Porn: Evil, good, or none of the above?

[Celethiel]

nnooooes! they call that erotica when it's written, there is a difference

or as i like to call it, perverted Drivel.

[Adam Phillips]

nnooooes! they call that erotica when it's written, there is a difference

or as i like to call it, perverted Drivel.

 

Wikipedia and Webster both contend that video sex stuff--or sex stuff in any artistic medium--can also be erotica. The distinction Wiki makes is that "erotica," as opposed to porn, has high-art aspirations. This is true; there are a lot of high artists at this site.

[methodwriter85]

Wikipedia and Webster both contend that video sex stuff--or sex stuff in any artistic medium--can also be erotica. The distinction Wiki makes is that "erotica," as opposed to porn, has high-art aspirations. This is true; there are a lot of high artists at this site.

 

   Well, Adam, "Cross-Currents" is indeed high art, in my mind. That the two sex scenes between Brad and Andy is hot as hell is a nice bonus.

 

   (Interestingly enough, while the Andy/Matt scene are hot, because it's based on a deeper bond than just sex, I can't really get off on it. It's almost too intimate.)

[hh5]

anyone remember the movie BIG, even though its PG how many under 15 yo has watched the movie?

there are two scenes that is really like introduction to porn just to get a laugh from the adults watching the movie

still the character inside is underage and gosh the woman should have hit her head like an epiphany (a V8)

in other movies the prudence was "hey kid look me up a few years"

this movie ended with a homesick n lovesick kid ... it leaves to ones imagination what this boy will do if he has a girlfriend

[Celethiel]

anyone remember the movie BIG, even though its PG how many under 15 yo has watched the movie?

there are two scenes that is really like introduction to porn just to get a laugh from the adults watching the movie

still the character inside is underage and gosh the woman should have hit her head like an epiphany (a V8)

in other movies the prudence was "hey kid look me up a few years"

this movie ended with a homesick n lovesick kid ... it leaves to ones imagination what this boy will do if he has a girlfriend

yes i remember big.

[Y_B]

Game of Thrones = porn with an actual storyline.

[Zombie]

The opening post mentioned "toxic", "vile", "degrading" and "extreme" porn. It was a very long post, so maybe I missed something, but you seemed to be saying "anything goes" because it's whatever rocks your boat and it's all make-believe so no harm's done unless it's "illegal or dangerous." So have I got that right, and what is illegal and dangerous in your neck of the woods?

-

[Kitt]

The opening post mentioned "toxic", "vile", "degrading" and "extreme" porn.

 

-

The problem lies in defining these terms.  What my grandmother called vile, what my  mother called vile, and what I call vile are three different things. I have no doubt that my daughter will have yet another view.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Kitt

[W_L]

Well, we can agree in a majority sense, Snuff porn is illegal, inhumane, and unconscionable to most human beings. Sure, some poeple like to see murder and mutilation like that on camera, but there is a majority understanding as part of human nature.

 

With that bottom line set, we can start building on what we agree is evil porn versus good harmless porn.

 

Also, that bottom line can never be crossed, because once we do cross that line; human life no longer has value and civilization is dead.

Edited March 14, 2014 by W_L

[Celethiel]

Game of Thrones = porn with an actual storyline.

well that's mideaval politics dear

[Adam Phillips]

The opening post mentioned "toxic", "vile", "degrading" and "extreme" porn. It was a very long post, so maybe I missed something, but you seemed to be saying "anything goes" because it's whatever rocks your boat and it's all make-believe so no harm's done unless it's "illegal or dangerous." So have I got that right, and what is illegal and dangerous in your neck of the woods?

 

-

 

You can tell me my post is too long and windy for you to have bothered to read carefully, and that therefore I shouldn't have subjected people to it (and I know I can beat a subject to death, so it's a critique I wouldn't be unfamiliar with)...but if you do take that position, probably you shouldn't post something that asks me what I said in that too-long-and-boring-to-read post and then summarize and not get it right.

 

For the record, though, what I "seemed" to be saying to you is not, in fact, what I said.

 

For starters, I take particular exception to the summary phrase "It's all make-believe." Not only did I never use that phrase, I don't think it represents any kind of correct inference from any word or combination of words I did say. If you believe it does, please cite, and make your argument. At this point, I maintain that I never said that and that I never even implied it.

 

As for the suggestion that "no harm's done," I'd ask the same. Show me where I said that or why you believe it's a proper inference from what I said. What I said is that there are probably plenty of people who are not harmed. But "no harm's done"??? I started out the entire discussion by asserting that the very nature of the question entails that it's going to be difficult to study the evidence scientifically enough to get a determination one way or the other. That's a very different assertion than "no harm's done." What I'm saying is that to take a stance that "porn is inevitably harmful" is to take a stance on something that no one has reliably demonstrated, and to which there is ample refuting material available at least at the level of anecdotal evidence, which is not hard evidence but should nevertheless weigh in. What I'm also saying is that to base cultural practice and law on that "all-porn-is-always-bad" stance is misguided, impractical, and creates more problems than it solves.

 

So if we can't know reliably at this point that all porn is bad, what are we supposed to do about porn? That was the question I saw framed, and the post was intended to make observations and voice opinions relevant to that question.

 

I'm assuming that the observations you made about the adjectives I used to describe various kinds of porn ("toxic," "extreme," etc.) were made with rhetorical intent, and I'm gonna go ahead and infer that your point was that those are subjective terms and could be used as "weasel" words and, therefore, bring nothing helpful to the discussion. I'll concede that they are indeed subjective terms, but my contention is that that's an illustration of the problem. Who gets to determine what is "extreme" and what is "toxic" and what is "icky" and what is "peculiar" and what is "normal"? I'd start with what's legal, although what's legal is not often a very good indicator of what's actually harmful. Readers at this site are already well aware of that. What counts as "dangerous" is probably even more dicey. Snuff videos should be illegal. Anything that videos an actual law being broken should probably not be viewed...but what about a porn that shows people smoking pot? Is that as bad as child porn or snuff videos? Obviously not.

 

Beyond law and a consideration of what's dangerous, though, what else do we have? How else are we supposed to slice this thing, unless you want to say either "anything goes," or "absolutely no porn allowed"? Hence my two criteria of "illegal" and "dangerous."

 

As for your question as to what's legal and dangerous in my neck of the woods, I'm going to assume that question's there for rhetorical effect too. As an actual question, I'm not sure what the answers would demonstrate for you. Anyway, I'm reasonably confident you're not interested in a copy of Texas law. Nor do you probably much give a rip about what I or the local culture deem to be "dangerous." But even assuming that your question was intended as rhetoric, I'm not even sure of your rhetorical intent. Is it your intent to indict my--or anyone's--definition of "legal" and "dangerous" in order to point out that just because one person (or legislative body) doesn't deem something dangerous or illegal, that doesn't mean it's not bad? I'll grant you that; but what is it you propose that we do about that? Make porn illegal?

 

There are 12 paragraphs in my original post. One of them is introductory in nature. Two of them are primarily transitional in nature. The whole post was written quickly, so I don't always do what my transitional paragraphs claim I'm about to do. Still, beyond the intro and the transitional paragraphs, each paragraph has a particular assertion to make or opinion to voice. After I read your post, I boiled them down for myself and considered placing that condensed version here, but then I decided that most people who were interested already got the gist of what I'd said; it wasn't in hiding. But I can make said condensed version available, is all I'm saying.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Adam Phillips

[Cia]

*IF* the situation is taking advantage of a person against their consent, or happens to someone incapable of consent, then it's wrong. Snuff, pedophilia, abuse--that's about power and control. Some people get off on the illusion of force, in porn and in person... and it's usually easy to tell what is and isn't staged. If you believe you watch a porn that includes any real criminal activity that falls along those lines, it should be reported. Otherwise, enjoy what you enjoy and don't worry about what someone else enjoys watching or making for people watch.

[Mark Arbour]

You can tell me my post is too long and windy for you to have bothered to read carefully, and that therefore I shouldn't have subjected people to it (and I know I can beat a subject to death, so it's a critique I wouldn't be unfamiliar with)...but if you do take that position, probably you shouldn't post something that asks me what I said in that too-long-and-boring-to-read post and then summarize and not get it right.

 

For the record, though, what I "seemed" to be saying to you is not, in fact, what I said.

 

For starters, I take particular exception to the summary phrase "It's all make-believe." Not only did I never use that phrase, I don't think it represents any kind of correct inference from any word or combination of words I did say. If you believe it does, please cite, and make your argument. At this point, I maintain that I never said that and that I never even implied it.

 

As for the suggestion that "no harm's done," I'd ask the same. Show me where I said that or why you believe it's a proper inference from what I said. What I said is that there are probably plenty of people who are not harmed. But "no harm's done"??? I started out the entire discussion by asserting that the very nature of the question entails that it's going to be difficult to study the evidence scientifically enough to get a determination one way or the other. That's a very different assertion than "no harm's done." What I'm saying is that to take a stance that "porn is inevitably harmful" is to take a stance on something that no one has reliably demonstrated, and to which there is ample refuting material available at least at the level of anecdotal evidence, which is not hard evidence but should nevertheless weigh in. What I'm also saying is that to base cultural practice and law on that "all-porn-is-always-bad" stance is misguided, impractical, and creates more problems than it solves.

 

So if we can't know reliably at this point that all porn is bad, what are we supposed to do about porn? That was the question I saw framed, and the post was intended to make observations and voice opinions relevant to that question.

 

I'm assuming that the observations you made about the adjectives I used to describe various kinds of porn ("toxic," "extreme," etc.) were made with rhetorical intent, and I'm gonna go ahead and infer that your point was that those are subjective terms and could be used as "weasel" words and, therefore, bring nothing helpful to the discussion. I'll concede that they are indeed subjective terms, but my contention is that that's an illustration of the problem. Who gets to determine what is "extreme" and what is "toxic" and what is "icky" and what is "peculiar" and what is "normal"? I'd start with what's legal, although what's legal is not often a very good indicator of what's actually harmful. Readers at this site are already well aware of that. What counts as "dangerous" is probably even more dicey. Snuff videos should be illegal. Anything that videos an actual law being broken should probably not be viewed...but what about a porn that shows people smoking pot? Is that as bad as child porn or snuff videos? Obviously not.

 

Beyond law and a consideration of what's dangerous, though, what else do we have? How else are we supposed to slice this thing, unless you want to say either "anything goes," or "absolutely no porn allowed"? Hence my two criteria of "illegal" and "dangerous."

 

As for your question as to what's legal and dangerous in my neck of the woods, I'm going to assume those are there for rhetorical effect too. As actual questions, I'm not sure what the answers would demonstrate for you. Anyway, I'm reasonably confident you're not interested in a copy of Texas law. Nor do you probably much give a rip about what I or the local culture deem to be "dangerous." But even assuming that your question was intended as rhetoric, I'm not even sure of your rhetorical intent. Is it your intent to indict my--or anyone's--definition of "legal" and "dangerous" in order to point out that just because one person (or legislative body) doesn't deem something dangerous or illegal, that doesn't mean it's not bad? I'll grant you that; but what is it you propose that we do about that? Make porn illegal?

 

There are 12 paragraphs in my original post. One of them is introductory in nature. Two of them are primarily transitional in nature. The whole post was written quickly, so I don't always do what my transitional paragraphs claim I'm about to do. Still, beyond the intro and the transitional paragraphs, each paragraph has a particular assertion to make or opinion to voice. After I read your post, I boiled them down for myself and considered placing that condensed version here, but then I decided that most people who were interested already got the gist of what I'd said; it wasn't in hiding. But I can make said condensed version available, is all I'm saying.

 

There are so many words here, it's hard for me to read them all.  So I'm just going to pick a few out and jump to conclusions.  It seems that you're arguing that dangerous things shouldn't be illegal.  Did I get that wrong?

 

[Adam Phillips]

There are so many words here, it's hard for me to read them all.  So I'm just going to pick a few out and jump to conclusions.  It seems that you're arguing that dangerous things shouldn't be illegal.  Did I get that wrong?

 

 

 LMFAO!!!  This is an illustration of one of the many reasons I'm desperately in love with you, you scoundrel!

 

And yes. You got that right. That's exactly what I meant. Man, I wish I had your ability to say things clearly in one sentence. Words, man: They suck. Especially when there are too many of them.

 

P.S. Why isn't there a button for "Love the HELL out of this"??

Edited March 15, 2014 by Adam Phillips

[TetRefine]

And here I thought porn was just something to jerk off to when I was horny and nobody willing was around.....

 

[W_L]

There are so many words here, it's hard for me to read them all.  So I'm just going to pick a few out and jump to conclusions.  It seems that you're arguing that dangerous things shouldn't be illegal.  Did I get that wrong?

 

 

@Mark, you're an educator, don't you have an essay tool that can summarize all these nasty run on sentences up into a concise MLA format. (Half joking, there was something in development back in 07, when I was in college that was a program to pick out key word combinations in sentences for professors. Not sure if that ever got further developed)

 

@Adam, I used to do essay format type debates on GA. As I have grown older, I have gained a bit of introspection: short and sweet on what you enjoy and only go long on details and examples of what you know from personal observations/anecdotes. Stream of consciousness was a great form of exposition in the 20th century; condensation is 21st century method of writing.

 

Here's what I see in your long paragraphs:

 

1. Porn is neither good nor bad without reference

 

2. Questions are raised by who should be the moral authority of Porn

 

3.  You apply law as the ultimate judge; though, not clear cut accross all locales

 

4. Separating the concepts of legal and dangerous

 

Also, please remember, Zombie enjoys having fun with debates; he picks fight with anyone for a good thrill. I like to engage him from time to time myself, too. Don't take it too seriously and you will enjoy the vast areas of disagreements with a Anglo-centric zombie

 

@Zombie: Well played sir!

 

Back to topic:

 

Has anyone noticed that gay porn in recent years has gotten a lot better in terms of focus and production quality? I was watching a Helix studio flick, Velo from 2013, and found that it was incredibly good in terms of picture and sound.

 

Yes, it is a sexual fantasy (I'd love to meet a courier like that), but I can't help enjoying it.

 

In movie industry, there has been a movement towards making things more visceral, but an unsaid truth is that pornography is also getting the same treatment. People can actually apply the same questions over movie violence and intense scenes with pornographic sex acts and human motions.

Edited March 15, 2014 by W_L

[Adam Phillips]

@Adam, I used to do essay format type debates on GA. As I have grown older, I have gained a bit of introspection: short and sweet on what you enjoy and only go long on details and examples of what you know from personal observations/anecdotes. Stream of consciousness was a great form of exposition in the 20th century; condensation is 21st century method of writing.

 

 

Yep. I make my living by writing. Well, and by teaching. And by playing music. And re: writing I'm well aware of what sells and how to get it done, and I'll concede that the original post was pretty bloated. I'm with Tet, really: Porn's something you jerk off to when you're horny and a partner isn't available. That's pretty much my ordinary thought on it. But questions come up, and I was working my way mentally through the range of thoughts about those questions that showed up in my head. And my fingers were off to the races. Ironically, when I'm fast, I'm long-winded. I have to slow down to take out the excess.

 

I'd never have submitted anything like that first post, style-wise, to a client. But I didn't think the topic was such that I could shortcut the reflections and I didn't have a large block of time.

 

Your summary has some merit. I fall back on "what's legal" and added "what's dangerous" mainly as working defaults since it's hard to come up with solid guidelines. I do tend to like the ones Cia gave, though. I think they're pretty solid and worth considering.

 

I should add this re: "having fun with debates": I grew up in an environment that encourged academic debate. My parents are Ph.Ds. I'm one as well. My dad teaches at the college level. I do too. I very much enjoy someone coming at me when they have something solid. I ain't afraid of no debate. My dissertation is in math, and defending it was definitely a debate. I'm used to opposing voices, and have lots of patience and respect for opposing voices that bring up stuff that gets me to think 

Edited March 15, 2014 by Adam Phillips

[Zombie]

For starters, I take particular exception to the summary phrase "It's all make-believe." Not only did I never use that phrase, I don't think it represents any kind of correct inference from any word or combination of words I did say. If you believe it does, please cite, and make your argument. At this point, I maintain that I never said that and that I never even implied it.

 

Wow, where did this come from?

 

In your original post you "invite others to chime in" but when someone takes up your offer and asks for clarification about what you actually meant by summarising in a manageable three sentences, your reaction is to bite their head off. The only inference I can draw is that somewhere along the line I sure seem to have ruffled your feathers

 

 

Snuff, pedophilia, abuse--that's about power and control.

 

Actually, Cia, these are not about power and control. Snuff is about murder and pedophilia is about child abuse.

[Cia]

 

 

 

Actually, Cia, these are not about power and control. Snuff is about murder and pedophilia is about child abuse.

 

I know a lot about abuse, Zombie. Abuse is about control and the exercise of power over another person or situation through that control. It's about seeing someone, a adult or child, forced to endure/do something for their abuser's pleasure, whatever their twisted purpose and the method that comes out in. Sexual abuse, physical abuse, mental abuse, and murder--the ultimate way to control a person--is not disconnected. There are exceptions, crimes of passion or by someone who is mentally unfit... but the classic and all to common abuser fits exactly into those parameters.

 

A man who hits his wife to ensure control over her actions so she does what he wants when he wants, a father who beats his kid under the guise of discipline until they are afraid to move or breathe for fear of doing anything 'wrong', a mother who mentally berates and blackmails a child until they are sick to their stomach when they're alone with her, the family friend who is all too willing to babysit so he can spend alone time with young kids unsupervised, to the wife who catches her husband cheating so she devises a way to slowly kill him... these are abusers. These are people who are hurting someone else, for their own reasons/pleasure/satisfaction.

 

These are far different elements than you find in a lot of kink porn 'movies'. They might hold similar elements, the dark connotations and the control/fear/abuse of another person... but those aren't real. They can't be viewed in the same context and lumped all together.

[Zombie]

Cia, you speak about abuse from direct experience that fortunately I, and hopefully most here, never experienced. And control is clearly key in child abuse. But pedophilia is a crime - one of the worst - and snuff is cold-blooded murder, with no mitigating circumstances.

This is a thread about porn.
 

[Cia]

My comments are relevant to the discussion though. There are those who decry the entire existence of porn, and there are those who accept the vanilla but not the kink based movies. Abuse  elements do exist within porn. There are scenes where the man/top controls the woman/bottom--through humiliation, dubious consent/coercion, and physical force even to faux rape and even snuff. Some, especially when it comes to the more extreme, view that as abuse even if it's fake. They believe a staged depiction on a real life event is as bad as the event itself. 

 

Pedophilia porn is not 'porn', to that I agree. That's abuse because it takes advantage of those who cannot consent. Yet, what about all the school-girl/boy, or barely 18 porn out there that directly plays to the appearance of youth? It toes the line within that angle without crossing it.

 

A lot of these elements arouse expressly from toeing that line. The line of force, the line of fear, the line of the forbidden or socially unaccepted behavior... it just does it for a lot of people. What that all means, in the end, is that people should be responsible for their own viewing when it comes to any type of porn. My moral compass is not their moral compass, and as I don't want to have anyone's imposed on me, I endeavor to not impose mine on anyone else. So, if they enjoy kink-based porn, more power to them--as long as it doesn't cross the line it encroaches upon.

[Adam Phillips]

Wow, where did this come from?

 

In your original post you "invite others to chime in" but when someone takes up your offer and asks for clarification about what you actually meant by summarising in a manageable three sentences, your reaction is to bite their head off. The only inference I can draw is that somewhere along the line I sure seem to have ruffled your feathers

 

 

 

Actually, Cia, these are not about power and control. Snuff is about murder and pedophilia is about child abuse.

Sorry, dude. I got up on the wrong side of the bed. That involves rolling on top of my wife on the way to standing up, so she slugged me in the eye. Disoriented, I fell down the stairs. Which frightened the dog, so he peed in my shoe. Aching, still bleary, and in a rush to get breakfast done, I poured milk on my seven-year old, who in response yelled that he wanted my business partner to be his dad, not me. And then my first-period class made jokes about me running into a doorknob. And then you said I said porn was all make-believe.

 

All those other things were bad enough; but that last was fightin' words. 

 

Or something like that.

[methodwriter85]

Sorry, dude. I got up on the wrong side of the bed. That involves rolling on top of my wife on the way to standing up, so she slugged me in the eye. Disoriented, I fell down the stairs. Which frightened the dog, so he peed in my shoe. Aching, still bleary, and in a rush to get breakfast done, I poured milk on my seven-year old, who in response yelled that he wanted my business partner to be his dad, not me. And then my first-period class made jokes about me running into a doorknob. And then you said I said porn was all make-believe.

 

All those other things were bad enough; but that last was fightin' words. 

 

Or something like that.

 

I really can't tell if you're kidding about that being your day or not.

[Mark Arbour]

I really can't tell if you're kidding about that being your day or not.

 

Sigh.

[Zombie]

My comments are relevant to the discussion though. There are those who decry the entire existence of porn, and there are those who accept the vanilla but not the kink based movies. Abuse  elements do exist within porn. There are scenes where the man/top controls the woman/bottom--through humiliation, dubious consent/coercion, and physical force even to faux rape and even snuff. Some, especially when it comes to the more extreme, view that as abuse even if it's fake. They believe a staged depiction on a real life event is as bad as the event itself. 

 

Pedophilia porn is not 'porn', to that I agree. That's abuse because it takes advantage of those who cannot consent. Yet, what about all the school-girl/boy, or barely 18 porn out there that directly plays to the appearance of youth? It toes the line within that angle without crossing it.

 

A lot of these elements arouse expressly from toeing that line. The line of force, the line of fear, the line of the forbidden or socially unaccepted behavior... it just does it for a lot of people. What that all means, in the end, is that people should be responsible for their own viewing when it comes to any type of porn. My moral compass is not their moral compass, and as I don't want to have anyone's imposed on me, I endeavor to not impose mine on anyone else. So, if they enjoy kink-based porn, more power to them--as long as it doesn't cross the line it encroaches upon.

 

Thing is I have serious issues with comments like "Otherwise, enjoy what you enjoy and don't worry about what someone else enjoys watching or making for people watch." #

 

I can't believe you meant this.