSIDE the porn industry. Hence it is pretty much safer having sex for porn than out in the real world. Well now that you see what I meant by exhibitor, I hope you can see that exhbitors of even snuff are not killed. Indeed I hope you are in agreement that no one can be hurt or killed showing or watching even snuff films.As far as creating, or acting out such scenarios, yes people are hurt or killed. Yes and no. There is sex and there is violence. One can be used to support the other. If the excitement is mainly in the beating and killing, and the sex is a side issue, then it is about violence and power and not sex.You find food erotic, and use food within sex, but I am sure you can determine whether someone is mainly interested in the eating or the sex.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I didn't say divorced from sexual feelings. People can combine all sorts of feelings as you point out.Killing is not a sexual act. It is an act of violence. That is correct, the same for the rest, except for perhaps shoe fetishism. I'm sorry, but if I get hot while watching someone fly a plane, that does not make flying planes a sexual act. It is simply a matter of definitions.And no matter how you look at it, the use of violence to enhance a sexual feeling (or act) is to use violence, and be excited by violence, it does not convert the act into sex.I'm not saying someone cannot derive sexual satisfaction from violence. Quite the contrary. I am just saying that the act and the enjoyment is of violence and power.Since you have mentioned snuff, as far as I understand that is pretty much an urban myth. There has never been any snuff producers caught nor prosecuted, or snuff material seized. Supposedly Larry Flynt, to disabuse this myth, offered lots of money for anyone to come up with some, and no one has.So that is a theoretical entity, beyond killers having killed on tape for their own amusement.Except perhaps recently, as soldiers from current conflicts have been trading and selling tapes and pix of their killing and torturing Iraqis (and perhaps afghanis). I think that does cross the line into a snuff industry. Intriguingly this is not being prosecuted by military officials, but any soldier trading imagery of themselves in a sexual manner ARE being prosecuted.Goes to show where modern US priorities are... snuff is allowed but sex is not.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm not saying that is not the case ever. But I presented two different cases involving porn which clearly do not involve lusting after another woman.You can blame all the rest, but what about the cases I outlined. Especially in the case where couples make their own it just seems absurd to suggest a person watching his own video is lusting after someone other than his partner.By the way, where do people like King David fit into all of this? Second chance to get this right. I did not say he wasn't for implementing some social sanctions (ostracism, lecturing, etc...), but he was clearly refuting punishing others in a corporal way.Can you admit this rather obvious point or not? What hallmarks of fanaticism? And how does it make me quasi-religious? It reads like you didn't like what I said and so are throwing names at me.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)