Does Porn Suck?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2012, 08:52 PM
RE: Does Porn Suck?
(22-03-2012 05:35 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Now that I've got your attention lets look at things seriously.

Pornography of course means different things to different people and varies immensely in scope and intensity, or if you prefer depravity.

I believe that at least some porn is quite evil; some pornbrokers will say this is not porn at all and play the tired old semantics game.

I think many would join me in condenming at least some of the more virulent forms of pornography such as kiddie porn, blatant degradation of women, simulated snuff movies, and scat. Others will say that our rights against censorship is more important.

Porn really took off in the early 70s with the likes of Annie Sprinkle, a preferred lesbian who still managed over 3000 men,
and John Holmes who died of A.I.D.s
At 58 Annie Annie is soon to remarry her lesbian partner again, after three divorces and is pushing something rather occult new age system called sexeco, a type of feminist porn that liberates women in keeping with the moon , ocean, and other pagan support systems. Needless to say she is very rich. Holmes died 20 years ago and his ex wife is now on the Amazon book bandwagon.

I would argue that the worst aspects of porn, as indicated should be banned, even at the risk of pushing it underground, where it at least becomes a punishable crime.
No one argues for the legalization of child pornography and there are other areas that realy push the limits, such as the brutalization of women. It is hard to understand how men who like to watch such would not prefer the real thing if they could get it. As for snuff and scat, one does not need to go into details.

The billion dollar porn industry is but one example of capitalist exploitation whererby grossly weird and potentially dangerous human fantasies are teased ,then exploted in the name of human freedom and self gratification with the taxes there from allegedly assisting the undeclasses. I am aware of the problems associated with censorship, but in some areas the polarised position of open slather, no holds barred consumerism ,appears as equally, if not more, dangerous.
Wow. Hate porn much? Lots of weasel words here.

While you may think a "virulent" form of pornography such as kiddie porn is evil, it's beneficial to us if simulated. I'm not arguing that actual kids should get naked, but it could be useful if the kids are animated or computer simulated. There really are people who want to see (and probably have sex with) children, and porn can fulfill their appetite without any actual children getting hurt in the process. Otherwise, you're arguing that they stay completely abstinent... and when has that ever worked?

I would make the same argument about simulated snuff films. Would you rather that these people unfortunate to have such proclivities act them out instead? It's a good thing for them to have a "safe" outlet for such fantasies that you and I would see as "sick".

And then you attack the porn industry. Its origin in the 70's is simply unimportant (genetic fallacy) and if we remove the weasel words from your last paragraph (exploitation, self-gratification, slather) then you're basically saying that the "porn industry" (where apparently every porn producer pools his or her money?) gets rich by selling these forms of porn that you object to (while mostly making money from selling the common types of porn that you don't openly object to) and say that while you respect free speech you think that the danger from this porn is more important than free speech. We don't have to guess at the dangers of porn --- it has been investigated twice , the first time finding insufficient evidence for the dangers posed by pornography, the second time finding that it had many dangers (although there are good reasons why this evidence isn't compelling).

Of course, as a single man, I enjoy porn very much. I'm biased and I know it. I could be convinced by a sound argument against it, but this didn't appear to be one. If someone has a link to a study that actually demonstrates the danger in porn, please share it (or a link to a study that demonstrates that porn is not dangerous).

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2012, 05:12 PM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2012 05:45 PM by Mr Woof.)
RE: Does Porn Suck?
Starcrash


You seem to see simulated kiddie porn as acceptable because it might? prevent actual child molestation and the physical and psychological traumas inherent therein.

Taken to extremes with this argument you can also justify simulated rapes, stabbing, torture and murder of women on the basis that fantasy and reality are in no way connected. I do not believe the distinction is at all that clear.
What of animal torture to get your rocks off?

The word pervert is not very much in vogue these days in which any fantasy is deemed the prerogative of the individual who simply exercises his judgement and freedom as seen fit.

It is interesting that Porn Queen and dominatrix M.Z. Berlin opposes simulated child porn, and sex with corpses; one could argue that the latter(not my position) is quite harmless. She does not mention simulated snuff as a no-no so I take it she does not object to this chosen entertainment.

It can also be argued quite cogently that people with extreme fantasies may be better advised to seek medical help rather than use extreme porn to satiate their needs, the issue of course contingent on how "extreme" is evaluated.Perhaps in 'extreme' perversions some form of aversion therapy may be more beneficial for the patient.
Of course if there is no such thing as a gross perversion and the answer lies in videos and on line, then my "weasel words"? are just a waste of time,but it will take more than insults to change my position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mr Woof's post
15-04-2012, 08:50 AM
RE: Does Porn Suck?
(11-04-2012 05:12 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Starcrash


You seem to see simulated kiddie porn as acceptable because it might? prevent actual child molestation and the physical and psychological traumas inherent therein.

Taken to extremes with this argument you can also justify simulated rapes, stabbing, torture and murder of women on the basis that fantasy and reality are in no way connected. I do not believe the distinction is at all that clear.
What of animal torture to get your rocks off?

The word pervert is not very much in vogue these days in which any fantasy is deemed the prerogative of the individual who simply exercises his judgement and freedom as seen fit.

It is interesting that Porn Queen and dominatrix M.Z. Berlin opposes simulated child porn, and sex with corpses; one could argue that the latter(not my position) is quite harmless. She does not mention simulated snuff as a no-no so I take it she does not object to this chosen entertainment.

It can also be argued quite cogently that people with extreme fantasies may be better advised to seek medical help rather than use extreme porn to satiate their needs, the issue of course contingent on how "extreme" is evaluated.Perhaps in 'extreme' perversions some form of aversion therapy may be more beneficial for the patient.
Of course if there is no such thing as a gross perversion and the answer lies in videos and on line, then my "weasel words"? are just a waste of time,but it will take more than insults to change my position.
YES, using my argument you could justify "simulated rapes, stabbing, torture and murder of women", not "on the basis that fantasy and reality are in no way connected" but on the basis that fantasy can be a substitute for reality. Nobody gets hurt in a simulation, but real people get really hurt in reality.

M. Z. Berlin is not an "expert" on the dangers of simulated child porn. Why are you making a call to authority using a porn star rather than a researcher who has done a study on porn? I asked for evidence, and research on this subject is the type that I was looking for.

People with extreme fantasies sometimes do seek medical help, and they usually get it in the form of chemical castration. I'm not necessarily against this --- it does solve the problem, and those who would take the drugs do it voluntarily (I assume) --- but just because there is a solution to the problem doesn't mean that other solutions are unwelcome or unnecessary, especially if you have people that refuse to take the step of openly admitting their fantasies to a medical authority.

Finally, I wasn't trying to insult you. "Weasel words" isn't necessarily insulting, but rather suggests that you're trying to avoid using words without bias in favor of those that do show bias (although I don't see any examples in your latter post, so it appears you've become aware of it). Pointing out your mistakes may be seen as offensive to you, even though my intention isn't to attack you but rather the form that your argument took.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
10-06-2012, 09:24 PM (This post was last modified: 11-06-2012 12:22 AM by Mr Woof.)
RE: Does Porn Suck?
(15-04-2012 08:50 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(11-04-2012 05:12 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Starcrash


You seem to see simulated kiddie porn as acceptable because it might? prevent actual child molestation and the physical and psychological traumas inherent therein.

Taken to extremes with this argument you can also justify simulated rapes, stabbing, torture and murder of women on the basis that fantasy and reality are in no way connected. I do not believe the distinction is at all that clear.
What of animal torture to get your rocks off?

The word pervert is not very much in vogue these days in which any fantasy is deemed the prerogative of the individual who simply exercises his judgement and freedom as seen fit.

It is interesting that Porn Queen and dominatrix M.Z. Berlin opposes simulated child porn, and sex with corpses; one could argue that the latter(not my position) is quite harmless. She does not mention simulated snuff as a no-no so I take it she does not object to this chosen entertainment.

It can also be argued quite cogently that people with extreme fantasies may be better advised to seek medical help rather than use extreme porn to satiate their needs, the issue of course contingent on how "extreme" is evaluated.Perhaps in 'extreme' perversions some form of aversion therapy may be more beneficial for the patient.
Of course if there is no such thing as a gross perversion and the answer lies in videos and on line, then my "weasel words"? are just a waste of time,but it will take more than insults to change my position.

YES, using my argument you could justify "simulated rapes, stabbing, torture and murder of women", not "on the basis that fantasy and reality are in no way connected" but on the basis that fantasy can be a substitute for reality. Nobody gets hurt in a simulation, but real people get really hurt in reality.

M. Z. Berlin is not an "expert" on the dangers of simulated child porn. Why are you making a call to authority using a porn star rather than a researcher who has done a study on porn? I asked for evidence, and research on this subject is the type that I was looking for.

People with extreme fantasies sometimes do seek medical help, and they usually get it in the form of chemical castration. I'm not necessarily against this --- it does solve the problem, and those who would take the drugs do it voluntarily (I assume) --- but just because there is a solution to the problem doesn't mean that other solutions are unwelcome or unnecessary, especially if you have people that refuse to take the step of openly admitting their fantasies to a medical authority.

Finally, I wasn't trying to insult you. "Weasel words" isn't necessarily insulting, but rather suggests that you're trying to avoid using words without bias in favor of those that do show bias (although I don't see any examples in your latter post, so it appears you've become aware of it). Pointing out your mistakes may be seen as offensive to you, even though my intention isn't to attack you but rather the form that your argument took.


Further to my original post and some comments following this I would now like to address these remarks.

It has been claimed that kiddie porn, utilizing images and not real children is harmless and indeed beneficial as it may prevent the actualization of such depicted acts. Further claims have been made that no scientific evidence is available to show this not to be so. Prove it! As for such evidence extermely gross acts involving animals, children, faeces, violence, murder, arguably (at least intuitively) belong in the hidden domains of sick beings who work within anonymity; hardly people willing to take part in research studies.

It has also been argued that an open slather approach to morality (porn) is the correct position, wher consenting parties are concerned. Here it is assumed that the actions of consenting parties will not impinge on society in general.But how can this be so? If consenting parties are part of hard line porn, or customers, it is not difficult to see community mores becoming subject to highly dubious motives, not the will of society.

Presently, gross perversities, are becoming the norm via porn studios and sexual enhancement clinics, so much so that perversity is becoming the norm and normalcy something to be fobbed off as selfishness and having a closed mind. We really need to take a good hard look at ourselves before the purveyors of all forms of gross sensual misrepresentation take us to the cleaners.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2012, 09:42 AM
RE: Does Porn Suck?
(10-06-2012 09:24 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(15-04-2012 08:50 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  YES, using my argument you could justify "simulated rapes, stabbing, torture and murder of women", not "on the basis that fantasy and reality are in no way connected" but on the basis that fantasy can be a substitute for reality. Nobody gets hurt in a simulation, but real people get really hurt in reality.

M. Z. Berlin is not an "expert" on the dangers of simulated child porn. Why are you making a call to authority using a porn star rather than a researcher who has done a study on porn? I asked for evidence, and research on this subject is the type that I was looking for.

People with extreme fantasies sometimes do seek medical help, and they usually get it in the form of chemical castration. I'm not necessarily against this --- it does solve the problem, and those who would take the drugs do it voluntarily (I assume) --- but just because there is a solution to the problem doesn't mean that other solutions are unwelcome or unnecessary, especially if you have people that refuse to take the step of openly admitting their fantasies to a medical authority.

Finally, I wasn't trying to insult you. "Weasel words" isn't necessarily insulting, but rather suggests that you're trying to avoid using words without bias in favor of those that do show bias (although I don't see any examples in your latter post, so it appears you've become aware of it). Pointing out your mistakes may be seen as offensive to you, even though my intention isn't to attack you but rather the form that your argument took.


Further to my original post and some comments following this I would now like to address these remarks.

It has been claimed that kiddie porn, utilizing images and not real children is harmless and indeed beneficial as it may prevent the actualization of such depicted acts. Further claims have been made that no scientific evidence is available to show this not to be so. Prove it! As for such evidence extermely gross acts involving animals, children, faeces, violence, murder, arguably (at least intuitively) belong in the hidden domains of sick beings who work within anonymity; hardly people willing to take part in research studies.

It has also been argued that an open slather approach to morality (porn) is the correct position, wher consenting parties are concerned. Here it is assumed that the actions of consenting parties will not impinge on society in general.But how can this be so? If consenting parties are part of hard line porn, or customers, it is not difficult to see community mores becoming subject to highly dubious motives, not the will of society.

Presently, gross perversities, are becoming the norm via porn studios and sexual enhancement clinics, so much so that perversity is becoming the norm and normalcy something to be fobbed off as selfishness and having a closed mind. We really need to take a good hard look at ourselves before the purveyors of all forms of gross sensual misrepresentation take us to the cleaners.
I was more on your side of the argument via it having an impact...but I think you are examining it as if there wasn't perversity in the past.

What you may call making norm, can be better explained as no longer being as repressed. A lot of different scenarios for one reason or another, not always a bad reason, can be attractive to humans. It's not a true increase in perversion that makes them more known, it's just the level of awareness and tolerances that is growing. Sure some people will remain what one could call normal and people at times will be unfairly harsh towards that, but that's another aspect that needs to be dealt with in universal tolerance that so called open people don't realize they are ignoring.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2012, 05:08 PM
RE: Does Porn Suck?
omigod
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 03:54 PM
RE: Does Porn Suck?
Normal. A town in central Illinois, USA
If you go there you can have Normal Sex.
Everything else is just sex.
I think one of the requirements for Porn is to Suck, but it may still be Porn exclusive of Sucking.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 09:57 AM
RE: Does Porn Suck?
Think mofos went to the forum in Rome to listen to the senate? Hell, no. They went to by porn on scrolls from the market sellers out front. Porn in the terms of "porn industry" is a symptom of the disease once known as "love of money." Yet that shit's condoned by society in the form of lotteries, but when everything is for sale, you're gonna get buyers, and nothing sells like sex.

I think "porn" is icky - not as icky as the lottery - but I have a definition: pornography is the transmission of words and/or imagery in such a manner that the organism is in danger of spontaneously dissolving into a fit of hot monkey sex. So i can't "hate pornography," 'cause I look at my Gwynnies - and I gotta go lay down. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
16-06-2012, 10:20 AM
RE: Does Porn Suck?
(16-06-2012 09:57 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  pornography is the transmission of words and/or imagery in such a manner that the organism is in danger of spontaneously dissolving into a fit of hot monkey sex.
Ahahahaha! Best def ever...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
20-09-2012, 11:11 PM
RE: Does Porn Suck?
I tend to look at it differently. You mention kiddie porn, but where do you draw the line. I live in the U.S. and I have seen cases in court men who got suckered in by a 14 year old and had sex with her, then got their lives ruined. I have seen the nasty pieces of work kids can be when I went through my first 10 years of public school. I tend to not believe for a minute that a 14 year old is an "Innocent child" as many bleeding heart fools do in this country. I do believe that they can and do set guys up all the time. In what is called the red light district, I hear that they allow 14 year olds to be prostitutes. I may be wrong about that, however it is what I have heard from many sources. Down the road from where I live (barely covering my bills), there are a few people on welfare that have had at least 1 kid each. I would prefer they get their money to live on by taking a dick once in a while for money instead of getting their money from people who work and then taking a dick just for fun. At my expense and those like me. Everyone has a tallent, even if it is just being good at fucking or being fucked. I also don't feel that we should limit it as much as we do. Scat is not and will never be my idea of fun, but if others are willing to pay to see such shit let them. I do watch porn once in a while, however not as much as I used to since I have a wife to go home to now. I also spent many years alone. I didn't even have a long term girlfriend before meeting my wife. You could probably almost smell the desperation on me. If it was not for porn, I am not sure what I might have done. Imagination will only take you so far. As far as the pedo stuff you mentioned, where do you draw the line? Do you give kids a choice once they hit puberty and their hormones are telling them to have sex? Do you have a certain age like we do, where it really has nothing to do with maturity? I went to school my first 2 years of high school with a few kids that were really low functioning. My first 2 years in high school at the local vo-tech, was a time I won't forget. I was forced into the supermarket careers class, where it was as boring as it sounds. A few of the students in there were practically mute. They had brain dead expressions and you could clearly tell the lights were on, but nobody was home. I have had conversations with kids around 14 or 15 and have come to the realisation that they already know more than I did about math and science and that was when I graduated high school. How is it that if I were single I could not screw one of them if I wanted it and they wanted it, but I can track down one of the 30 some odd year olds I went to school with who back then were not much better equipped than a 4 year old and I am betting still no better even now and fuck them all I could want to if I could just talk them into it. And believe me, it would not take much. I don't believe it is the place of the government to place limits on sex. If you are equipped for it and understand it, you should be able to decide when it is time and with who. This whole abstinance only thing has to go. Teach about condoms and other forms of protection and let them be the judge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: