 sj |
||
|
||
What is wrong with pornography?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 May 10 - 06:00 AM No, I did not think it was enemy action on the board. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 May 10 - 06:24 PM Interesting. My solemn post of early this morning UK time has vanished. I wonder if the ghost of the ghastly Mary Whitehouse is abroad. [nothing deleted, Richard. It was one of those hiccups] |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Bill D Date: 24 May 10 - 05:31 PM "Porn" is like "folk"....there are lots of things lumped under one general term that may have very little in common. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: gnu Date: 24 May 10 - 04:43 PM I think it carpal tunnel syndrome. >;-) |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Joe_F Date: 24 May 10 - 04:15 PM Mousethief: I will be more specific. The only *general* answer I can come up with to the question posed is: nothing. Some things are wrong with some pieces of pornography, and other things are wrong with others, and nothing is wrong with yet others. My two efforts in that direction have gotten good review from the intended audience. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: JohnInKansas Date: 24 May 10 - 03:51 AM Lots of opinions about the fight over video formats. The point on which the "market" is given most credit is tied to who distributed the most "stuff" to people who then needed the machines to play the "stuff" on. The demand for, and distribution of, some particular "stuff" gave the edge on actual existence of hardware in the hands of users for VHS when it came time for the other formats to make their charge or retreat decisions. Other factors had much influence, of course, so giving too much credit in one place is still a little risky. Of course lots of those decisions were made at a time when very few people would admit that they had a player to watch "that stuff" on; but it seems that a lot of people old enough to have been participants in that era now seem a bit more willing to "come out" about it. That may be partly because the current generation more likely remembers that "daddy had that stuff" so there's a once-removed level of guilt. Hardly anyone - then - admitted that they bought a Polaroid Instant Camera for ... ... (but there's lots of "collectons" more recently exhibited). Of course I never did ... that kind of ... John |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 May 10 - 11:36 PM "It was early adoption of the VHS format by pornographers that lead ultimately to its adoption and the "death" of BetaMax." - That part is partly true, although it omits V2000, and also omits the fact that "legitimate" films by which in this case I mean films conforming to MPAA standards or UK cinema censorship certificated standards in VHS format largely drove much of VHS market penetration (no pun intended). In the UK it was the "video nasties" (think "Last House on the Left, Cannibal Apocalypse, Cannibal Ferox and a whole range of films that never quite aspired to the status of Tobe Hooper's classic "Texas Chainsaw Massacre") that also drove the market. I question the analysis that Betamax was the studios' captive format: it was the attempted fallguy in the US "Betamax" case that was the forerunner of the legal arguments that have since swung the other way for Pirate Bay, Napster, Grokster, Limewire, etc. It is however true that the availability of otherwise prohibited material did much to drive the early "video market" and also the internet. But the fact that money has been made that way is not necessarily a justification. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: JohnInKansas Date: 23 May 10 - 07:32 PM While "Its what the Internet is for" can be questioned, there is no argument, among those who've paid attention while it all happened, that without the influence of "porn" the internet would have waited much longer for a number of familiar features to be developed. One of the first claims that can be made is that porn distributors were the first, and for some time about the only, ones producing "movies on tape." It was early adoption of the VHS format by pornographers that lead ultimately to its adoption and the "death" of BetaMax. Had BM been the standard that survived, movies you could watch at home likely would have been much more expensive and available in fewer titles for decades, and since BetaMax was largely a "captive format" of the mainstream movie people the DRM rules likely would have been much less "gentle" to the users. ("gentle" being relative) Porn producers have also been active in the popularizing of CD and DVD formats and have been strong influences in what formats have come to market and which ones faded. To some extent they have lobbied, with some success, for more "end-user friendly" regulations than have been demanded by the "mainstream" music and video distributors. It is also generally accepted that pornographers were almost solely responsible for the development of early "online payment" schemes, and without their influence PayPal (and others of its ilk) likely would have come several years later. While few of the "survivors" are directly linked to the porn industry, it was porn that showed them how. Internet industry watchers are well aware that "porn sells" and that the "porn producers" have originated and strongly influenced the developing of a whole lot of things that the internet probably would not be able to provide in their absence. You don't really have to care about watching it in order to get significant benefit from the fact that it's enormously profitable, with lots of people working very hard at improving the means for producing and distributing it. John |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 May 10 - 07:06 PM IMHO the first problem in trying to discuss this topic is that the label "pornography" prejudges the issue. "Pornography" carries a connotation beyond a connection with things sexual (or sexual for some audiences - personally I don't get off on pictures of feet or of smoking (or stories about the same)). |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Micca Date: 23 May 10 - 02:03 PM According to Liz the squeak yesterday " Its what the Internet is for" I dont fully understand this, it had something to do with a U tube video!! |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Bill D Date: 23 May 10 - 11:30 AM ".....in some cases it may be beneficial...though I am not sure of the details on that." I am. When I worked in that adult bookstore 30+ years ago, I got to know some customers..(we were a 'friendly' place, and treated customers as people, not as perverts we were just using for profit). I had several guys tell me how thankful they were that they had this outlet....that their personal lives were 'problems', and that they worried what they would do otherwise. I saw dozens that I suspected felt that way. There were others who just appreciated that there were now books & films (1978..no digital stuff) tailored to THEIR tastes. We had a few female customers who appreciated being able to show an interest in certain things without being judged and 'labeled' for it. Even though the 'tasteless' products had their following, we learned that there was a ready market for creative, genuinely 'erotic' material also....even with a varied definition of 'erotic'...(kinda like "good music", ya know). Some societies are pretty open about sexuality, and have shown declines in sex crimes which are 'probably' related to reduced inhibitions and more freedom. It's all extremely complicated and relevant research is difficult...for obvious reasons... but I am convinced it needs to be done. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Ed T Date: 23 May 10 - 11:10 AM When my mind was wondering a few months ago...I noticed that if you join the star dots of one of the Hubble telescope space images, you can detect an outer space erotic image. So, I suspect pornography can be considered universal...if you look for it hard enough, and have an open mind. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Ed T Date: 23 May 10 - 11:07 AM I suspect that most of the issues are with some of the shady aspects of some of the pornography industry. If this is excluded, and if it is not in the face (so to speak) of those who are offended by it, I see no harm...in some cases it may be beneficial...though I am not sure of the details on that. Some parts of India the culture embraces pornography...again, if you care to call it that. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: goatfell Date: 23 May 10 - 10:02 AM ? |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Paul Burke Date: 23 May 10 - 09:51 AM usually referred to as "soft porn" but with a tongue in the cheek That depends on whose tongue is in whose cheek of course. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: mousethief Date: 22 May 10 - 09:15 PM Why would we want to read your pornography? How can a discussion about pornography be anything other than abstract? Would you have us look at 1000 pictures or read 1000 short stories and say of each one whether it's pornography or not? What good would that do? |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Joe_F Date: 22 May 10 - 08:45 PM I find the abstraction of this thread rather tedious, but am hesitant to get concrete in this forum. If anyone would like to read a pornographic story I wrote & posted on the Bears Mailing List in 1994, and tell me what is wrong with it, email me at joe_f@verizon.net. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: mousethief Date: 22 May 10 - 07:09 PM D'rather not, ta. I concede the use of "pornography" to mean pictures or words. The Word Book supports your use. Interestingly it appears the word was coined in 1857 or at least then first appeared in print. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 May 10 - 06:44 PM I know of no reason to say that that is so, mousie. Try asstr. Quite a lot of it is rather nasty. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: mousethief Date: 22 May 10 - 04:56 PM But ultimately the question is not what the etymology is in Greek, but how is the word used in English? Primarily it is used to refer to salacious pictures. Usually writing intended to induce the same kinds of feelings (albeit usually in the opposite sex) is usually referred to as "soft porn" but with a tongue in the cheek, at least originally. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Ebbie Date: 22 May 10 - 03:22 PM gnu, Donuel does not have a long history of explaining his statements. In this case, I hope he makes an exception to such an egregious assertion. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Richard Bridge Date: 22 May 10 - 03:05 PM Er - I don't think "graphos" is solely a pictorial referent. The verb "grapho" as used in new testament translations, appears to have the following meanings: - to write, with reference to the form of the letters to delineate (or form) letters on a tablet, parchment, paper, or other material to write, with reference to the contents of the writing to express in written characters to commit to writing (things not to be forgotten), write down, record used of those things which stand written in the sacred books (of the OT) to write to one, i.e. by writing (in a written epistle) to give information, directions to fill with writing to draw up in writing, compose Jong's comment, naturally, depends on what she was cogitating viewing, so in a sense it is self-defining, in its judgmental apprehension. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: gnu Date: 22 May 10 - 02:58 PM Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: gnu - PM Date: 21 May 10 - 06:15 PM Donuel... "gnu is either a woman or a man without testesterone." What does that mean? Sounds a rather sexist or nasty statement to me. Please explain why you would post such... on both counts. **************************************************************** So? |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: mousethief Date: 21 May 10 - 10:21 PM "pornography" comes from Greek, not Latin. "Pornaie" is hard to define -- it's translated in the KJV as "fornication" but one site I found online translated it as "things prostitutes do". "graphos" of course means drawing. So it's drawings of pornaie, whatever that is. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 21 May 10 - 09:34 PM A few years ago I heard Erica Jong interviewed on something like Fresh Air on National Public Radio. She wrote Fear of Flying and many other racy and/or erotic novels. She was asked about pornography, and her answer was excellent: "If I look at pornography for 10 minutes, I want to go have sex. If I look at pornography for 20 minutes, I never want to have sex again." SRS |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: olddude Date: 21 May 10 - 09:13 PM just read spaw's post on the catters sites. laughing my ass off ... classic spaw !!!! hey i didn't make your list |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 21 May 10 - 09:03 PM "I decry generalizations from those who have avoided it so well that they have little concept of what is there." Sure. There is interesting rudey stuff out there if you're willing to rummage about for it (I have mini library of so-called erotica including films), but MOST of it is still utter pants! |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Bill D Date: 21 May 10 - 06:44 PM from memory: pornography comes from a Latin word meaning "writing about prostitutes" As I have mentioned a couple times on other threads, I worked for over 2 years (30+ years ago) at an eclectic little 'adult book store' run by two highly educated women, (the store was called 'Cadmus', which gives you some idea. It had no red & yellow signs or flashing lights, and the front room was pretty tame.) I KNOW that there is a huge variety of 'adult' writing, film, photography, and 'toys'....from totally silly & tasteless (including niché genrés that are beyond comprehension) to amazingly complex and creative...I say this because I decry generalizations from those who have avoided it so well that they have little concept of what is there. As one who was semi-fascinated by Mickey Spillane and saw the first stack of "Lady Chatterly's Lover" appear in a bookstore in St. Louis, and read "Tropic of Cancer" in the original 1934 Obelisk Press edition from Paris (in 1959), I have been amazed at the variety & change in 60 years. Now, the WWW has made it possible for 'amateurs' to create stuff the 'professionals' couldn't imagine, and it 'may' spell the beginning of the end for stupid portrayals that have offended so many...(not that all amateurs are tasteful...they are NOT). 15 years ago, I frequented a chat site where 'some' porn was posted, but, like Mudcat, there were many, many other things going on, and real people discussed life and politics...and often, sex...in a free & open way. It disappeared after 2-3 years, and I've not seen much like it. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: gnu Date: 21 May 10 - 06:15 PM Donuel... "gnu is either a woman or a man without testesterone." What does that mean? Sounds a rather sexist or nasty statement to me. Please explain why you would post such... on both counts. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: olddude Date: 21 May 10 - 05:19 PM Why is is called porn anyway?, why not nekked films naw I don't care what others do meself as long as they don't hurt nobody and no animals are harmed in the filming ... Me I don't watch it ... cause on pay per view it is like 13 bucks to rent a film ... I think they just have the one scene going on over and over again ... and the lines like "harder lover harder" isn't award winning writin ... but I guess they do have their own version of the oscars ... what are they called anyway, the golden penis or something like that |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: mousethief Date: 21 May 10 - 04:57 PM The whole Republican party is shit. But I would defend their right to be so. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 21 May 10 - 03:44 PM Mousthief: "Does that make it wrong?" Err no, it was the "it being shit" that IMO made it "wrong". Not ethically in any sense, just in terms of it being totally pants. If some geezers get off on prostitutes with silicone implants and nail extensions rubbing their dry kebabs and faking orgasms, that's cool by me ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Donuel Date: 21 May 10 - 03:40 PM Nakedshorts/wallstreet.com gnu is either a woman or a man without testesterone. Men can carry around only so much active sperm. Storage space is a premium no matter how big the balls and ducts. The SCOTUS knows porn when they see it so they continue to keep abreast of porn whenever possible. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: mousethief Date: 21 May 10 - 03:21 PM Maybe because it's virtually exclusively aimed at blokes? But then even my fella doesn't find most porn interesting either, so maybe it's because it's aimed at a particular type of bloke? [i]Road and Track[/i] is aimed at a particular type of bloke. Does that make it wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: John MacKenzie Date: 21 May 10 - 02:53 PM Spamabot Be prepared to laugh uncontrollably! |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 21 May 10 - 02:40 PM "Many of those who condemn "porn" seem also to believe that sex is bad as such, unless redeemed by some approved thing" Good point. Like you say, there is some kind of formal sanction for 'erotica' that thereby elevates the material 'beyond' the sexual realm, and thus makes it safe to indulge in without worry that you are somehow debasing yourself. There's something Sooo self-deceptively 'Brave New World' about that. One of the most amusing examples would be archeological or anthropological porn, which one may admire at an intellectual distance for it's possible historical/cultural interest but *never* for it's universally applicable immediate sexual reality. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Paul Burke Date: 21 May 10 - 02:35 PM What is bad: distorting young (or old) people's images, coercion, violence, rape. What is good: nekkid wimmin (or men if you are of a female or gay persuasion). What is distasteful: 99.99999% of internet porn (of COURSE I've seen 100.00000%), which is about as stimulating as a gynaecology text book. What else is bad: every site is trying to get hold of your credit card details or plant a spambot on your computer. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: John MacKenzie Date: 21 May 10 - 12:53 PM Now there's an interesting thing, I find tattoos obscene. I find people who have their baby's ears pierced, obscene. The old excuse, 'It's my body and I can do what I like with it' doesn't seem to wash with some folks. I daresay, you might get thar response from some people who are involved in pornography. Not everybody involved in activities of which one disapproves, is doing it unwillingly. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Richard Bridge Date: 21 May 10 - 12:31 PM The distinction between art and pornography is notoriously elusive. Many of those who condemn "porn" seem also to believe that sex is bad as such, unless redeemed by some approved thing - eg marriage, or love, or something. I have no time for that attitude. Some who defend art that is sexual (or otherwise apt to be attacked by some as "porn" seem to feel that artistic merit is a sufficient defence to an accusation of pornography. I suspect that that may be to go too far. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 21 May 10 - 10:01 AM I don't class this as 'porn', I would tag it as 'erotica' for those who might find such imagery sexually attractive (I certainly know couples that like it). And It's definitely an antidote to some of the fakery out there online. I don't find this site 'objectifies' women at all. Real women enjoying showing their ornamented bodies off: http://suicidegirls.com/ There's some semi-nude images on the first page, but nothing to shock. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 21 May 10 - 09:51 AM What's wrong with porn? It's usually totally shite! Maybe because it's virtually exclusively aimed at blokes? But then even my fella doesn't find most porn interesting either, so maybe it's because it's aimed at a particular type of bloke? I think there has been more naturalistic stuff made in modern times - just real people enjoying themselves - but I can't say as I've kept abreast of it (Sorry ..I know, that was pure carry on) |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Stringsinger Date: 21 May 10 - 09:36 AM Oops. I noticed it was in the BS section. 1. It is an industry that encourages abuse. 2. It objectifies humans particularly women. 3. It is addictive. 4. It is mostly stupid. 5. Erotica is different than pornography. (Sex can be funny). 5. It gives religious nuts on too much with which to concentrate |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Stringsinger Date: 21 May 10 - 09:32 AM Doesn't belong in the music section. There's plenty wrong with it. and that's the first thing. |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Richard Bridge Date: 21 May 10 - 03:39 AM That is only true, Leenia, of pictorial pornography, and some of it at that. So, no, it does not answer the question "What is wrong with pornography". It answers the question "What is wrong with some ways of making some pornography"? |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 21 May 10 - 12:01 AM A couple months ago, my newspaper had an article about the arrest of a couple men for making and distributing child pornography. A local sheriff said, "This is actually the raping of small children." A few days ago, there was an article about the trial of man who forced others into prostitution. He had beaten, raped and burned them. Quite possibly some of them would have wound up making pornography, apparently willingly. Does that answer the original question? |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: katlaughing Date: 07 Aug 01 - 11:23 AM Phew, Wincing Devil, I clicked and was really worried when I didn't see your Buck Naked Kitties, but then I figured I'd see what a c/shanteyman thought a nekkid woman looked like, clicked on and was so relieved to see your Minnie, in the pink and lookin' fine!**BG** |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: Wincing Devil Date: 07 Aug 01 - 10:59 AM Where else but on Mudcat can a discussion on porn degrade into a posting of Flanders & Swann lyrics and talk of insects. What do crickets have to do with pictures of nekkid wimmen?
|
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: InOBU Date: 07 Aug 01 - 08:25 AM Gee guys... I'm hurt, wounded! To think I would stauk our own dear Sorcha... but more... that there is ONE person in the world who has not heard of the hardest working band in the Celtic World, Sorcha Dorcha!!! AND hurt that you all would think that I would jump on the band wagon of thowing bricks at the old Garg. I've been civil to the old goyle, and he's been civil to me... Why? (TALK ABOUT THREAD CREEP!!!) Well, because it is just right to be civil, because... you never know who may some day want to BUY A CD! SO! Gargoyle! I never sent you a free Sorcha Dorcha CD! Let me remidy that! Gargoyle! Drop me an email at InOBU@aol.com, and I will send you the latest demo, with several live recordings and THREE studio cuts which are to me on our CD, soon to be released on Hearthside Recordings! YES! Here it is in all it's glory! The shamless pornography of the full monty-like band plug!!! Actualy, about the wifie, Spaw, Genie is a lawyer, works 6am to 12 midnight... so that must be why all the Fruedian imagery in our band's music, all that sublimating... What Fruedian imagery??? Well, in a few months, the CD will be out and you can all find out! THIS PLUG HAS BEEN PAID FOR BY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE PORNOGRAPHIC BROTHERHOOD AND SISTERHOOD OF IRISH CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT SEX INDUSTRY WORKERS BELFAST DISTRICT LOCAL FIVE... See ya... Larry |
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: GUEST,Paul Burke Date: 07 Aug 01 - 03:24 AM Little Hawk wrote: While we're at it...what's wrong with: ... Sollipsism? It's speled rong.
|
|
Subject: RE: What is wrong with pornography? From: catspaw49 Date: 07 Aug 01 - 12:17 AM And besides, Ol' Larry, The Plug-O-Matic, is generally so busy plugging his band (SorchaDorcha) that he has limited time for matters of a sexual nature. I think his wife might have given him some hand lotion for Christmas, but that's about it................... Now I will tell you that if there is some way Larry could use garg for a plug (no, not a butt plug) for the band, he'd do it. I can see it now................ Even complete and sniveling little pissant gutterspouts LOVE Sorcha Dorcha.......Normal people will find them orgasmic!!! ........which is more than can be said for Larry. Spaw |
| Share Thread: |
