for any of the anti-porn crowd

Several people have been down on the "messages" that porn sends to the "culture", reinforcing negative behavior. Despite the evidence presented against this claim, it just keeps coming.Okay, let's assume for a second that the claim is true. We can even assume that you are not down on sex in general, but how it is portrayed that makes it bad.1) What is your suggestion for FIXING the problem? Its easy to say "porn bad, end porn" but aren't there solutions short of the draconian measures this would entail?2) For the feminist side, perhaps you can show me the many examples of women making and enjoying sexually stimulating material which focuses on the intellect and maturity of men. Certainly if women wanted that, (as they like men, where men dislike women and so focus on bodies) we would see it somewhere and have some demographics to support it.Heheheh... I think I will rise to this challenge and start a website with those suggestions and examples. Seriously. I just had a major media project drop out from under me and am looking for something new to do.Women are a huge market force, and I would also assume so are nice regular people that don't enjoy being mean and hateful and hurtful to others. Thus if it really is what people desire... especially women... it ought to sell like gangbusters.Now I'm betting it goes belly up because most women get wet over the same things that get most guys hard. If intellectual sold to women Julio the swashbuckler would not be on bookcovers and movie posters Irving down in accounting would. So I'm actually looking at losing money on this.Anyone want to put money where there mouth is?

---

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

Whoops. I hit the wrong button. I actually meant this to be a general reply in the internet porn thread, and not its own new category.I suppose it can stand here, but if an EvC forum deity would be willing to erase this new thread and pop the message over, that'd be cool.

---

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

Pornography will always exist. Banning it will only drive it underground. If you think the prohibition of alcohol was a waste of time, just imagine what a ban on pornography will cause. Regulation really is the best route. Offering healthier outlets (notice I didn't say healthy) for acting out ones sexual desires is probably the way to go. All I ask is that society and laws do a better job at protecting young children from being exposed to sexually explicity material.I know that the OP wants opinions from the anti-porn crowd, but you know me . . .Q1:What is your suggestion for FIXING the problem? Its easy to say "porn bad, end porn" but aren't there solutions short of the draconian measures this would entail?A1:Like I said above, do a better job at limiting underage access to pornographic images. Also, the porn industry needs to do a better job at counseling their models to keep them from going too far down a destructive path. You will never eliminate porn, but making it safer for the models and the public would be a great step forward.Q2: For the feminist side, perhaps you can show me the many examples of women making and enjoying sexually stimulating material which focuses on the intellect and maturity of men. Certainly if women wanted that, (as they like men, where men dislike women and so focus on bodies) we would see it somewhere and have some demographics to support it.A2: Hehehe, you might as well sell video tapes of real sasquatches. Intellectual and mature men are rarer than Bigfoot. But really, the romance novel business is fuelled predominantly by femal consumers. You would think that even soft-porn within this genre would do well. Of course, there are soap operas . . .This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 06-28-2004 03:23 PM

appeals to a certain baseness in the human psyche and does not elevate the sexual act to the sublime it is meant to be, should be, can be, was created to be by a God who provided for all its facets to be enjoyed by two people committed to each other.
Porn is sex in its vilest form. Animalistic, not intended to offend animals who don't know better.

Sex is simply an activity that can be done. Period. It is also, basically, a pleasurable activity, much like eating. Unlike hunger, though, it seems to be an activity where the simple desire to egage in it itself evokes pleasurable feelings.But people, as the grow up, learn to associate various other, extaneous matters with sex. As a consequence, for any individual, sex will be pleasurable in certain contexts, and not pleasurable, perhaps even damaging, in other contexts.But assertint that there is an "intended meaning" to it, or that there is only a single context in which it is legitimate, doesn't, in my opinion, add anything to the conversation.

If it ain't broke...Or as Solomon said... This message has been edited by jar, 06-28-2004 03:37 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

PG, Not to give anything away, but most pornographic sexual acts are enjoyed by married couples. What makes something enjoyed by all vile, exactly, simply because it can be viewed by all? Then perhaps the shortsighted twat should have ensured it could only be enjoyed thusly. I can feel a global flood coming on. I am an animal, why should they get all the fun & a single animal species be excluded. You can chop it off if you want, mate, more totty for the rest of us (the Lord protect me from the almighty Schraf for that comment).MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-28-2004 03:43 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Too late, there's already replies! I couldn't recall her name and had to look this up, but in 1998 Wendy McElroy wrote a feminist defense of pornography. I only read a brief review at the time, not the book itself, but the arguments you're making sounded familiar and then I remembered the review.I just found an article she wrote(http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/mcelroy_17_4.html) that describes her position, but I don't have time to read it right now, but her position sounds similar to yours.I wonder if people's reaction to pornography isn't a) preprogrammed in, just part of their makeup; and b) context dependent, e.g., comfortable with a type of pornography in private but not public, or with one person but not another, et cetera across a large number of variables and permutations.--Percy

Why? And I do mean this seriously. What evidence provides an argument that children are harmed in some way by exposure to sexual imagery of any kind, especially to a degree that it necessitates their "protection" by laws or other mechanisms?Most lines of argument I have seen have the hidden premise "porn is bad" before building the syllogism that it must be harmful for growing minds.The fact is that kids (like adults) produce their own porn. They write and they draw and in the age of digital cameras they snap pictures and tape. It should not be surprising that kids will want to express their sexuality as adults do.Perhaps it is of extent of activity or nature of it? Okay, then what is that limit? Why should I not be concerned that a child see a couple kissing, but should if it involves tongues or is applied to a genital area?What kind of porn (defined as expression of sexual interests for stimulation) would be okay for kids to view? Certainly things like Teenbeat ARE porn for kids... especially for girls. Where do we draw the line on content? Because you have stats showing that models in porn have more issues than in careers outside of porn? Or is that just a stereotype?I'm not trying to jump down your throat with that question, but seriously asking why you think this is true to such a degree that that industry needs more help than others in that area.As it is I think all industries shoul be a bit more aware and helpful of employees that are having personal issues. Thus if we are talking about a site I'm running, it would include this. And often times look just as good. Bigfoot could be the smartest, nicest guy on the planet. Odds are he couldn't score a girlfriend.

---

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

which is sex in it vilest form. It loses semblance beginning with the 'p' and never going father than that.

Holmes, Excellent point.I remember an argument I had with my then girlfriend about this. I argued that children who were brought up seeing & understanding sex didn't suffer from it. Only kids that were "protected" from it were shocked when they finally discovered it. I pointed out that pre-civilisation children lived in the same room (as a general rule, certainly in Palestine in Jesus' day) as their parents & would have been privy to the humping. They're not stupid, they know what's going on, & anyone would have a hard time convincing me that all prehistoric humanity was touched in the head because they had witnessed wild orgasms.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Okay, but did God also not want them to put cream or sugar in their coffee? Why could this loving couple not make tapes of themselves, or paint pictures of themselves, to look at before, during, or after having sex?One wonders what the song of Solomon is doing in the Bible, if God did not want humans to dwell upon nor communicate the beauty of sex which he gave them.And that is what I am asking. For a Xian, what would be a design for good porn? Forget what the word currently symbolizes. What would be acceptable to God (or you) as an expression of one's sexual desires, to be used to heighten what one is enjoying in the proper context.

---

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

Percy, I also wonder if it's faddy, too. I remember not that long ago that women were allegedly being exploited by the porn industry & men in general (in context). I haven't heard that for a long time. Perhaps it's tied in with particular forms of feminism. Aren't men exploited, too?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

appeals to the voyeur nursed by porn. Have a daughter? Imagine it.
If it is right, it's right for her. Two three guys, you know?
But, let someone else's daughter.....

Thanks for the article. There are more than a few, though only a few well known pro-sex or pro-porn feminists.This is why I try to be careful not to use a blanket condemnation of all feminists or feminism, as it has definitely branched and grown.McElroy does not ring a bell with me, though it is possible I have read her writings at some point. Clearly we are of the same mind... and data.Two of my bigger influences have been Annie Sprinkle and Betty Dodson. I also had a great link to a book online (it was a full book online) going through the porn debate, by a woman that believes as Wendy and I do (with some heavy references if I remember right). If I can find it again, I'll post it. This is a good question. I don't think it's hardwired in, though "preprogrammed" may be close, given personal experiences.I don't have issues with people that do not like porn. In fact there is stuff that I find repellent. My big problem is people knocking others' tastes as if it means something bigger than that.And I am really unsure where that comes in. Sure, one can feel sick to one's stomach when seeing two people naked (or lets say a DS vid), but what drives the ambition to wipe that image from the minds of others?I dunno.

---

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