DescentBB

Drak, great post as usual. After your eloquent posts you usually vanish into thin air, letting hubby hang on to your reins , alas this one was no exception.

Goob, also great post. You put into words what i sadly can't express. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Maybe i'm just not a teenager anymore who needs to vilify an opposing opinion. One dosn't agree with porn, then fine, so choose to live your life without it. And visa versa.

Bash will probably get pissed off with me now 'cause i'm fence sitting.

Flabby Chick wrote:Maybe i'm just not a teenager anymore who needs to vilify an opposing opinion. One dosn't agree with porn, then fine, so choose to live your life without it. And visa versa.

Yea, well, things change when the opposing opinion is head of the department of justice and trying to enforce it on everybody else.

I'll try to be extremely careful in what I say here. It really hasn't been a very good topic to begin with and I've hesitated to post since this started turning into a flame war between Bash and Tetrad. Also Drakona's post put into perspective some things and I didn't want to post full out without taking a day or two to think about how I really felt on the matter and be able to post something without hurting her feelings.

It is a sad fact that the majority of men treat women as objects. To me, I think that regradless of pornography, some men would still treat women as objects, so I don't really think that porn is the problem, more of an extension of the problem. Does it teach young men to treat women inappropriately? Perhaps, but I'm of the opinion that men can watch porn, or view pornographic material and still treat women with respect. The men who objectify women most likely would have done so regardless of the material they've seen.

A good comparison would be the whole issue regarding youth violence being induced by violent materials such as in movies, music & video games as well as other media. This is another topic in and of itself but I'm of the opinion that these individuals would have found some reason for doing what they do despite the fact that they've seen, heard, or played violent media. Anyways, back on topic...

When it comes right down to it, what I was defending in my earlier post was not "hardcore porn" or any of the other outlandish pornographic material that is available. Although I have no problem with some hardcore porn and do admit that I've watched and/or watch it, but purely for masturbatory reasons and nothing more. I have no shame in admitting that and I do not feel that I treat women any differently because of it. This doesn't mean that I'm not willing to change my habits but as it stands right now, I'm a single male in my mid 20s, so I'm far from perfect.

To take a page from Woody's book though, the pornography that I was refering to the most was somewhere in the range of softcore. We've already established that just an image of a nude woman or man constitutes as pornography, though I'll add even without the suggestion of sex. Nakedness in our society almost implies sexual behavior, unfortunately. Being an artist and studying the human form and also being a man, I find women to be the most beautiful form of all, clothed or natural.

I don't think that is wrong of me to have such thoughts since it is in our nature, usually, to be attracted to the opposite sex. If this tends to objectify women then I guess my whole arguement falls apart. In my mind however, women displayed tastefully in the nude is a symbol of what men desire, a compliment if you will. Sometimes it can be an acknowledgment of man's respect for the beauty of a woman. *shrug* I'm finding it hard to put into words how I'm feeling at this moment so, hopefully you all are still following me at this point...

I guess what I'm saying is that when it comes down to it, the display of nudity or the display of sexual acts is all an expression of our humanity in some form. The way it is presented by some people may not be the most attractive thing to look at but if it is done right (Not talking about hardcore porn here) it can be the most beautiful thing in the world. Basically I'm mostly looking at the artistic side of nudity or sex.

The things that our government should focus on as far as regulations, going back to my first post, are very obvious to the vast majority of us. There are those extremists, which I believe Ashcroft to be, who think any and all things sexually oriented should be illegal and banned. Maybe in some foreign country under a dictatorship or monarchy, but this is the United States of America and as an American I believe we have the right to be able to view other consenting adults engaging in sexual activity, simulated or otherwise, in the privacy of our own homes if we choose to do so.

This whole thing effects art that can constitute as porn as well, and when it comes to this matter it is something that I get passionate about. I don't need some guy in a suit telling me that I can't draw naked women or men for the sake of the human form or better development of artistic ability, or, that I can't view material done by other artists that might be considered pornographic as well.

This is what this issue boils down to, for me. I agree with Bash in the fact that I don't think it will go that far and that Ashcroft is just rattling the cages so to speak but as I stated in my first post, I think that our government could be spending OUR money on more important issues. With a puritan extremist such as Ashcroft though, we could be wrong and he is going after everything HE feels indecent.

What he feels is indecent is something that the rest of us, which has already been proven here, might feel is a little overboard but that is the great thing about this country. We are entitled to our own ideals and nobody can force on us otherwise. I'd like to keep it that way. There could be some fine tuning of course, but everyone wants whats best for themselves and others like them anyways

Also, for those of you that keep ranting about spam containing adult content as your main arguement against porn (Will). Spam in general is the problem, it isn't just the porn spam. However YOU are ultimately responsible for you're own computer and family and the content they view CAN be prevented. Again, turn previews off so the content within is not displayed. Make sure your mail browser has a good filtering system (Mozilla Mail, Eudora, others...) and have it delete the junk mail that does not apply to you.

Enforce to your children that mail they do not recognize should be deleted instantly, or if you prefer, left unviewed by them until you can personally view the title and/or sender before you delete it if it is something you don't recognize. It really isn't that hard.

Anyways, I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes here.

Drakona, I want to make it perfectly clear that when I stated "It doesn't hurt anything" I merely meant that you watching it as a person doesn't and shouldn't effect the daily lives of your neighbors since what they do in their own homes shouldn't be any of your business as well. Unless they're bad people to begin with and there is a reason for you and the rest of the neighborhood to know whats going on.

Tetrad, all Lothar and Bash want you to be is honest and explain YOUR opinion on the matter and WHY you feel the way you feel about it. Instead of hiding behind someone elses opinions formed from researching inside the "industry" where the opinions are going to be biased anyways. The reason I feel you keep holding back and are so defensive is because you know there are materials you view that would seem extremely distasteful to the vast majority of us and you feel ashamed about it.

P.S. TheCops, don't rant on about this and that and do nothing as well in other threads then post for others to do something about what they're ranting about. Now that is a Cop-out in my opinion

Tyranny wrote:....Also, for those of you that keep ranting about spam containing adult content as your main arguement against porn (Will). Spam in general is the problem, it isn't just the porn spam. However YOU are ultimately responsible for you're own computer and family...

I understand how to handle it, and did.

I use the example of the spam not as what I think the problem is...but as an example of the overall increase of the 'in-your-face' attitude of most vendors of porn, not just internet sources.
Just today I saw a large van with a mural painted on the side of it, the picture was of three hot young things wearing spike heels and not much more. The words on the van were "SUM POOSIE"...

I don't know what they were really selling but I know what it looked like they were selling.
I'm not sure what my answer would be to my daughters if they saw it and asked what SUM POOSIE was.
I'm also not sure I should have to answer that so somebody could use some poosie to sell what ever the hell it is they are selling!

I just think people are pushing the envelope faster and farther than society is willing to go and thus Ashcroft gets some traction.

Final thought is: Quit complaining about Ashcroft because you asked for it!

Tyranny, I don't feel 'ashamed' about my porn viewing habits.

Look at it this way. I feel, like you do, that what I do in the privacy of my home is my own business, and nobody else's. Likewise, I don't care, nor do I think it's my business to know what you or anybody else do in theirs. Therefore, I don't think that what I do is meaningful to the discussion at hand, nor do I really care that you think that me beating it off to whatever subgenre is a bad thing.

And Will, what did I do to ask for it? Did I send out spam, talk dirty on national TV, or even give people porn without them asking for it?

Okay, how's this for an opinion: Some porn does objectify women, sure. You could even say it promotes hate. But how is this any different from any other form of free speech, other than the fact that sex is involved? I can read books about the fact that Jews are an inferior species, or that men are vile creatures. Why can't I watch a women being treated as an object in porn?

I should have said those that think it should be flaunted asked for it, I don't know about you personally.

Why do women wear those skimpy outfits in public if they don't like being objectified?

If you want somthing to look at, get a load of these coloured chicks man!!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3615191.stm

Tsk, tsk, Flabby, they are *chicks of color*.

Why do women wear those skimpy outfits in public if they don't like being objectified?

As presented by Ferno and others, they would have us believe women dress to be solely provacative in a sexual context. I suppose these self same men, along with their islamic counterpart, would have females dress in a sack shaped burka just so certain uncontrollable lusts can be better contained. Ferno would have us believe that rape is not the mans fault but rather the slut with the short skirt and low cut blouse being too "provacative" (Don't worry Fern, there are plenty of women who think this also)

Like porn, we have to define what provacative is. For example would one be aroused at the sight of a way obese woman in short-shorts and bikini top? Or the same outfit on a women with severe anorexia? I think not. So provacative has to be more than the clothes a woman wears. Look at a model attractive woman dressed in baggy slacks and and flannel shirt and I suspect most guys would find her alluring. Have her profess a interest in you and I suspect most guys would start getting weak kneed. Lustful thoughts would start entering the hind brain and, well... I think you get the picture.

This thread is hilarious. Fundies go on about how porn degrades women because of how they're depicted as "sex objects". Tell me then....how are they being degraded when they CHOOSE to be screwed on camera? Why do women continue to write erotica and sell it in plain sight in just about any bookstore? Hell, women write the majority of erotica. Don't believe me? Compare the sheer ammount of romance novels in comparison to everything else. Gee, could it be that they get off on it just as much as guys do? Take a trip to any porn shop and look at how many different types of dildos and vibrators compared to how many "fake vaginas".

-People will do anything if the money is right.
-Erotica/romance is not pornography.
-The abundance of dildos is likely there for men to purchase for use with their partners. Afterall, women buy alot of condoms but you don't find many with a hidden penii.

bash wrote:-People will do anything if the money is right.

Yes, but it is still a CHOICE. Tell me where they are being forced to pose or get screwed on camera. I don't see anyone holding a gun to their heads making them do anything.

-Erotica/romance is not pornography.

Yes it is. What wonderful logic you have there bash. Saying erotica isn't porn is like saying cocoa crispies aren't rice crispies just because they're a different flavor.

-Men are more likely buying the dildos.

Prove it.

Disprove it.

Note: The previous post was refined prior to your reply.

bash wrote: -Men are more likely buying the dildos.

counter worker looks at guy. counter worker looks at toys. counter guy thinks 'i'm just gonna do my job...'

here, try this on for size.. go up to a guy on the street and ask him if he bought a dildo.

It's been rare occasions where I've been in a sex shop but by and large the clientele has been exclusively male. Women are more likely to get those things as *gifts*, gag or otherwise, and probably go male order if they're buying for themselves. That said, I don't consider sex aids to be pornographic anyway.

bash wrote:It's been rare occasions where I've been in a sex shop but by and large the clientele has been exclusively male.

so you've only seen the exception, not the norm.

Oh, so you've been in sex shops populated exclusively with females? Riiiight.

actually i've seen a few.

and stop your damn editing..

Hate to break it to you but they were probably *working girls*.

Anyway, getting back to it, a dildo is not pornographic.

they were working the cash register.

bash wrote:Anyway, getting back to it, a dildo is not pornographic.

you're the one that brought it up.

Read. I was disputing MD's claim.

nice dodge.

Zuruck wrote:YOu'd learn how to please your woman a bit better than just getting on top for five minutes and finishing off

You know, I was playing an RPG the other day in which I was an uber-fighter wielding two swords at once, and at the end of some long quest, this monster comes up to me and says, "You'll be sorry you picked a fight with me, you fool!" and attacked. I looked him up and down and (with a smirk, I might add) estimated that a solid hit from my main weapon would be more than enough to finish him. Sure enough, before he could so much as take a step, my off-hand attack whistled through thin air above his corpse. I could only laugh at the irony of his statement, and the sheer height of his foolishness in attacking me.

There are times when someone defiantly takes on such overwhelming forces that you can only conclude they must be deluded. This is one of those times. I could tell you about how Lothar told me about your post at lunch yesterday, and we laughed over it. I could tell you why it's a bad idea to knock on the door to our apartment, even in the middle of the day. I could tell you where we were when we discussed various points people have made in this thread, just now. I could even tell you I intended to respond to your post last night, but ironically, couldn't manage it because I had been taken quite far out of commission by the man you propose to teach how to "please his woman." Instead of all that, how about I just tell you this: You're (apparently) the sort who considers encounters with the computer screen a significant component of your sex life, and you're teasing a young, healthy married couple about their sex life. As gracefully as it can possibly be said... this is not a fight you want to pick. Trust me.

(FC is right about me skipping out on threads, though, and I do promise that a more serious response to everyone else is in the works, and has been in the works for a couple days; this is a difficult topic for me to write about, and this thread has moved awful fast. In the mean time, I just couldn't resist this one.)

Tyranny wrote:The men who objectify women most likely would have done so regardless of the material they've seen.

Actually I think this has more to do with their upbringing and what their father taught them rather than any sociological influences.

so in a sense, I agree with what you said Tyr.

The only reason I said that was because men have objectified women long before sexual acts were able to be captured on film. Like I said, pornography is an extension of an already existing problem. However, depending on the type of person you are and the way you were raised, most forms of pornography should not and do not change your opinion about the women around you.

I was raised to always treat women with respect. As such I find myself going out of my way to be very kind and respectful as is required of a gentleman, which I "try" to be for the most part. This is something I take great pride in, the fact that I can brighten someones day, female OR male, just by being kind and courteous.

You know, I really hate using the term "pornography" all the time, because it includes such a HUGE body of material that could all classify as such. This is one of the main reasons why, though long winded, I had such a hard time writing my last post. This is also why I think this will be my final thought on the matter.

I'm still trying to make it clear that I'm not defending what I think the majority of you consider to be porn. What most of us think of when we think of porn. I'm defending art, painted, sketched, modelled, etc....that could be considered or constitute as porn. Not the mainstream ideal of pornography as an artform.

In all honesty, to answer Ferny's earlier question about why certain girls dress the way they do. It isn't as simple as just objectifying themselves, which, lets be serious here, they are objectifying themselves for the sake of drawing attention. Maybe not so much on a conscious level, but subconsciously some of them dress the way they do because they know they have the features that men pay attention to.

We as men though tend to make more of it then there really is sometimes. There are times where they wear stuff that would draw our attention just for the sake of wearing it and nothing more. Just because it draws our attention doesn't mean they were trying to in the first place. We have this complex about being the center of attention sometimes, that it is all about us. That couldn't be further from the truth IMO.

So, it is a two way street sometimes and I think that is why for a lot of men, women are very confusing because on the one hand, they DO dress to get our attention "sometimes" and on the other hand they don't, but they get it anyways, you follow me?

Tyranny wrote: they are objectifying themselves for the sake of drawing attention. Maybe not so much on a conscious level, but subconsciously some of them dress the way they do because they know they have the features that men pay attention to.

I could not agree with you more. this also explains why good looking women are seen driving BMW's and similar expensive cars. they know they have power over men and they take advantage of it. it's a little twisted but that's what happens.

Ty, to expand on your post a bit, most folks, male or female, desire attention to bolster their self-image. If a woman strips down so far as to draw attention from everyone she meets, it's as much an indicator of low self-image as any desire to signal an invitation for intimacy (unless she's a hooker, of course). The other aspect is a woman may indeed be seeking attention but it isn't necessarily across the board. A woman's *exposure* is generally targeted. She is hoping to attract the attention of a certain man or a certain type of man. It's just incidental that the rest see it, too.

have you met a good looking woman (one that drives the BMW) that has high self-image Bash?

and this time, answer the question. don't pull your tricks again.

don't pull your tricks again.

Never expect him not to.

bash wrote:Disprove it.

Note: The previous post was refined prior to your reply.

You made the assumption, YOU back it up. However, since I know you won't, maybe I should bring up that there is a sex toy shop just a mile away from campus. I go there with my girlfriend atleast every week or so to pick up a few things. She'll sort through the vibrators and other toys to tease me with. I won't go into any great detail because I might shock some of the folks here that can't handle anything from the REAL world, but lets just say they involve electricity...and I'm not referring to the need for AA's. Anywho, I'll pick up a box of condoms and maybe a gag gift or two, and we're on our way out. The times I've been there, the clientelle were atleast 75% women. This wasn't in a bad part of town either. Those that have been around Sycamore View Rd. and Summer Blvd. in Memphis will tell you the same thing. Hell, theres a damn elementary school just two miles down the road from it.

Now, can I take your concession now or will you FedEx it later to me?

Oh, before you bring up their looks, maybe I should play the edit game you seem to like to play and mention that these weren't "working girls". Granted, they were NICE looking, but they weren't wearing skimpy outfits either. Nor were they wearing something covering EVERYTHING you could possibly look at up. These were just everyday looking women buying stuff to bring them pleasure. (like its a crime to do so... )

What part of *sex aids are not pornographic* do you not understand?

bash wrote:What part of *sex aids are not pornographic* do you not understand?

What part of debate instead of dodge do you not understand? Hell, why don't you back that up while you're at it? Don't you dare say "you back it up" to me since YOU made the assertion that sex toys AREN'T pornographic. Stop dodging and back yourself up, or go back to ignoring threads when you get your ass kicked.

Drakona wrote:You know, I was playing an RPG the other day in which I was an uber-fighter wielding two swords at once, and at the end of some long quest, this monster comes up to me and says, "You'll be sorry you picked a fight with me, you fool!" and attacked.

i'm gonna blow my head off.

Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write
1 : the explicit depiction of erotic behavior (in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or photographs) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

Granted, perhaps the packaging of said items could be accurately described as *pornographic* but sex aids themselves fall outside the confines of both the textbook definitions of *pornography*, as well as the topic of this thread.

But we digress...

bash wrote:3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

Now lets think about that for a second here bash. What is a dildo used for? Its sure as hell not meant as a conversation piece....

bash wrote: 3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

yea like i'm gonna walk into a sex shop, and pick up a dildo to write an essay with it.

Main Entry: de·pict
1. To represent in a picture or sculpture.
2. To represent in words; describe.

I guess you could stretch it to say a dildo *depicts* a male sexual organ but there is nothing inherently pornographic about either the male sexual organ or depictions of it.

Digressing further...

Oh I dunno about that...

you can post definitions all you like Bash. it won't help you any.

all foam, no beer.