Why should he even bother responding to you when its so blatantly obvious you don't even bother to read and comprehend his posts but instead just want to continue making assumptions about what he thinks or what he says and deal with those assumptions rather than his views.
Right, thanks for confirming my belief in the type of poster you are rather quickly.
What about in other media? Would you censor porn? Even if it's only viewed by adults in private?
To some extent, sure. Where I draw the line, well, that's difficult to answer.
There is difficulty in establishing what is harmless fantasy and irresponsible content.
Likely, I am somewhat at comfort with the society we have, which is entirely paradoxical. We are obviously a very sexual culture that provides profit to the porn industry, yet we shun it. I'm comfortable with that notion.
Then you're a hypocrite. Sorry.
What's wrong with simply letting me draw the line for me? I'll watch what I think is right, and not what I think isn't.
Sure is. And we all disagree on it. So just let each person decide what they watch.
That's true. I think we shun it publicly but eat it up privately. Nothing new about that, many societies treat sex that way.
There's another paradox we have though - we shun sex and porn, but eagerly embrace violence.
Because what you think is right is not necessarily right. In much the same way that you view censorship as a breach of your rights, society at large can view your pleasures as violating the rights of others (if, say, you leave your incredibly vague notion stand as an absolute position). I'm sure you are willing to give way to exceptions to that rule.
My position was vague in the acceptance of certain pornography. Likewise, I am hesitant to quite figure out what should be legislated against other than some of the more obvious (child porn featuring child actors is to me, something that obviously should be censored).
Again, just because we observe these paradoxes does not mean that societies should thus have no paradoxes in morality. In my view, that is how societies operate best, with some measure of reason, of course.
How does me viewing porn in my own home violate anyone's rights?
Yes, we agree on child porn, because you have to abuse kids to make it.
Why? I don't need paradoxes. We got rid of the "all men are create equal" yet we own slaves parodox, didn't we?
But remember how I said I believe all humans are hypocrites, it just takes time to figure out where. Human beings do not operate on a purely rational realm, and thus it is difficult to expect society at large to be able to also operate on a purely rational level.
Societies at some point decide what to make taboo or illegal and which to be tolerant or allow at the taboo level, or celebrated. Societies are going to be paradoxical, so on a broad level, I accept the notion that we legislate morality.
There's another paradox we have though - we shun sex and porn, but eagerly embrace violence.
To the extent this is true, that's a big part of why "society" is sick. Once you're a hypocrite and shrug it off by telling yourself "oh well, everyone is a hypocrite," you'll ultimately stand for any bigotry and any hypocrisy. Eventually it may be sex-negative bigots/hypocrites who are shunned. I'm comfortable with that notion.Likely, I am somewhat at comfort with the society we have, which is entirely paradoxical. We are obviously a very sexual culture that provides profit to the porn industry, yet we shun it. I'm comfortable with that notion.
Kori touched on a potential reason for this actually.
The laws in this country are far more constricting when it comes to violence then sex. Outside of rape, there’s few things sexually that are truly illegal in a practical way (not counting blue laws).
So most of the more “deviant” sexual fetishes and fantasies, while shunned by society, are perfectly able to be done freely and legally in our private lives.
Violence on the other hand does not have that luxury, instead is restricted by numerous laws. You can have some kinky sex if you want with handcuffs and whips, but going to the local bar and punching someone in the face can net you some time in jail or doing community service. As such, where sex is more societal looked down upon, violence is more judiciously looked down upon. Since you can act out the sexual things that are viewed as deviant the need for other outlets is not as large or not as main stream. Since the outlets for violence are more legal it seems to vent itself into more main stream ways of expression through escapism in books, movies, video games, TV Shows, etc.
However, even in regards to violence, there is still taboos. Violence is usually either viewed gratuitously as a bad or frightening thing (such as SAW), in a heroic or brave thing (such as war games or cops movies like Die Hard), or as a retribution/just revenge thing (Boondock Saints, Max Payne). Other times the violence may be glamorized for the bad guy who is the main character but then tries to recant that life style (Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction) or we see the violence/evil of the main character be their downfall in some way (Scarface). Rarely do you see in mainstream where violence, channeled equally in a societal “negative” way, being glamorized. Instead it generally is images of violence that part of societies fabric wants to feel is “good” but knows legally is “bad” and thus this is their outlet for it.
The judiciously dissuaded compared to societal dissuaded is the big difference in them I believe. In one case you can do the act privately without life changing ramifications, in the other you can’t and thus an outlet needs to be made more readily available for it subconsciously through the society.
To the extent this is true, that's a big part of why "society" is sick. Eventually it may be sex-negative bigots/hypocrites who are shunned. I'm comfortable with that notion.
Wilhelm Reich.You know where the term "sex-negative" comes from don't you?
I'm not anywhere near the extreme of Riv. Riv, you know for a fact you're far from the average person sexually. Both in mentality and just background/history. In general, in a society, what is "normal" is defined by the majority. The same goes with what's "degrading". Its akin to public nudity. YOU may not find public nudity as offensive. However, because the majority of our society views gratuitous nudity as offensive its not allowed out in public, its not "normal". Just because you don't find it offensive doesn't mean, in a general sense, its "offensive". You could view personally find it degrading if someone calls you a Lazy Mother****er whose enormous stupidity is only surpased by the size of your ass because you don't let peoples words hurt you. That doesn't change the fact that "normally" or "generally" such comments are viewed as degrading. As such, yes, the majority of society and normal social standards views choking a woman while you gag her on your member before turning her around and using the resulting saliva as lubricant as "degrading" even if you don't on a personal level, and therefore in a general sense it is a "degrading" act.
Women watch it too, being that rape fantasies ARE the number one female fantasy.I disagree, strongly, with the notion that those that are watching this kind of "degredation" porn, especially men, are doing so while not thinking its degrading and that's why they like it. Much like rape, this kind of thing is the feeling of power. This kind of porn is popular amongst men I would imagine because its giving that alpha male mentality where a woman is nothing but a sex toy to do with and use as you see fit, but because the girl is submissive instead of flat out resisting its not "rape" so they can justify it in their mind. Its the same kind of guys that in college that would laugh about how they slipped it in the backdoor and made her scream, but she kept coming back the next week cause he was an upper classman and had bear.
Whether or not they enjoy it is not for you to determine. It's for THEM to determine. Their reasons for doing it are their own, as are the consequences should there be any. As long as they do it willingly, that's all that matters. It matters NOT why they did it. Could be for popularity. Could be for a sorority shenanigan. Could be for a ****ing term paper, I don't know and I don't care. All anyone needs to be concerned with is that they do it of their own free will.In college either 1st or 2nd hand I knew of plenty of girls, usually under classman, that ended up doing degrading type things in regards to sex. From being passed around to a variety of partners, to forced anal, to public sex, and onwards. Often, I'd wager, the girls did not do this because they got some kind of actual sexual thrill from it as much as for exterior reasons....popularity, acceptance, social status, booze, etc. I believe what Kori is arguing is that porn of this type gives people, especially men in this case, the idea that these kind of actions are okay, acceptable, and that women in general, not a minority of them, enjoy these kind of acts.
No one has said that anything in porn is "for everyone".I think this is where society fails in some of these aspects. So often you have one of two extreme's, and that's it. You have the people on one side that get offended by something that is outside the norm and instead of just treating it as abnormal, avoiding it, and discouraging it, they try to ban it. On the other side you have people that try to promote the abnormal/bad/deviant as something that is normal/good/healthy and completely fully acceptable for everyone in every way. Middle ground generally is only reached when one side is stopped and the issue is forced into the middle through gridlock.
In some cases, it's very very good.Abnormal doesn't necessarily mean bad.
I agree. :mrgreen:In regards to something like pornography or video games, restrictions on age are acceptable to me for the reasos stated above with obscenity laws. However, once such things are enacted, the scope of the benefit of outright bannishment shrinks and thus the needed positives of bannishment do not outweigh the negatives of it to me.
This doesn't justify the status quo, anymore than it justifies societies in which the male ruling class has people hanged for sexual immorality and privately has access to harems of teenage prostitutes. A society doesn't have to be as sexually repressed, hysterical and hypocritical as status quo America any more than America's ally, Saudi Arabia.But remember how I said I believe all humans are hypocrites, it just takes time to figure out where.
First off, I'm not as "out there" as some of you think.
Now, it doesn't matter what people "generally" find degrading.
Women watch it too, being that rape fantasies ARE the number one female fantasy.
Whether or not they enjoy it is not for you to determine. It's for THEM to determine.
The middle ground is "to each their own".
In some cases, it's very very good.
Interesting idea, but I see one big problem - many people can't actually act out their sexual fantasies, because they don't have a willing partner or feel ashamed of them.
But let me point out that my main concern with sex vs. violence is the ridiculous idea that porn is harmful to society, yet violence in media is embraced as if it's not.
Wilhelm Reich.
And I'll state again, I think a large part of that is because society doesn't feel it needs to impress that violence in media is as harmful to society because there is other deterents (the law) that keep it from happening. Those deterents, by and large, aren't present with sex so the sociatal deterent must be stronger.
You're making it as if violence, all violence, isn't shunned in any way shape or form by society. We still have a rating system for TV, video games, and Movies where violence factors into it. Extremely violent games, like Manhunt, or movies, like Saw are generally pushed as something that Children should not be anywhere near. While its not nearly as harped upon as sex (as I said, it may be that society doesn't feel the need to harp on it as much is as great since there are other deterents) its hardly just wholesale completely and utterly accepted fully.
How do you know females aren't into the erotic "degradation" aspects? How could you know? That's one problem with deferring to taboos; without honest communication, there can be little learning, which is one reason repression and hypocrisy are so closely tied to ignorance. I personally do know many women who are into erotic humiliation, which you would doubtless see as "degrading."I guess I'm taking this from more of a male view point, where the appeal to this kind of thing is the notion of power (akin to why its theorized rape usually happens) without the legal stigma's of actual rape. The degradation of the female IS the turn on for the majority that like this style I'd imagine.
But those deterrents aren't working!!!!!
But we harp on sex far beyond what's necessary. We restrict perfectly healthy, natural sex.
How do you figure? Because violence in general has gone up?
Really? Cause I mean, the only way I can think you'd imagine that deterrents aren't working in violence is because society has gotten more violent in the real world, not the virtual world. Well, I believe it'd be incredibly difficult to say society hasn't gotten increasingly more sexual as well.
Indeed, society as a whole has embraced sex and sexuality more and more over the past decade or so. Its just not hog wild open.
And that's your issue. Your issue isn't that the deterrents aren't working, but that you seem to think there should be NO deterrents.
You're trying to defend your position by pointing to violence and saying "its not fair, its not even, its lopsided" but its really not. They're both heavily frowned upon, both actions have deterence...arguably one could easily make the case that Violence is even MORE frowned upon than sex because it can get you socially and judicially ostraciszed where as sex can primarily just get you socially ostracized.....the difference is simply in "how" its deterred.
Shhhh... *cough*But those deterrents aren't working!!!!!
How do you know females aren't into the erotic "degradation" aspects?
If your notions that violence were less judicially accepted were true, it would not be legal for minors to "play" combat simulations like America's Army, explicit militarist indoctrination funded by the US government no less.
A society in which consensual sex is more widely condemned than teenagers coming back in bodybags for stupid wars has problems.
Essentially, there is few physical, real life outlets for violence because if you punch someone, or maim someone, or kill someone it's going to in at least some way, if not a huge way, irrevocably change your life. As such, there doesn't need to be quite as much social stigma to violence at large because there is a judicial deterrent. Additionally, there needs to be some release for the natural tendancy towards violence humans have which outlets itself in forms of media...be it book, video, or electronic.
Constrast that with sex, where you can have two girls back in your room, tied up, ball gags, chocolate syrup all over them, with red marks on their backside from being spanked while using a power drill with a dildo instead of the bit and it'd be pretty much prefectly fine honest reality as long as they're consenting. So because society by and large views this kind of thing as "deviant" and "abnormal", at least on outwardly, the deterrent must come from social stigma since it doesn't come from judicial stigma.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?