Zombie

my brain hurts

Transcendental. Like going on a trip. Without the chemicals

Interesting question. What is evil? Is evil inherent? We could have some fun with that one Sexual violence - mostly against women - is a real problem in society. I don't want to repeat myself so I'll just refer back to what I said in #58 and #66 It makes no difference that viewers are not watching real sexual abuse, rape or murder - which would be illegal anyway - and Cia has already accepted this point.

I've not seen the Cadinot movie so I can't comment on it specifically, but I'll try to answer your question "Is simulated rape wrong in porn?" Cia had it absolutely right when she said "context matters". The 1988 movie The Accused includes a simulated but very realistic, graphic, violent and obviously non-consensual gang-rape of Jodie Foster's character in a bar. It goes on for 5 minutes during which time several other male patrons stand by, watch the rape, even cheer it on. It's an intelligent film. The viewer is forced to watch not only the rape but also the others who just stood by and watched. By implication it makes the viewer feel like those who are standing around and doing nothing except "enjoy the show". I think the director intended this - as an indictment of attitudes in society to rape. That scene, in the context of the movie, is good - because in the context of the movie it is absolutely necessary to show the viewer the brutal reality of violent rape so that the viewer can then understand the movie's point about social attitudes to the violent abuse of women. That same scene taken out of the context of the movie, viewed in isolation and used by viewers to sexually stimulate themselves and connect their arousal specifically with those scenes of violent gang rape, would be evil. Context is everything. .

Yeah I did. Sorry about that. But that is the question in the title of this thread So to answer that question... I think most porn is not just bad it's crap, some porn is good - in quality and also for those excluded from a sex life maybe because they're disabled or elderly, as well as horny teenagers - and some porn is evil. You also said "Context matters". I agree with you. Which is why, unlike you, I do worry about simulated videos that realistically portray people being subjected to violent non-consensual sex - violent rape is apparently popular - or murdered, and which are made to sexually stimulate and arouse viewers and to connect their arousal specifically with those scenes of violence and murder. You may say there's no proof that videos like this have ever changed or corrupted anyone. But it's incontestable that they portray behaviours. Terrible social behaviours. And human social behaviours are largely learned, not innate. So if society at large takes the view that it's fine to enjoy what you enjoy and don't worry about what someone else enjoys watching, or making for people to watch, then at some level this is tacit endorsement that these videos and these behaviours are OK. There is no social upside with these videos but a real social downside that puts everyone else at risk.

This thread simply invited others to chime in about whether porn is evil, good or none of the above. It isn't about reporting, or acting as policemen, or actively looking for bad stuff so I'm a bit puzzled where this has come from. Your view about child porn is now clear - makes no difference whether it's real or not - but not for the other two areas: simulated violent abuse and simulated snuff. You've only given your view on "live" abuse or "real" snuff.

A good question. But CGI and other techniques have made it possible and very realistic. Heck, Gravity is 99% CGI, made by a British company on their computers in Slough or somewhere - only the actors' faces are real That's why UK "child porn" law includes "simulation".

No-one here could disagree when you say It is not my job to monitor the viewing habits of other people. But then no-one here has made that suggestion. I'm still not clear where your lines are drawn. You clearly have a line if it's real sex with obvious children, or real violent abuse, or real snuff. But not if these are simulated? For the viewer there may be no perceivable difference between reality and a simulation.

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.

I was that younger brother

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.

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.

brilliantly organised mail-biting finish right down to the last minute of the final match! Thank you Auntie Beeb, the RBS and all the teams

Traitor!! True Brian O'Driscoll is not just an outstanding player but an especially decent guy, but Ireland have only won in Paris once in 42 years Whatever, I'm looking forward to another cracking weekend of rugby

Fair point, Daddy But when Brits got a taste for ooo-la-lah just across the Channel it was all over for the Puritans...

Kitt's right and there's the least travel going on in the early hours of Sunday morning so it minimizes transport confusion:) In fact the UK adopted double DST during WW2 and again as an experiment from 1968-71 - clocks were put 1 hour forward in winter and 2 hours forward in summer. It boosted economic activity and was generally popular giving much lighter evenings, but it was hated in Scotland because it lies further west and in winter it might be dark until 10.00am - probably why they'll vote to split, having such long memories an' all...

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? -

stalker!

No, I just don't have the information. But now we seem to have dealt with the other matters I'm looking into it

Yes, I don't have a problem with that Graeme. But it is ironic given the subject of this blog... Oh, and this is a good example of irony for all those across the pond who have difficulty getting their heads around it!

OK now I understand. You're not talking about illness and disease per se, you're talking about illness, disease and costs in the US. Taking into account the lifestyle / chronic obesity problem in the US - which is now showing up in many other countries too - that makes sense. But the causes of that problem are not healthcare, they're to do with issues that can only be fully explored in a blog because what will be home truths and common sense to you and me will be heresy to some

Hey, I'm always good!

Well, I didn't say you said healthcare was worthless and not needed. I was simply countering your statement that "it is certainly possible to minimize [illness] to the point that it's rare", "There's no good reason for the amount of illness that exists in the world now" and "The majority of illnesses are avoidable". The fact is there are many reasons for many illnesses which are completely outside anyone's control - genetic causes, infection, epidemics etc. These reasons are a major cause of illness all across the world and back through history and, sadly, it is not currently possible "to minimize [ illness caused by these reasons] to the point that it's rare". That's why we need healthcare systems. But you are absolutely right about the unnecessary use of healthcare by millions who develop disease and poor health because of their unhealthy lifestyles and the waste of lives, money and resources. The solution probably seems obvious to you and me but that's a discussion that needs to take place in a blog where we can let rip

It's your choice to be at variance with the established knowledge base, just don't hold your breath waiting for science history to be rewritten to fall into line with your singular view any time soon Pasteur's work on vaccines built on the earlier work, and a lot more besides - truly he is a science giant. He's been called "the father of microbiology" for good reason. His work speaks for itself and doesn't need to be augmented by an inaccurate claim that his was "the first human made vaccine in history". Actually it was you who raised the question of ethics in your opening post when you stated that it was Pasteur who was "unethical" in how he conducted himself: "Everyone in health care loves to debate Pasteur, because as unethical as he was...."

Yes, but.... maybe you should read my rewritten opening post...