Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Egalité, Fraternité, Liberté - Non!

By m0rzo in Op-Ed
Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 03:53:18 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

France, as I have been frequently reminded throughout my life, is a nation with no inhibitions when it comes to sex. Despite the poisonous rumours which circulate about French women - that they don't wash, obscuring that inevitable stench with all sorts of perfumes, and that they don't shave - France is still regarded, by many, ostensibly at least, to be a nation of high-octane, passionate minxes.

France's predilection for sex has earned it a reputation for being one of the worlds biggest and, may I add, best pornography producers in the world. Compared to the raw, Teutonic, hardcore `fuck-flicks' of its European neighbour, Germany, France's pornography is comparatively sensuous, passionate and tasteful. No-one can deny knowledge of, or even wish to forget, that famous series of French pornography films, Emmanuelle. Many, on the other hand, would rather obliterate completely from their minds the traumatic and depraved memories of the carboot sale classics `Herr Günter and Frau Helmrich' pissing on each other whilst shouting, `fichen sie mich' in unison.


So imagine my incredulity upon learning that there are certain elements within France who wish to ban showing of tasteful, but certainly hardcore, pornography from the nation's television screens. That France, a nation of egalitarianism and liberté, could be heading down this road, if I'm completely honest, stunned me. But it's true. An experience which I hoped would be enjoyed by years of consecutive British schoolboys abroad could suddenly fizzle out due to a small, but vocal, group of French stooges.

I remember it as if it were yesterday. It was late at night in down-town Paris (pr0n. Par-e) sometime in February of last year. Struggling with my luggage, I slammed open the door of the deluxe French hotel which I was to be staying in for the weekend. There was to be a `Britain in Europe' conference in the heart of Paris the next morning so sleep rated highly on my agenda but I felt, as if controlled by something other than myself, an unquenchable urge to turn on the television set. I don't know why I turned on that television set, but I did and, as Frost once wrote, `...that made all the difference.' What I saw before me was like nothing I'd ever seen apart from during the odd clandestine session on the internet. Here, before me, a man and a woman were engaged in fornication. Bare-faced, brazen, unabashed intercourse. It was certainly some stimulating stuff, especially for a 17 year old pent-up-on-various-sex-hormones young man. My friend, who had just came into the room (no pun intended) couldn't believe it either and shrieks of falsetto laughter ensued. This was no holds barred pornography - nothing being left to the imagination - even, ladies and gentlemen, the legendary `cum shot'. All doubt in my mind about the European Union and our inclusion therein was put aside at that very moment - this was the way forward.

Jean Guillore, or as he rather euphemistically calls himself during porn production, John.B.Root, is one of France's most vehement defenders of what has become an integral part of French culture. In an open letter to the French parliament Guillore defends his industry by ridiculing any claims by its opponents that pornography is dangerous and goes as far as to label it a `cultural asset'. He could have a point.

Guillore asserts quite rightly that prohibiting pornography on television will not crush the market for such material only push it underground where it can't be monitored. It's a little like the old drug debate: if you restrict it the quality will get cheaper and then everybody suffers. What was once a French treasure - stunning camera angles and superb direction could just find its self being relegated to the Stygian and seedy depths of Parisian basements. The porn films would still find their way into the clutches of hormonal schoolboys but they certainly won't be as artistic and refined as they would if shown on terrestrial television with the assistance of a high budget. It's akin to how we want our children to be educated when it comes to sex. Ideally, we'd like to talk to them ourselves and inform them of the right choices to make when `push comes to shove' and sex becomes a dominant element of their thoughts. However, you know someone's going to get to them first. Children learn a hell of a lot from schoolyard banter. So, do we want our beloved to be taught by Boris, the 54 year old caretaker (metaphor for underground basement porn) or Anna, the 22 year old, clean, cheerful and downright knowledgeable Swedish exchange teacher (metaphor for French high-budget and artistic television porn).

As a tide of conservatism seems to be rolling over Europe, what is happening to that once vibrant and ebullient liberal spirit which separated it from all others? The move to ban pornography on French television is a step-backward in my book and serves only to reinforce outdated, moralistic ideas that sex is shameful and sex is sin. Sex, when practised between two consenting adults, is neither of these and France's acceptance of this fundamental life-fact ensured a whole lot of respect from not only me, but countless other men up and down the British Isles who experienced the joy of a French hotel room, a television set and a warm, comfy bed.

Not to mention the fact that the outright banning of French television porn could spell disaster for the entire European Union. Oh yes. I, prior to my arrival in France, was a staunch opponent of Britain's inclusion within the EU. I saw it as a bastardised throw-back to the days of Hitler and the Vicci. I detested with all of my being all that it represented; namely a threat to my own sacred land's freedom and age-old liberty. Switching onto Canal Plus made me realise that we have no liberty. I am in no doubt that the simple action of switching on Canal Plus, France's unrivalled provider of late-night love, has converted many a young lad to the bright future of a United Europe.

Is the viewing and production of salacious hardcore porn on French television something which needs to be stopped post-haste, or something which should be encouraged if not only for the plight of liberty and freedom? I am in no way advocating 24 hour porn where one entertains the risk of switching on television at the breakfast table only to find gritty in-and-out coital action - but c'mon, vive la liberté. People have a choice what to watch. If they don't want to watch pornography they don't have to switch it on. If parents would only spend more time looking after their children they wouldn't have to be worried about them being exposed to such things. It's not as if the technology doesn't exist to block this kind of thing. Maybe I'm warped. Maybe, eh? At least I'm honest.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
French TV Porn should...
o ..be banned. 3%
o ..stay the same 10%
o ..be encouraged and beamed around the world. 80%

Votes: 152
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o France
o no inhibitions when it comes to sex
o that they don't wash
o Emmanuelle
o wish to ban
o Paris
o cum shot
o Jean Guillore
o John.B.Root
o Also by m0rzo


Display: Sort:
Egalité, Fraternité, Liberté - Non! | 146 comments (146 topical, editorial, 1 hidden)
More sex less violence (3.66 / 3) (#1)
by mdabaningay on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 06:47:22 AM EST

<rant>

I really don't understand the mentalities of people who try and get sex related media banned. Sure most countries have problems with teenage pregnancies and STDs, but usually far less than the problems with violent crime.

If they really believe that television and other media strongly affects what individuals do, then they should get all violence and all crime banned from the media first, and then worry about sex.

</rant>

fallacy #112 (4.25 / 4) (#19)
by SocratesGhost on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 12:47:21 PM EST

X is bad. Y is bad. Until Y is fixed, we shouldn't do anythinb about X. (assuming X is affected by the status of Y)

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
X is bad, Y is very bad (none / 0) (#21)
by mdabaningay on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 01:21:10 PM EST

So why is X the prime target for banning campaigns?

[ Parent ]
it's one of many things (4.00 / 2) (#35)
by SocratesGhost on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 04:12:50 PM EST

whenever I do any sort of fix-it job, I always start with the easy stuff first.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Analogies aside (none / 0) (#38)
by mdabaningay on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 06:25:49 PM EST

I still find it ridiculous that more noise and progress is made against sexual content than against violent content. In my opinion, if you start from the position of assuming that media content strongly influences society, then you have to prioritise. Its not a case of doing one first and leaving the other, its a question of which you put more effort into.

If I were of the belief that media has a strong influence on the behaviour of individuals then I would be campaigning against violence primarily, and to a lesser extent I would be extolling the virtues of healthy living (including having sex responsibly).

[ Parent ]

i can understand the seeming frustration (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by SocratesGhost on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 07:57:50 PM EST

but you're wrong about one thing. People don't want to take sex off of television because sex is bad and evil and something you should never do. They want it taken off of television because it's important to provide a context around sex. That's not as urgently needed when it comes to violence. Violence is always undesirable in any context, and this is what parents teach their kids. But sex is probably the most sacred and profound activity that we can do as living beings. So parents do want to teach their kids to love, but they are impaired when its presented frivolously. As a result, we have the frustration of wanting to portray this most important activity, but at the same time, providing it in a way that allows for responsible parenting.

The reason it's a greater priority in terms of those who want to censor it, i suppose, is because it's harder to put into a context. It's just a guess, but that is why I don't want it on the television.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Children hmm... (4.00 / 1) (#59)
by mdabaningay on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 05:01:24 AM EST

I can quite understand that one wouldn't want young children to learn about sex from the media, however in the UK we have something called the watershed. Any time before 9pm broadcasters must make their content suitable for children, this seems like a good compromise.

By the time children are old enough to be staying up and watching TV this late then they should be mature enough and have an appreciation of what you consider an appropriate context for sex.

When (or if) I have children I intend them to be suitably brainwashed with my moral values by the time they hit puberty, that I can allow them appropriate freedom to explore those boundaries. If I don't allow them that freedom, then they will do it behind my back or when they leave home. If there is sex on TV or other media then I am going to have to do the context setting before they are allowed access to it.

[ Parent ]

Violence in context (none / 0) (#71)
by Korimyr the Rat on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 11:33:41 AM EST

 I think that the assumption that violence is always undesirable, and that no violent behavior of any kind should be encouraged, or even tolerated, is a dangerous fallacy in modern culture.

 Even within modern, civilized culture, there exist situations in which violence is necessary-- such as self-defense against people who do not accept society's rules.

 There are also situations where violence is acceptable, if not a worthy pursuit-- violent sports, for instance, such as boxing, football, or fencing.

 Also, I think one problem that is causing the random, irrational outbreaks of violence in otherwise civilized societies is the lack of an acceptable outlet for violence and aggression, which are our biological birthrights-- being able to punch someone in the mouth may serve as a vent for the hatred and anger that arises from the mistreatment a lot of students experience in school. Formal, ritualized duelling could serve to lessen the incidence of barroom shootings and workplace massacres-- at a net reduction of loss of human life.

 As human society denies and represses human nature further, instead of working with it in acceptable, controllable fashion, these outbursts of deadly, tragic violence are going to get worse. We simply cannot afford to repeat the "all violence is unacceptable" mantra to ourselves, as though it would take away those parts of our heritage that are clearly descended from bloodthirsty, vicious apes.

--
"Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Founding Member of 'Retarded Monkeys Against the Restriction of Weapons Privileges'
[ Parent ]

i wonder about that (none / 0) (#97)
by SocratesGhost on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 08:00:33 PM EST

I think the argument that violence is in human nature makes a great deal of assumptions. In today's day, I would contend that we are living in a much less brutal world, where the issues of life or death are brought about because of human agency rather than through nature. To a degree, we may still be living with the violence that we have had since our days when we did need to battle nature... and ourselves...for the very limited resources that existed. But what perpetuates this violence: is it in our human genetic composition or is it preserved in our society. The force of history is strong, and I don't think we know enough to be able to say that human nature automatically implies violence. I simply don't know, and I suspect that few people could claim to do so.

Be that as it may, you've slightly missed the point. With violence we can say that it's undersirable, but that doesn't mean unnecessary. Being put into a position of self-defence is just as undersirable of a position. It's sort of the like the Taoist doctor when asked if he was the greatest since his name was known far and wide. He said his brother was a better doctor because he cured diseases even before they showed symptons, but the consequence was that his brother's name never gets outside the village. Violence is the same way. If we're put into a position where violence is necessary, that's not as preferable to finding solutions that don't require it. So, yes, violence is undesirable. In sports, I think you're confusing violence with competition. Only in boxing is there an arguable case for it, but with some few but notable exceptions (*cough* Tyson *cough*), most of the top boxers are usually reported by sportscasters as being among the most gentle, decent, and non-violent people that they know. I suspect that's because they are competitors which employ violence, not vice-versa. I used to practice fencing for years. After the basics, 95% of it is mental.

There are many ways to compete, and many ways are physical. That doesn't imply that violence is the desired action; the rush you get from rock climbing can be just as great as racing can be just as great as Sumo. Competition. Not violence. Violence is just a simple and small part of competition.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Violence vs. Competition (none / 0) (#142)
by Korimyr the Rat on Fri Aug 23, 2002 at 08:14:34 PM EST

Actually, I am not confusing the two-- competition is well and good, and human beings need it. The problem I'm addressing isn't our need to compete, but rather our need to vent our frustration and to deal with people who have offended us. Our society leaves very little ability to do so, especially if you don't posess organizational or political power. I would say that most boxers are calm, even-mannered people mainly *because* of the violence they are capable of, and their ability to release it in a controlled, ritualized context. Also, the discipline involved in learning an advanced unarmed fighting style (which boxing is) helps to focus the mind, and gives them access to stores of mental resolve that many people lack. Also, we have a problem of people who go beyond saying violence is undesirable, but *unacceptable*, in any context, for any reason. This form of pacifistic thinking leaves every civilized person exposed to violence, because they do not take the steps to protect themselves from people who will suffer under no law-- they are essentially willing to declare themselves helpless. This philosophy is spreading, and I find it to be a dangerous cultural trend.

--
"Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Founding Member of 'Retarded Monkeys Against the Restriction of Weapons Privileges'
[ Parent ]
Nice idea, but not in step with the right wing (none / 0) (#84)
by DarkZero on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 02:56:09 PM EST

The people that want to ban sex in all media don't praise sex scenes when they're presented in the context of a loving relationship between a husband and wife. Instead, they use all of the tactics available to them to try to remove sex from all media regardless of context.

Your perspective is quite logical, but it is not the perspective of 90% of the groups that are trying to censor sex from all media. They, at least in countries with a large number of Christians, actually believe that sex that is not done solely for procreation on a very irregular basis with no regard for pleasure is sinful. They seek to force this belief on the people around them by removing any other point of view from fiction or political discourse. This would also be the reason why they campaign against all forms of birth control and in favor of institutionalized discrimation against homosexuals, because neither sex with birth control nor sex with a person of the same gender as yourself will result in procreation.

[ Parent ]

"Sacred" (none / 0) (#90)
by zzzeek on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 05:25:08 PM EST

But sex is probably the most sacred and profound activity that we can do as living beings.

Is this factual information, or a personal value?  Is all sex sacred, 100% of the time?  Should those who do not consider sex to be sacred, or who sometimes practice some kind of sex that is "less than" sacred, not be allowed to reproduce?  Is masturbation sacred?  If masturbation doesnt count, how about mutual masturbation?  Are we drawing an arbitrary line on human behavior here?  Is sex necessarily a supreme spiritual event of the highest magnitude every time it is practiced, and is sacrilgious to be looked upon?  Is it realistic to expect this level of piety from the entire population, 100% of the time, else their non-sacred (although consensual) sexual acts and desires are to be prohibited?

Perhaps sex is sacred some of the time, and wishing to suppress all but a small percentage of the many colors and shades of a real-life, consensual activity is a crushing, extremist and puritanical judgment?

[ Parent ]

No. (none / 0) (#115)
by kitten on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 10:43:57 AM EST

It's a matter of priorities, not a fallacy. If X is only a mild problem and Y is a major one, it makes more sense to devote your resources to dealing with Y first.

Furthermore, he was only pointing out the hypocricy and selective blindness of "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" groups. The same people in a blind rage about pornography have no problem watching the Action Hero kill a dozen guys with his bare hands and fifty more with various guns and other weapons.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
Emmanuelle french? Only half so. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Surial on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 06:52:43 AM EST

The main actor in Emmanuelle, Sylvia Kristel, is a dutch national.
--
"is a signature" is a signature.

hmm (1.50 / 2) (#3)
by mami on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 07:34:29 AM EST

egalite = we want it all
fraternite = we seldom have it
liberte = only as long as it serves our needs

Conclusion: the fraternal women, who love their egalite, have decided that porn liberte doesn't serve their needs. Bingo.

Some reasons (4.71 / 7) (#4)
by Betcour on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 08:16:48 AM EST

This is actually not just because of a tide of conservatism - the feminists as well seem to hate pornography with a passion and have taken it as a sacred mission to destroy it.

The other thing is that of course, while everybody watches porn, almost nobody would dare say it out loud (and even more so, politicaly fight for it)

Not all of them... (4.80 / 5) (#7)
by CtrlBR on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 08:38:10 AM EST

There's a French pornstar named Ovidie that happen to be a pretty smart girl (philosophy student married to an university philosophy professor) that has quite compelling argument for pornography. More so she produce porn flicks that are supposed to be more appealing to women. But she definitely have issues with the current production.

She's very often in talk show in France since she have an interesting personality and that job.

If no-one thinks you're a freedom fighter than you're probably not a terrorist.
-- Gully Foyle

[ Parent ]
True but (5.00 / 5) (#13)
by Betcour on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 10:58:24 AM EST

She is on talk-shows because she is a "special-case". The majority of feminists movements, and the most vocal ones (such as the Chiennes de gardes) are rabid anti-porn groups.

I find it amusing to see the rabid feminists fighting hand in hands with the extreme right to make porn illegal, eventhough they are supposed to be enemies. Extremes always seem to meet somehow.

[ Parent ]
Maybe in your area (none / 0) (#109)
by FeersumAsura on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 03:43:54 AM EST

Many poeple I kknow are quite happy to talk about pron, although it's usually joking about it. However, I do know people who've been in amateur porn and they were nice friednly happy people. One of them even worked as a charity fundraiser, it's just how some pople live their lives. As long as it doesn't affect you in a bad way does it really matter?

I'm so pre-emptive I'd nuke America to save time.
[ Parent ]
Arguments against porn (3.00 / 3) (#5)
by QuickFox on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 08:22:23 AM EST

Some people believe that porn can't be produced without badly oppressing the actresses. It seems when porn is produced the actresses are very often treated very badly. It seems many people think that this is inevitable when porn is produced, and that the production should be banned because of this.

Another group who are against porn are people who feel that porn is degrading and humiliating against women.

Those groups are often strongly emotional in their argumentation, so I'm surprised that this article hasn't started heated flamewars. Isn't anyone from those camps reading this?

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fi

I disagree... (4.50 / 4) (#6)
by m0rzo on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 08:27:18 AM EST

...with the 'oppression' argument. All of the porn actresses that I've seen in documentaries etc, seem more than happy to be doing what they're doing. And they get a nice big pay packet to go with it! I mean, they don't have to do what they're doing, do they?

At least with legitimate, televised pornography some standards have to be adhered to. If you go down the road of outlawing it, then you're left with what I described as 'basement porn'; that's when you have to start worrying. What kind of rights and representation are THOSE women going to have?


My last sig was just plain offensive.
[ Parent ]

wonder who's making "porn is good" docum (4.00 / 1) (#30)
by M0dUluS on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 03:03:41 PM EST

Perhaps porn directors?
In order to determine whether the subjects of porn movies are oppressed or happy you'd really need a comprehensive survey.

"[...]no American spin is involved at all. Is that such a stretch?" -On Lawn
[ Parent ]
We're not talking about... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by m0rzo on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 03:10:31 PM EST

..underground, East European ultrahardcore rape movies here. We're discussing high-budget, extremely professional Western porn production; a lucrative business with hundreds of thousands of consumers. These women are not forced to do what they do and they get paid a lot of money to do it. Of course, I can't say that they're not psychologically fucked up, I can't say they're not just doing it for the money but, at the end of the day, they're doing it out of choice. As civilised human beings we don't have any right to infringe on that choice.


My last sig was just plain offensive.
[ Parent ]

It's not (4.00 / 1) (#53)
by auraslip on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 01:40:53 AM EST

that they really are oppressed, it is that they are acting oppressed. For example how many girls want you to "blow your load on my face" and "take it and everyhole"?
Through their actions the porn stars are making it appear normal that every girl wants to be treated as a "fuckhole" and nothing but that. Almost every "industry" porn I have seen ends with a cumshot to the face, and the girl pretends to like it. I can see how inexperianced men (and women) can see this and think that this is how sex is: women are for fucking and cumming on, and not worthy of anything else.
124
[ Parent ]
Not quite... (4.66 / 3) (#8)
by aziegler on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 09:25:38 AM EST

It's the men who have the real tough time in mainstream porn; they are paid less and have the, um, harder working conditions.

-austin

[ Parent ]

Don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Betcour on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 11:02:15 AM EST

That men are also treated more as sexual objects whom you only see a small part of their body. Women are usually better treated by the camera and "scenario" and get all the attention.

[ Parent ]
Nutjob extremists (4.75 / 8) (#17)
by Irobot on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 12:01:15 PM EST

Another group who are against porn are people who feel that porn is degrading and humiliating against women.
Well, there are also feminists who feel that peeing while standing is a show of male power. Fuckin' nutjobs, I tell you.

Although porn can be "degrading and humiliating" to women, it isn't necessarily. And the adherents for that view generally don't make the claim that it can be to men also. Is extremism ever rational?

Irobot

The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
[ Parent ]

If I ever run into one of those (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by fencepost on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 08:39:40 PM EST

I'll just have to point out to her that just because her education was deficient doesn't mean that I should be peeing sitting down as well.  If she doesn't want to learn, that's her problem.
--
"nothing really says "don't hire me, I'm an idiot" quite as well as misspelling "pom-pom" on your resume." -- former Grinnellian
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#141)
by Irobot on Fri Aug 23, 2002 at 12:29:55 PM EST

I passed it on to my wife - she's getting quite a kick out of it.

Irobot

The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
[ Parent ]

They need to take a japanese approach (3.00 / 2) (#9)
by RyoCokey on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 10:19:38 AM EST

That country has wonderfully healthy attitudes toward sex. Um, well... not really (Funny, but probably not work safe)



Human's cannot be trusted to protect nature! We need stonger laws to protect all animals. - Leonardo Calcagno, Monteal, P.Quebec, Canada
Careful (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by fluffy grue on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 12:17:54 PM EST

With that link you're inviting "fecal japan" posts. :D
--
"Is a sentence fragment" is a sentence fragment.
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Maybe they should (4.00 / 3) (#57)
by kvan on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 04:17:06 AM EST

You may consider the Japanese relationship to sexuality twisted, but the fact is that Japan rates an order of magnitude lower than most western countries in rape incidents per capita. If there really is a causation between porn and rape, then I say bring on the bukkake.

"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, most do." - Bertrand Russell


[ Parent ]
Misleading. (4.87 / 8) (#75)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 12:32:42 PM EST

but the fact is that Japan rates an order of magnitude lower than most western countries in rape incidents per capita.

What you meant to say was:
but the fact is that Japan rates an order of magnitude lower than most western countries in reported rape incidents per capita.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

You just became mah new sig [n/t] (none / 0) (#123)
by RyoCokey on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 05:23:51 PM EST



Human's cannot be trusted to protect nature! We need stonger laws to protect all animals. - Leonardo Calcagno, Monteal, P.Quebec, Canada
[ Parent ]
not porn (3.50 / 4) (#10)
by dazzle on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 10:20:43 AM EST

Emmanuelle is not porn. It's a film with hints of sex in it.

---
the internet: a global network of small minded people


I disagree. (none / 0) (#11)
by m0rzo on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 10:23:46 AM EST

Emmanuelle is, blatantly, merely porn with a storyline.


My last sig was just plain offensive.
[ Parent ]

nah... (2.50 / 2) (#12)
by dazzle on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 10:43:24 AM EST

Not what I would define porn as and I've got the first 3 Emmanuelle films at home. Erotic but not porn.

---
the internet: a global network of small minded people


[ Parent ]
Shower commercials (4.00 / 1) (#62)
by automaton on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 07:21:34 AM EST

Most americans find european shower commercials offensive (= pr0n). We cut a bit back on that, but about 5 years ago you had naked women showering and touching themselves, showing their breasts, etc. just to promote the new, skin-sensitive (whatever) shower gel... So as mentioned in other comments the american and european definitions of pr0n differ greatly...

[ Parent ]
Is porn a problem or really just a symptom? (4.50 / 2) (#15)
by 2chance on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 11:51:35 AM EST

Why is it that porn is such a huge industry?  I think it's because we have such conservative attitudes about sexuality.

If sex was treated as a natural part of life and something that should be celebrated and not dirty than perhaps people wouldn't feel the need for porn.  North Americans are so repressed that it is hard to explore one's sexuality and have a happy sex life.

I would speculate that the heavy porn consumers do not have happy sexual lives and that people with loving partners who have great sex do not really feel the need for heavy porn viewing.

Is porn a solution? (3.00 / 2) (#60)
by mdabaningay on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 05:14:13 AM EST

The real problems (in my opinion) are teenage pregnanices, STDs and mental scarring caused by sexual activity in an inappropriate relationship. There are a few people who can resist all temptation for sexual release, either through masturbation or intercourse, until married, however this group is in the minority.

I believe that as a society we need to teach responsible attitudes towards sexuality, the benefits of waiting for a stable relationship and the dangers (both physical and mental) of having sex with almost complete strangers. There also needs to be an outlet for those people not in a relationship, in my opinion pornographic material produced in a sensitive and non-exploitative manner could be a solution.

[ Parent ]

"No sex until marriage" doesn't work. (4.50 / 2) (#65)
by nictamer on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 07:48:25 AM EST

Teenage pregnancy are 1/8th the rate of the US in the Netherlands, and 1/6th in France.

USians are 10x more religious than both countries.

Draw your own conclusions
--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]

Correct (4.00 / 1) (#66)
by mdabaningay on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 09:09:11 AM EST

"No Sex before marriage" doesn't work (usually). In fact, I said that waiting for a stable relationship only works for a tiny minority. However, no sex until you are mature enough to be aware of the risks and deal with the consequences can work.

I also said that the best place for sex is within an appropriate relationship. In my opinion, this could be marriage, civil union, long term relationships or even a one night stand if both partners understand what the other expects from the relationship.

[ Parent ]

Over-Analyzation (3.00 / 3) (#81)
by DarkZero on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 02:22:16 PM EST

Pornography really just exists for the same reason that movies, TV shows, plays, televised sports, and fiction books exist: entertainment. People enjoy watching it, so they do. It's just that simple. Over-analyzing it into a theory about conservative attitudes about sexuality and general sexual repression among the populace is like saying that people watch lawyer dramas on TV because they all have a secret yearning to be a lawyer that is being repressed by the general populace and its conservative attitudes toward jobs in the judicial system.

It's just entertainment.

[ Parent ]

Compare that to Germany... (4.54 / 11) (#16)
by Rk on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 11:56:54 AM EST

Germany is an interesting case. First, most Europeans consider what Americans would consider to be hard-core pornography to be just pornography, the European definition of 'hard-core' would be S&M, bestiality and child pornography, the broadcast and distrubtion of which is in most European coutries to a greater or lesser extent prohibited. What Americans would most likely consider soft-core porno might be classified under "Erotica" in Europe, generally not considered to be harmful or at least ot in such a way as to limit its distribution.

Germany has a so called "youth protection code" or Jugendschutzgesetz (JSG for short). Considered prudish and outdated by many, it envisages an organisation known previously as the BPjS (Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Schriften, or federal testing centre for youth-endangering literature) now as the BPjM (Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien = federal testing centre for youth-endangering media). Despite its draconian name, it focusses mainly on particular gruesome films and games - though usually goes overboard somewhat - and anything that has much to do with the extreme right. As far sexuality is concerned, the BPjS' (now known as the BPjM) only mandate is to "index" images and films where children are displayed in a sexually evocative manner.

The BPjM can only index, not ban, in theory. Indexed works may not be made available to persons under 18 nor may they be advertised - whereby the definition of an advertisement is stretched to its very limit, and merely mentioning an indexed work on a public forum maybe understood to be a violation of the Jugendschutzgesetz. Some of the BPjMs decisions are rather questionable, for example, its decision to index the movie Starship Troopers or Blade Runner. It even indexed Tarzan in the fifties, a sure sign that the idea of what is "acceptable" is purely cultural and represents the fears and trends of the moment, not an objective judgement of what could be damaging to children, if indeed the idea the mere information could do damage to children can hold water.

The biggest resistance to the BPjM comes from the part of gamers, who get sick of the eternal and baseless scapegoating computer games get for violence, especially for the Erfurt massacre. As as predictable knee-jerk response the German parliament strengthened the JSG even further, as well as already strict German gun laws. As the BPjM decided not to place Counterstrike on the index - possibily as a result of the correspondence of large numbers of CS players - even Gerhard Schroeder expressed "outrage" (of the political, not the emotional type). And this guy is a so-called social democrat, he isn't supposed to be so damn childish about these things. But he'll do anything to make himself look better to the German voters ahead of the general elections. Some things just never change.

Where does pr0n come in? Well, in Germany, if you want to make pornography available, you have to make it available through a channel not available to under 18 year-olds. Note that the German definition of pornography is less prudish than the American one, as I said earlier. Now German television channels have a special agreement, a kind of public contract, the allows them to broadcast indexed content after a certain time. That's why German late night TV is filled with pornography, most of which would violate FCC directives if it were broadcast in the USA.

OTOH, the major flooding along the Elbe has given German politicians something else to yack on about and to do nothing to actually help those in need - like true bureaucrats would.

knee-jerks (2.22 / 9) (#20)
by mami on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 12:54:15 PM EST

As as predictable knee-jerk response the German parliament strengthened the JSG even further, as well as already strict German gun laws.

Well, I am still thinking about a good knee-jerk response to your knee-jerk comment.

OTOH, the major flooding along the Elbe has given German politicians something else to yack on about and to do nothing to actually help those in need - like true bureaucrats would.

Well, what are you doing to help ? Whining on K5 and having a big mouth like true non bureaucratic ... I could add here something, but my mommy always told me that you can't mess up your stomach when you swallow down some words that better are left unspoken ...



[ Parent ]

Reasons (4.00 / 13) (#22)
by linca on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 01:24:41 PM EST

One of the main reasons given as of the dangerous nature of porn on TV is that its nature led many teens to believe that all girls are always willing to have sex with as many guys as are present. This has led to the phenomenon of tournantes, or collective rapes where a dozen kids, aged 13-17, get a girl in some basement and rape her. Apparently most of their sex ed was done by watching porn, and they don't have healthy notions about girls' opinions about sex and love. There has been a French series of articles about the subject in various newspapers, that are at the origin of the attempt to ban porn. (Not that it would be effective since getting some porn video is easy...)

Oh, and just a nitpick, the correct order of the French motto is Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.

Hmm. (2.00 / 1) (#23)
by m0rzo on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 01:29:09 PM EST

Why the assumption that it only messes up guys? That's sexist in its self. If it was so dangerous then it would affect the girls aswell, surely. Oh yes, the title might be a little misleading. I was trying to imply that there's egalitarianism and fraternity but no liberty. Maybe a 'but' inbetween fraternite and liberte would have made that more obvious.


My last sig was just plain offensive.
[ Parent ]

Not an assumption... (3.00 / 5) (#24)
by linca on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 01:46:32 PM EST

It is messing up guys, anyway. Trying to avoid rapes is not sexist. And it is messing up girls as a result, too; when your boyfriend has all his friends rape you, it's not really fun. If indeed girls did love gang bangs, all the better, but that does not seem to be happening. The result is that porn causes rape, apparently. Since there is a failure to give proper sex ed to some kids, partly because of porn, which ends up in rape, a solution must be found, or at least it is the reasoning behind it.

Oh, and if we had egalitarianism and fraternity... the people trying to ban porn don't care for those two either.

[ Parent ]

Perhaps... (4.50 / 4) (#25)
by nustajeb on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 02:01:58 PM EST

Parents should consider informing their children that rape is not the norm they expect of their children. Either way, it seems more like an excuse than causation.
In the U.S., people are always trying to use the Government as a babysitter. It would be a shame to see that behavior everywhere.

[ Parent ]
Parents. (3.60 / 5) (#26)
by linca on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 02:08:12 PM EST

The parents of those kids are no longer able to have any authority on their kids, either because their shitty jobs take too much of their energy to properly raise their kids, or because they don't even have a shitty job and thus their children have lost any respect in them.

And what must be understood is that the kids don't really understand they are comitting a rape; thinking that like in the porns, the girls are saying no but deep down think yes.

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry... (4.33 / 3) (#28)
by m0rzo on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 02:53:41 PM EST

..but I don't buy that for a second. Kids that go out and rape someone, and can't differentiate between fantasy and reality, are going to commit crimes like that whether porn is available or not. I think you're thinking of another kind of porn anyway, one which I've no interest in seeing and one which I'm quite certain doesn't appear on French television. There's always going to be various perversions, such as rape porn, floating about whether in cyber space or meat space.

Sure, I've watched porn - along with 99.9% of teenage boys in the world. I'd actually think something was very wrong if an adolescent didn't show an interest in porn and sex. It's human nature.

Young men that go around and do that kind of thing have found the perfect scapegoat - porn. Rape is Rape is Rape. If a girl goes looking for a gang bang then it's not rape. That doesn't seem to be the case with these guys and rape is an age-old crime that you're not going to get rid of by banning porn.


My last sig was just plain offensive.
[ Parent ]

Well. (4.37 / 8) (#32)
by linca on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 03:12:33 PM EST

I guess you don't understand that rape is not a clear cut thing, especially for someone young, and with a less than perfect sex ed. Often, the girl will agree to have sex with her boyfriend, perhaps in front of the guy's friends. Then, the bunch of guys will think it is natural for all of them to have sex with the girl - as happens in many porns, at least those I've seen  on French TV, where occasionally the girls will begin to say no (never very strongly tough) before enjoying it. And yes, the young teens take that view as reality. It's pretty hard to make the difference between fantasy and reality when you're only exposed to fantasy, as is the case for those youth. (I'm talking about 12-15 years old, not about older ones who usually end up knowing the difference).

I don't think disallowing porn on TV is the solution. I'd bet better sex ed (and better porn) is the solution. Anyway, are the fantasies of 40 years old men the way to learn about sex when a boy? I'm not sure.

[ Parent ]

Missing an argument. (none / 0) (#67)
by blixco on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 09:49:45 AM EST

I can see your point. I'm wondering if the effect media has on children is more pervasive than just porn. For instance, does violence on television cause violence in kids? There have been numerous studies, but nothing definitive that can't be defeated by another study. What about violence in video games? Kids plug themselves into these things for hours at a time, killing everything that moves. Does that lead to violence in real life?

I think we need to give the kids some credit here. Obviously, some of them are going to be swayed by any passing media, but the real problem (as has been pointed out) isn't the kids. It's the parents. It's the way the kids have been brought up: that there is no discipline, that there is no wrong. They are led to believe that they are in control, mainly because they have been in control; the parents are either absent (physically or emotionally) or just plain incompetent. The parents have failed them.

Kids don't rape because some video says "Hey, rape your girlfriend!" They might get ideas about it where no idea existed before, but acting on it isn't the fault of the video. Acting on these impulses is a fault of their upbringing.

Unless they're sociopaths / psychopathic / not sane.

You can't ban offensive things and expect that to solve the problem. Other problems will surface, leading to the banning of video games, or music, or movies, or books, or web access. Eventually you end up dependent on legislation to raise the child, and that's proven to be not only unrealistic but completely ineffective.

If the child commits a crime and proves to be sane, the parent is responsible in most cases. There's always an exception or three, but with proper upbringing (not necessarily strict...just proper, whatever that means for the child) the child would be better prepared to deal with the influences of media, friends, and society.

I'm not a parent, so I don't know what this requires. I plan on learning as much as I can about child behavior and psychology before becoming a parent, so I can find that balance in discipline and interest. That and the child will not be exposed to television.

I said government censorship was bad, but parental censorship is perfectly OK.
-------------------------------------------
The root of the problem has been isolated.
[ Parent ]

Missing the point (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Betcour on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 04:02:37 PM EST

The problem is not that they don't know rape is wrong, the problem is that they often don't consider what they are doing as a rape. Most often than not the girl is not screaming and kicking, at least not enough for them to understand that she is really against what is going on. They usually intimidate the girl into doing what they want (which is not very hard when 10 guys corner a girl in a dark cave with no help nearby).

[ Parent ]
exactly (4.50 / 2) (#27)
by mech9t8 on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 02:12:13 PM EST

If indeed girls did love gang bangs, all the better, but that does not seem to be happening.

Indeed, that's the crux of it: porn generally depicts girls enjoying things that most girls do not enjoy (gang-bangs, ass-fucking, rape, etc), and teaches dumbass teenage guys that gang-rape is fun and girls like it.

--
IMHO
[ Parent ]

Girls like ass fucking (2.00 / 2) (#63)
by nictamer on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 07:40:52 AM EST

You just have to do it properly.

It's a pity pr0n movies usually don't show the lubrication step, which is very important for a succesful and enjoyable anal penetration.
--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]

Not the direct cause, but a factor (4.66 / 3) (#39)
by RosaRL on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 07:33:17 PM EST

I'm more inclined to say that porn helps to create an atmosphere where sexism is upheld as the norm, rather than directly linking it as a cause of rape. It creates this atmosphere where men seem to think its ok to approach any woman for sex as if she is a prostitute. This atmosphere leads to women being treated like blow up sex dolls in bed and treated like lap dancers when waiting tables.

[ Parent ]
We're not talking.. (3.00 / 4) (#41)
by linca on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 08:01:59 PM EST

about men and women, but about kids,in their early to middle teens, whose only sex ed yet is porn. guys who think the only proper way to end sex is with a facial ejaculation, since it's the only thing they ever saw... etc, etc. That is why porn can very much be a direct cause.

[ Parent ]
How academic (none / 0) (#56)
by Perianwyr on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 03:22:35 AM EST

Personally speaking, how many guys have you met that do that?

[ Parent ]
its true! (5.00 / 1) (#140)
by RosaRL on Wed Aug 21, 2002 at 07:24:09 AM EST

Well, I can agree that porn directly influences the way that guys treat women in bed and everywhere else and I don't think it ends with the teen years. However, there is a lot of other things out there that promote these behaviors as well in culture from music to TV to the preacher that says that all women should be silent.

[ Parent ]
It's messing up girls too... My old high school... (4.00 / 8) (#46)
by Keeteel on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 09:40:03 PM EST

In my high school porn was a huge trend from about sophmore year to senior year, led by of course the popular kids and jocks who could often be seen swapping tapes on campus (I don't believe we had DVDs yet.)There was of course the gang rapes done by the foot ball team, including some with willing girls from what I understood. But the girls also had a distorted view on the opposite sex, and sex in general.

It was common to be asked by the "in crowd / trendy girls" before going on your first date "How big is your dick?" If you said anything under 7" you would be walked out on right there, unless you were a popular kid and or jock. There was a crack down of sex on our campus which I found amazing, what was happening is these girls would ask "How big is your cock" and the guys who said 8" or what not would be dragged by the girl in to the bath room, mounted and basically go at it unprotected right then and there. These weren't trashy girls, they were upper class, rich, absolutely beautiful girls, some who were even pretty intelligent. But they had such a distorted view of sex it was frankly disgusting to see this stuff happening with people I thought were friends.

I even felt it too, I've never claimed to be a monster I'm a little over 6" and have never had a issue pleasing a women but I was walked out on by my prom date who I really was feeling good vibes between each other. We had an awesome date, great dancing, lots of laughs and she was having a good time too, we get to the after party, things eventually lead to the bedroom. We're making out, she slides my pants off and I see a sigh of disgust, and anger on her face. I just wasn't big enough for her and she was upset that I had wasted her time now that and I quote this exactly "I'm going to have to go steal some dumb bitches date who can stuff me like a real man." She walked out and never talked to me again, not that I cared, I also wish I would have realized how superficial she was so I could have gone with someone else.

I'm not saying pornography caused this, but it was definately a factor in distorting the minds of the kids I grew up with. It was a trend started by the popular kids and of course spread like wild fire to the other kids of the school who eagerly wanted to be like them. The community basically let their kids do what ever they wanted, hands off parents who believed in giving their kids space through being friends instead of parents. Drug use, drinking and driving, sex at school while classes were going on, superficial views on the opposite sex, shady beliefs on sex itself all because of how these kids were raised. Though I supposed the only reason I didn't end up like them is my parents sat me down to talk about sex in 8th grade. I'm sure as hell glad those days are over though, and till this day I've never had another girl walk out on me for being too small, only the porn infested lands of my old town has that happened.



[ Parent ]
Incredible (none / 0) (#77)
by LoppEar on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 12:52:56 PM EST

You should be writing porn.


[ Parent ]
Sad but on par with men (none / 0) (#93)
by 2chance on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 06:33:47 PM EST

It seems this behavior, as superficial as it is, just compares to the attitudes that many men hold about a woman's physical appearance.

I mean, how often do you hear men say things like "I'd do her if only she had bigger tits." Just listen to hip-hop music for more examples.

"Me and my homey just started talkin,
I said homey, she looks good,
He said that ass is flat as wood,
I said what about baby in the black,
And he said Short, she's all back."
Invasion Of The Flat Booty Bitches, Too Short

[ Parent ]

Fiction, and not very good fiction at that (none / 0) (#104)
by beg2differ on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 11:28:18 PM EST

Keeteel wrote:
A whole lot of male bullshit.
If you want to know what turns a woman on, you should try reading a woman's romance novel. The only people who are going to be taken in by your posting are those subset of men who falsely believe that a woman is someone whose delightfully different anatomy conceals an essentially male libido.

[ Parent ]
It's simply sharing my experience, my reality. (3.00 / 5) (#106)
by Keeteel on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 12:54:34 AM EST

This is going to be long and is only based on my experiences, please don't read unless you're curious about my insight on this.

I'm not sure what you're talking about in regards to fiction, I wasn't trying to drill home a strong point outside of the experience of my youth in regard to what happened when my high school became saturated with worshiping sex. What sparked that craze of sex was the experiences they had with becoming overwhelmed by porno and the stereo types that went on in them. I didn't mention the guys but as the below poster brought up very excellently the guys were definitely every bit as superficial as the girls (Big tits, must deep throat, like it analy, etc etc.) Obviously I would hope my youthful experience is the exception and hopefully a rare experience but the fact remains it is the reality that I went through. The kids I grew up with were not parented and allowed to do whatever they pleased in regards to whatever they desired. As I said before too, these kids were the ones you'd think would have easily been off to an ivy league school with promising futures, in fact many actually did go off to the top schools of the country despite their attitudes (They got good grades, were in their own clubs, had parents with lots of money, took tons of prep classes to get their SAT I/IIs up, and all the benefits wealthy children are given when they grow up.) I would never deny how book smart these kids were, but that does not change their attitudes and superficiality towards sex and their seemingly lack of critical thinking.

Let's look at my adult life..

I find this ironic in that you're telling us we should read a romantic, fictional novel when I'm presenting a real life experience. With all due respect the world presented in woman's romances is hardly reality. The experiences I have had with such books and with a few female friends who read them quite frequently in their adult lives is that they are unrealistic. The ones I've read present a sensual and emotional fictional tale that exploits a woman's need and desire for emotional, sensual and colorful love experiences, rarely have I ever seen these stories accurately depict reality. In fact, the women I know who read the books preach that they want a man who is like the characters in the book and who will whisk them away in sensual bliss, eternally love them, dedicate his life to serving them while being an untamable challenge who will defend his woman right or wrong with his life, heart, and soul. Why is it then that so many young women dating and not married constantly end up with boy friends who have no objections to beating them? Who have no objections to cheating on them? Who have no objections to degrading them? Why is it that I've had girls cry in pain and suffering on my shoulder that they want it to stop and wish they had a nice guy boyfriend yet one look in the eyes of their lustful boyfriend who only wants to get laid for the night crushes all their resistance and brings them right back in to the vicious cycle.

The truth is I've never seen or known anyone with any resemblance to the characters in those novels, further, I've never met or known a woman who would actually commit to what she wants based on those books. When G-Q Playa comes around, they're head over heels and they themselves have no problems cheating on their "nice guy boyfriends" for one night with that untamable beast of a man that every woman lusts for. Thankfully that one has never happened to me, but I've seen it quite frequently with my adult women friends. But being a semi nice guy, still one at heart I've heard the words "Let's just be friends" more than once, but you live and learn.

I'm not saying this stuff is bad, good, wrong, or right. It's the reality I live in, the reality I see. Granted this is only part of a much larger picture that includes many, upon many good things instead of all these dark, sad perspectives. But the fact is very seldom is reality like you read in a romantic fictional novel made for women. Very seldom do the methods in them work by your normal guy. The ones who abuse those methods are the womanizers and playas who know how to exploit a woman's emotions and bring out what most guys can't. The real romantic world is much more harsh, confusing, unforgiving, but it can be so rewarding at the end of the day.

Not for me though, I've stopped dating when I witnessed from a playa friend of a friend how he charms women by following a script he keeps in his pocket. He has a print out of a guideline of a conversation to follow and has a 95% success rate he claims, I saw him take a complete stranger to his bed after 2 hours, once again a beautiful, charming woman. Knowing how easily you can charm women by simply bringing out the right emotions and using the right words has more less crushed my dreams in regards to love and finding an equal when you're the type of person who likes to think. The intelligent women who won't fall for it seem to be so rare that it's really pretty sad.

And before you say it'll never happen to you, a 95% success rate, you may never realize he's doing it to you, what you'll see happening is yourself falling in love with someone who seemingly understands you like no one else in the world has before. Who connects with you emotionally, intellectually, physically, spiritually, a person who blows your mind and seemingly is the most charming, intelligent, wonderful man you ever have met. All the while he's using the same words he's used 100 times before that's worked nearly perfectly every time. It's pretty hard to want to keep dating when you know you can get most women by following a script, but by being yourself and treating them nicely they'll try to walk all over you.

[ Parent ]
Would make a good K5 story (none / 0) (#129)
by 2chance on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 09:00:27 PM EST

Your friend, the details of his script, and your comments would make a good story.  K5 needs more relationship pieces.  

[ Parent ]
Might be interesting! (2.00 / 3) (#131)
by Keeteel on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 09:29:42 PM EST

The playa is still a friend of a friend even though we know each other decently. What I'd like to do and believe would be rather interesting is follow him for a night and analyze each situation he gets in to with women. If he's willing maybe even get him to comment and give a over view of what he did for each encounter, their reactions, pieces from the conversation. I could form it all together in to a nice, thought provoking story that would surely offer some nice debate. Maybe even present a part on how you can apply some of those ideas to your realtionship life as a test of validity for the non-believers or those just curious at heart!

Even for self interest I'm going to persue this, thanks :)

[ Parent ]
interesting story (5.00 / 1) (#118)
by tealeaf on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 11:43:50 AM EST

I sympathise with you, however...  I don't think this was caused by porn.  Porn was as much a factor as having a penis/vagina in all this.  I think this was caused by lack of parental involvement at young age and also an empoverished culture that supported this.  In a more cultured environment peers do what parents fail to do, however, because both parents and culture were lacking, there you have it.

That's a pretty weird thing.  First I hear of something like that happening in a high school (in any country).  I think your post is worthwhile as it is, but it would be nice if you explained how is it that porn resulted in (or helped) this?  I don't know where those people got their porn, but the kinds I see shows people with all kinds of anatomies of all sizes.  If anything, porn should make people more open minded, imo.  Maybe your high school peers were exposed to some poorly made porn, like the kind that pictures women with breasts the size of watermelons?  So, another problem, besides parents and culture is what looks like a very narrow and limited exposure to porn.

This also goes as a nice proof that being rich doesn't equal being well cultured.

[ Parent ]

Indeed, not the cause but an influence. (1.00 / 2) (#130)
by Keeteel on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 09:17:05 PM EST

I would absolutely agree it wasn't the defining reason behind it. When I actually sat down and analyzed the situation for the first time in depth before posting my experience I came to the conclusion as I wrote on my last paragraph that it was a community of parents who were more interested in being their children's friends instead of their parents. They were most certainly the type of people who let their kids get away with anything and justified it by saying "Well, at least little billy was honest, he admitted to doing cocaine last night! That makes it OK!" I'm sure you know the type of strange parenting logic I'm referring to.

I will say that the saturation with porn influenced the kids once they were set free to do as they pleased. Many teenagers are looking to establish themselves as sexual beings, there's a tremendous amount of peer pressure to lose your virginity as quickly as possible. Besides that there's an expectation of you to be a sexually dominated creature after losing it. I never did figure that one out, why is it that the simple act of exploiting our reproductive system for pleasure in one of the most animalistic like act humans take part in is viewed as the holy of holys to teens, hell and adults? I honestly don't feel it's as big as people make it out to be, perhaps you could share some of your thoughts on that?

What happened was that their sexual education came from a specific type of porn accessible in that town, the tapes abound were mostly from their parent's hidden collection and traded frequently. When the popular/trendy kids started the trend and presented their attitudes it was just as effective as if all the conformers of the school grew up watching porn every day. With the demand for American kids to fit in, it didn't take long for a chunk of the school and practically all of the popular kids to follow a specific mindset and attitude based off the videos they saw. Here's what I find ironic too, you know as well as I there's not a chance in hell every trendy kid was packing a 8" plus piece. It's simply unrealistic, yet they established themselves as the biggest dicks who could make any girl scream in pleasure and pain. Yet for someone below that group, the only real chance was if you had a big dick, because the girls wanted pleasure. Now why would they lower themselves to what is in their eyes someone lower on the social hierarchy? I can only imagine it's because they wanted to get laid by a big dick that they weren't getting from the "top" social hierarchy.

I'd agree with you too that porn could be healthy if you get a balance of it, I saw a few of the videos they had (really porn was celebrated, they'd have no problem playing it on the big TVs of their parent's house at parties.) The types I saw were the ones I've tried to describe, big dicks (As a teen that made me and I'm sure many others feel, inadequate before realizing years later, hey! I'm normal.) You know, maybe in the end it was all a ego thing, the girls didn't have as big tits as the ones in the videos and the guys most likely didn't have a huge cock like on those tapes. Hypothetically all their attitudes, actions, etc etc could have been nothing more than a way to feel better about themselves by putting down the ones with even smaller sexual organs?.

You know I've gone off topic a few times but you definitely seem like one who's capable of fairly analyzing situations. Why do you feel there's also such an importance on the size of sexual parts, for the most part none of us chose before being born how big we're going to be. What most people have is natural, yet bigger is better.... I'm really starting to think in the adult years that only a few closed minded people feel that way and seemingly our media is exploiting this saying everyone feels that way. Your thoughts?

[ Parent ]
thoughts (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by tealeaf on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 11:58:33 PM EST

"What happened was that their sexual education came from a specific type of porn accessible in that town, the tapes abound were mostly from their parent's hidden collection and traded frequently."

Well, this explains everything.  They were exposed to a very narrow selection of porn.  There is some porn that stresses the size: boobs for women and dicks for men.  I don't think there is a problem if size is incidental and not the main focus and object of the porn video/shot.  And in most porn that I've seen (and I've seen quite a bit), there are people pictured of all kinds: all kinds of colors, height, weight, sizes, ages, etc.  There is plenty of porn (and good looking too) with small breasted women and with guys who have below average length penis.  I'd say, in my experience, the distribution is a statistical bell curve.

It looks to me like there was a pretty tight group of parents who all had the same perverted interests (size) and shared the same tapes.  Due to the mechanics of peer pressure it only takes a few kids to make this perversion the norm.  Unfortunately, I don't think a teenager can stand  against this kind of thing alone.  If, however, the teen receives a mental innoculation from his/her parents in the form of a little introduction to sex, the chances are much improved.  Of course not all parents discuss things like that (unfortunately), and so kids have to rely on luck (like being lucky to not go to your high school).

"You know, maybe in the end it was all a ego thing..."

Not "maybe", but for sure.

"Why do you feel there's also such an importance on the size of sexual parts, for the most part none of us chose before being born how big we're going to be. What most people have is natural, yet bigger is better.... I'm really starting to think in the adult years that only a few closed minded people feel that way and seemingly our media is exploiting this saying everyone feels that way. Your thoughts?"

Well, I'm affraid I don't have a good answer for this.  I can say one thing, I am damn glad I'm an adult now and I have, 100% certainty and confidence in my own self.  Just recently my wife made a joke about me being small, and both me and her just laughed.  Although, I must admit, it's pretty embarassing to type this. :)  So maybe I don't have quite as much confidence as I imagined. ;)  The same joke could have possibly crushed me if I was a teenager and I really doubt I'd be laughing.

Now, here is my lame answer:

The actual reasons and causes for adolescents placing an undue importance on size are deep and varied.  For one, there is a deep biological (or spiritual, if you prefer) need for procreation.  I hate to admit this, but we, humans, are animals.  Now, this doesn't necessarily mean large sexual organs are better, but still, people are programmed to look for good reproductive qualities in their prospective mates (things like health, muscles, stamina, ability to breast feed a child, etc.).  Now, add to this an intense insecurity that is present in a teenager, and presto, you have a volitile mix.  A teenager doesn't know who they are and how to relate to the world.  A teenager has no idea of their own worth (and if they do, they are also stupid, because they delude themselves, as true knowing of worth can only come with experience).  So, naturally a teen will grasp to any obvious thing that is "bigger and better", and the most obvious thing for a teen who just hit puberty is...guess?  So there you have it.  Raging hormones from puberty + biological programming + insecurity + lack of communication with an experienced and sane person (like a parent or a trusted older peer) = normal (crazy, rude, clueless) teenager.  This is what I think, but in reality I do think it's a little more complicated than that and also there are many factors at work that differ for various individuals.

And, of course, the whole "bigger is better" thing is also deeply ingrained in us, humans.  Just think about Intel vs AMD clock speed battle.  Why did AMD resort to their performance rating?  It's because people really think "bigger is better" if they don't have any other means to compare the chips except clock speed.  Because most people couldn't care less about the technical details, "bigger is better" it is.

[ Parent ]

Rape and Gang Rape were around before porn (4.00 / 1) (#110)
by Afty on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 04:31:44 AM EST

In the UK, all hardcore pornography is legal - you cannot show an erect penis, any kind of contact with genitalia (licking, stroking, fingering). The hardest porn that is legal is a woman, alone with her legs apart.

This week, police are investigating the gang rape by approximately 8 males of a 17 year old girl at gun point in the capital, London.

Banning pornography works. No, it really does.

[ Parent ]

Gonzo porn is sexist; John B. Root's porn isn't (none / 0) (#64)
by nictamer on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 07:45:22 AM EST

John B. Root's female characters often are dominating, mistress-type girls. They are BITCH cuz' BITCH means Being in Total Control, Honey. When he makes a movie he often shoots the making-of as well, and you can tell that the actors are not being exploited or degraded. If, to you, porn means slimy old guys fucking silicon bimbos, it's not what the author is talking about here.
--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]
Sexism is not the point. (3.00 / 2) (#79)
by jjayson on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 02:10:03 PM EST

The dehumanization and blatant objectification of all actors and actresses involved in pornography is what causes these attitude. Rape is symptomatic of power and dehumanization: treating the girl like nothing more than a object of sexual gratification.

-j
"It's text. It's mostly anonymous. It pretends to be diverse. It steals little boys' innocence. It's the Internet. I'm a 12 year old Asian girl from
[ Parent ]
I'm a sex object too (none / 0) (#111)
by nictamer on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 04:58:50 AM EST

So what's wrong with being treated as a sex object?

I can do that too.

--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]

Freedom of Information (none / 0) (#80)
by DarkZero on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 02:12:38 PM EST

Regardless of what is shown on television, printed in books, put on the internet, or generally put into a public forum, there will always be a very small number of people that will twist it into something horrible and act it out. This is the very nature of the free speech and the freedom of information -- it has consequences. However, if we aren't going to ban every dark side of human nature from cinema from murder to wife beating to read life horrors (wars, for instance), then I don't see why sex should alone should be banned. There would be far fewer Neo-Nazis if Hitler and Nazism were omitted from movies, TV shows, books, and school text books by force of law, but there would be far more ignorant people in the world, and all of them lacking truly free speech.

[ Parent ]
Americans, Sex, and Why France Should Be Wary (4.16 / 12) (#29)
by bouncing on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 03:02:02 PM EST

It may come as a surprise to many readers, but studies have repeatedly confirmed that Americans have more sex than any other nationality. Jay Leno makes jokes about our sexuality. So why are so many Americans, particularly ones in the Bible Belt (see below), so opposed to sexuality? I think sexual stigma in the United States might be at an all time high, because we are having more sex but for some reason it's still taboo.

Europe should learn from America's sex-stigma. Our own Attorney General John Ashcroft covered up a wonderful work of art because a female breast is exposed. Don't go down the American road of considering the human body or its sexual functionality as being "harmful to minors" -- because it isn't. In nature, a pony is not damaged by seeing its species reproduce and neither are humans.

FYI for international readers who don't know, the American Bible Belt is a geographic stretch of the Western and Southern United States where parts of the culture has not evolved much since 1880. It's generally called the "Bible Belt" because so much of the public in these areas regard the Bible as the one and only source of guidance and base their lives on it. See the Everything2 entry.

Why is that? (4.50 / 2) (#37)
by 2chance on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 06:20:14 PM EST

we are having more sex but for some reason it's still taboo.

Does anyone have any ideas on why that is?

What events will it take for porn to appear on US TV like it does in France. I wonder if we'll ever see parks, such as those in Holland, that feature a giant water fountain in the shape of a phallus.

Maybe an esteemed North American leader could bite the bullet and say sex is OK and encourage some type of change in our attitudes. That would have been a great legacy for Bill Clinton to leave.

[ Parent ]

Ha! (4.00 / 2) (#43)
by fencepost on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 08:28:00 PM EST

I think in most of the country you'd have trouble even with something like Manneken Pis, much less with a phallic fountain.
--
"nothing really says "don't hire me, I'm an idiot" quite as well as misspelling "pom-pom" on your resume." -- former Grinnellian
[ Parent ]
Don't slag people when you source doesn't support (2.20 / 5) (#50)
by jjayson on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 11:41:11 PM EST

Your source clearly says that Ashcroft did not know anything of it. There wasn't even a hint that he was responsible, besides some reporter that asked was was told Ashcroft has better things to do that worry about what he is standing in with pictures.

In nature, a pony is not damaged by seeing its species reproduce and neither are humans.
This is laughable. You want to compare the human psyche to that of an animal? Please say something more intelligent next time.

-j
"It's text. It's mostly anonymous. It pretends to be diverse. It steals little boys' innocence. It's the Internet. I'm a 12 year old Asian girl from
[ Parent ]
Ashcroft (5.00 / 2) (#52)
by ethereal on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 01:00:20 AM EST

Not quite. One source says that Ashcroft personally requested it. Another source (the DOJ's PR henchpeople) say that of course he didn't have anything to do with it. Which you would expect them to say, one way or the other. Considering the level of conservative pronouncements that have emerged from Mr. Ashcroft, I don't find it unbelievable that he would throw a tarp over Justice if she happened to be exposed. According to the article, the DOJ paid for the curtain, and Ashcroft has authority and responsibility for that part of the government.

I'd like to go on record saying that I'll be happy to be photographed with Justice, no matter what she's wearing :)

--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
[ Parent ]

The voices in your head don't count as sources. (1.33 / 3) (#55)
by jjayson on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 02:44:48 AM EST

Neither does anybody else that has an agenda. These sources sound much like madham's IRC contacts.

-j
"It's text. It's mostly anonymous. It pretends to be diverse. It steals little boys' innocence. It's the Internet. I'm a 12 year old Asian girl from
[ Parent ]
agenda? (none / 0) (#103)
by ethereal on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 09:26:20 PM EST

By the "anybody that has an agenda" standard, there are no reputable sources quoted for most of the world's news. That's the easy way out, but it doesn't leave you with much new information.

--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
[ Parent ]

Harmful to minors? (none / 0) (#87)
by bouncing on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 04:10:01 PM EST

This is laughable. You want to compare the human psyche to that of an animal? Please say something more intelligent next time.
Can you direct me to a single credible study that indicates naked people is "harmful" to children?

And yes, I can compare the human psyche to that of an animal. You know why? A human is an animal. Your DNA is 99.99% the same as any other mammal. Think you're the only one with language? You're wrong. Dolphins and Whales have very sophisticated vocabularies. The only difference is, we're the only species stupid enough to think that reproduction is wrong and unlike the rest of one's life, we should not be provided examples of how to do things. You really should take a lesson from the animal kingdom.

I wonder what the world would be like if we regarded driving a car the way we regard sex. You would be expected to drive a car, it would be regarded as "sinful," and seeing someone drive a car before you try would be considered "harmful."

Cover your eyes Johnny, they're going to show someone driving a Camry on TV tonight!

[ Parent ]

Where did all this come from? Typical knee-jerking (5.00 / 2) (#94)
by jjayson on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 07:03:35 PM EST

You try awfully hard to stuff me with straw. The extent of my comment was deriding you to try and use your intellect — which is staggeringly more powerful than any animals — next time you make a comment.
Can you direct me to a single credible study that indicates naked people is "harmful" to children?
That isn't what I said. This isn't even the issue. The issue is children being able to see pornography so easily. The laws this story talk about are derived from reality, not the imagination of someone:
  • Children are molesting other children. In Oklahoma, seven boys gang raped a 15 year-old girl and forced her to engage in unnatural sexual acts. Four confessed that viewing pornography inspired the rape.
  • There are numerous cases of this kind of behavior. Studies consistently show that people who are shown pornography are less likely to consider rape and child sexual abuse wrong.
  • A review study in 1994, based on 81 original peer-reviewed research studies (35 using aggressive stimuli and 46 using non-aggressive stimuli), concluded that the empirical research on the effects of aggressive pornography shows, with fairly impressive consistency, that exposure to these materials has a negative effect on attitudes toward women and the perceived likelihood to rape. The study also noted that 70 percent of the 46 non-aggressive studies reported clear evidence of negative effects of exposure.
  • A meta-analysis in 1995, using the results of 24 original experimental studies, found that violence within the pornography is not necessary to increase the acceptance of rape myths (i.e. the myth that women secretly desire to be raped). The study noted that the link between acceptance of rape myths and exposure to pornography stems from a simple premise that most pornography commodifies sex, that women become objects used for male pleasure, and that as objects of desire, they are to be acted on. The study also noted that such attitudinal changes are of concern because “several recent meta-analyses demonstrate a high correlation (about r = .80) between attitude and behavior.
  • A separate meta-analysis in 1995, using a set of 33 studies, found that violent content, although possibly magnifying the impact of the pornography, is unnecessary to producing aggressive behavior.
  • A study in 1989 for the Canadian Department of Justice found that high-frequency pornography consumers who were exposed to the nonviolent, dehumanizing pornography (relative to those in the no-exposure condition) were particularly likely to report that they might rape, were more sexually callous, and reported engaging in more acts of sexual aggression. These effects were not apparent for men who reported a very low frequency of habitual pornography consumption. The authors noted that the effects of exposure were strongest and most pervasive in the case of exposure to nonviolent dehumanizing pornography, the type of material that may in fact be most prevalent in mainstream commercial entertainment videos.

    The study found that more than twice as many men indicated at least some likelihood of raping after exposure to this material 20.4 percent versus 9.6 percent. Detailed analysis revealed that these effects occurred primarily for high P (psychotism) subjects those who are inclined to be rather solitary and hostile, lack empathy, disregard danger and prefer impersonal, non-caring sex (although not meeting clinical criteria as psychotics).

  • A 1989 review of a series of studies of common pornography found that its consumption led to insensitivity towards victims of sexual violence, trivialization of rape as a criminal offense, trivialization of sexual child abuse as a criminal offense, increased belief that lack of sexual activity leads to health risks and increased acceptance of pre- and extra-marital sexuality The study noted that “habitual male consumers of common pornography appear to be at greater risk of becoming sexually callous towards female sexuality and concerns.
  • A review of the literature and research in 1994 discusses the sexual callousness effect associated with standard-fare pornography, noting that: Enhanced perceptual and behavioral callousness toward women is most apparent following consumption of materials that unambiguously portray women as sexually promiscuous and indiscriminating a depiction that dominates modern pornography.
  • Oklahoma City: During the years 1984 to 1989, Oklahoma City closed 150 out of 163 sexually oriented businesses. During the same period, reported rapes declined 27% in Oklahoma City while rising 19% in the remainder of the state. Law officers were aware of no other likely cause of the difference.
  • Police records: A study by Darrell Pope, a former Michigan State police officer, found that of 38,000 cases of sexual assault on file in Michigan over a 20 year period, 41% involved the use of pornography just prior to or during the act.
There is really no need to address your idiotic claim that humans psyche is close to that of an animals, but I will entertain you...
And yes, I can compare the human psyche to that of an animal. You know why? A human is an animal. Your DNA is 99.99% the same as any other mammal. Think you're the only one with language? You're wrong. Dolphins and Whales have very sophisticated vocabularies. The only difference is, we're the only species stupid enough to think that reproduction is wrong and unlike the rest of one's life, we should not be provided examples of how to do things. You really should take a lesson from the animal kingdom.
You and a mouse share 98% of your DNA. Does mean you are just like any rat. I share almost all of my DNA with you, yet we have drastic differing opinions, how does that relate to your opinions and an animal's thoughts. Our ideas of morality and society are unmeasureably more sophiticated than that of any animals. No zoologist or sociologist will stand with you on that, sorry. What should we learn from the animals? Rape, brutality, and murder is appropriate?

Language isn't even an issue here, so I don't know why you bring it up. However, if you must know, humans are the only species that has compositional language. We are very uniuque in this world.

When your ideas progress beyond a high school understanding of biology and psychology, then try to have a discussion.

-j
"It's text. It's mostly anonymous. It pretends to be diverse. It steals little boys' innocence. It's the Internet. I'm a 12 year old Asian girl from
[ Parent ]

You have the point here but you missed it (none / 0) (#128)
by 0xA on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 08:34:40 PM EST

Detailed analysis revealed that these effects occurred primarily for high P (psychotism) subjects those who are inclined to be rather solitary and hostile, lack empathy, disregard danger and prefer impersonal, non-caring sex (although not meeting clinical criteria as psychotics).

Okay so the study done for the Department of Justice points to a relationship between people having phycotic traits and rape. This is is increased by the viewing of pornography. For the purpose of this discusion I will go along with that.

Consider the following. What would happen if these same men were exposed to a violent movie? TV wrestling? A violent book? Currently I am reading a novel by James Clavell called "Shogun", it is set in feudal Japan, violence and war being a major part of the plot. Should these people be allowed to read this book?

I can't support that line of thought, while it is no doubt a straw man let's consider it. Obviously this novel should be banned along with the porn, we should probably ditch violent movies and video games as well. Provided we can entertain ourselves with Jack and Jill books and non-violent Disney cartoons we will be fine as a society. Right?

Damn that would be boring. The simple answer is not the porn or the novels or the video games, it's the fucked up people.

I don't have much education in phycology, I didn't even finish high school. So I won't try to offer my ideas about fixing the fucked up people. Given that you have berkley.edu in your URL I imagine my childish attemps at logic would offend you even more than the previous poster's did. Nothing works as well as spending several thousand dollars a year on tuition when trying to learn that condesending sneer for the lower classes. I saulte your quite impressive sucess.

Did you take many phycology courses in pursuit of your Math degree? I suppose they were likely taken as options, I have to assume that you took more than was required to fill your "one from the hummanities" course requirement. Otherwise you would really be making an ass of yourself.



[ Parent ]

Strawman, but you knew that... (none / 0) (#132)
by jjayson on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 10:33:14 PM EST

Nobody, especially me, is arguing for laws to ban pornography. I have a hard time understanding the interplay between laws and morality, so I tend to stay away from those discussions. I really wish I could convince people to take it upon themselves to avoid things like pornography, wanton realistic violence, or anything else that adversely affects them. The problem is that poeple often don't know what affects them, and they are too arrogent and stubborn to listen to others; to admit that others might know what is good for them.

Only a person can individually decide to avoid pornography, but we can all help people with this decision. We can put in on the back shelves and behind curtains. We can remove it from the public airwaves. We can remind each other of the detrimental effects of pornography and other sex related businesses. It is always going to be a community decision to allow these types of businesses to thrive or close.

Nobody is going so far as banning book and movies, either. The evidence these the studies and analysis from these meta-studies only applies to pornography, so I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to generalize. Sex is very powerful and filled with emotion. Everybody will admit that it has a very special place in our lives. I wouldn't be surprised if sexual matter affected us differently than simple violence. There are rarely bright lines in decisions, but that doesn't mean you just give up.

Did you take many phycology courses in pursuit of your Math degree?
The snide comments preceding this quotes were not very approciated. The closest I have ever come to psychology at Cal was my girlfriend who was a psychology major (she will be heading to grad school though and has a huge heart, so she will make a difference in many people's lives). You seem awefully proud to try and frame me as a conceited, intellectual snob. I care more about a person's heart than their intellect, though.

-j
"It's text. It's mostly anonymous. It pretends to be diverse. It steals little boys' innocence. It's the Internet. I'm a 12 year old Asian girl from
[ Parent ]
I said CREDIBLE study (4.00 / 1) (#136)
by bouncing on Tue Aug 20, 2002 at 06:00:05 PM EST

Perhaps you misunderstood. All of your references show unsubstantiated antidotal correlation between viewing pornography and other negative acts. I can't confirm any further, as you didn't seem to have any specifics. Let's make the broad assumption that all your summaries are accurate, the studies were fair, and conducted by credible research institutions. As I remember from my statistics classes, linking two statistics does not prove causation in the least. Only one of your studies, which again, you fail to provide reference for, shows causation:
# A study in 1989 for the Canadian Department of Justice found that high-frequency pornography consumers who were exposed to the nonviolent, dehumanizing pornography (relative to those in the no-exposure condition) were particularly likely to report that they might rape, were more sexually callous, and reported engaging in more acts of sexual aggression. These effects were not apparent for men who reported a very low frequency of habitual pornography consumption. The authors noted that the effects of exposure were strongest and most pervasive in the case of exposure to nonviolent dehumanizing pornography, the type of material that may in fact be most prevalent in mainstream commercial entertainment videos.

The study found that more than twice as many men indicated at least some likelihood of raping after exposure to this material 20.4 percent versus 9.6 percent. Detailed analysis revealed that these effects occurred primarily for high P (psychotism) subjects those who are inclined to be rather solitary and hostile, lack empathy, disregard danger and prefer impersonal, non-caring sex (although not meeting clinical criteria as psychotics).

If this summary is accurate, it sounds as though there was a control group. What you haven't shown any evidence of (scientific or otherwise) is that simply viewing and understanding the human reproductive system is harmful to minors or at all. Plenty of media objectifies women and promotes promiscuous sexual behavior, and half of it is rated PG or PG-13. I content that exposing bad behavior to children may be harmful, but unlike the religious establishment, I do not consider sex to be bad behavior.

In short, I have the fringe, focus-on-your-own-damn-family opinion that a child seeing a painting with naked figures is certainly harmful, a child seeing the opposite sex is not harmful, and a child understanding how the human reproductive system works is also, not harmful. Granted, there may be some social stigma attached to some of this which may be harmful. But that's because we live in a twisted anti-sex anti-common-sense society.

On the other hand, a young child seeing his parents smoking? Well, that's perfectly acceptable by Texas's standards anyway. I've never heard of the government putting a kid in foster care after his parents smoke, even though there HAVE been many studies linking children smoking to their parents smoking. But that's another matter. My point is, our society couldn't be more wrong in what it considers harmful to a child.

[ Parent ]

Comparisons and porn as brain wash (none / 0) (#137)
by Cornelius on Wed Aug 21, 2002 at 04:18:13 AM EST

If you look at sex and its place in western culture, we are likely to come to the conclusion that it is not a topic like any other. It has for several reasons come to take the shape of a shared "taboo". One does not walk around naked, exposing one's private parts; or discuss the details of one's sexual practices, as if one was discussing the weather.

The reasons behind this "taboo", albeit interesting, does not change the fact that sex is very regulated in our culture. However - arguably, all social practices are regulated by social 'rules of conduct' but I think it fairly evident that sex is a very special case. Take for instance the fact that a parent will tell its child to not hit others or use violence and might even discuss with an adolescent the results and consequences of violent behaviour. Or, dicuss smoking and drinking and even smoke and drink themselves fairly regularly, even in front of the child/adolescent. But I think it is fairly uncommon that parents show their child their private parts, explain their function, the nature of arousal, or invite the child to study how the parents copulate, etc.

In fact parents do not do this. To make a bold generalization I would go so far as claiming that most parents become embarrased when anyone, especially their children, brings up the topic of sex, blushing or showing obvious signs of discomfort or even shame. It is deeply ingrained in them that sex is very private and not something to discuss in public.

I would even contend that the forbidden nature of sex even works very closely with arousal, i.e. arousal is to a great extent predicated on it being slightly forbidden, and thus exciting, (by breaking a boundary you experience a certain thrill).

There are many more examples that show the special relationship people in our culture have to sex.

But how does sex's special nature fit with the issue of pornography? Well, the taboo on sex and man's natural predilection for it spawns an interest in it, of course. It is indeed exciting to see sexual intercourse, or see sexually desirable people in a state of undress. This is all 'natural' and to my mind fine, even a good thing.

But, if we look at the modern porn industry we notice that it is very much an _industry_, that is, of a considerable size, producing massive amounts of products, etc. I believe the sheer scale of this industry makes for certain very important drawbacks: People are paid money to take part in these films. If they weren't they wouldn't have been made in such numbers. (If there weren't a billion dollar industry to back the production of porn, I guess only a few hundred of spontaneous films would be made, probably with 'consenting adults' doing only what they feel is ok.) I believe this use of money is a clear-cut case of exploiting people's misery. (A great many films are indeed shot in poorer countries. In a recent porn documenatry, the producer was asked why the went to Hungary. He replied that if he asked ten girls in a rich country (Sweden) perhaps one would be interested , if he asked ten girls in Hungary nine would be interested).

Furthermore, the kind of porn that is produced is disturbing. The porn industry produces pornography that depicts and reifies certain, specific forms of sexual behaviour, e.g. gang bang (30 men having sex with a teenager), anal intercourse, the eating of semen, urinating on people, etc. Many of these practices have _meaning_ in our culture, that is, they convey a certain message of disregard, contempt, ridicule, callousnes, domination, or even torture... A message that boils down to the fact that you don't have to pay any attention to other people's (justified) need for respect, integrity and personal value. When this meassage is spread to people, it actually influences them and their behaviour, (the extent of which I am not certain). It does, however, seem reasonable to me to 'indict' pornography for spreading a shallow and cold notion of human interaction to the community at large.

Yes, people have always raped and abused one another sexually, but do we have to allow it to continue?

Remedy? I don't believe in censorship or sanction. I believe in discussion, debate and the open sharing of ideas. I believe that greater attention should be put to the issue of pornography in our culture: its role, the reasons and forces behind it; and perhaps more importantly we should discuss the value of empathy and caring, even caring about people we've never met. For instance, a seventeen year old Hungarian girl who is being gang banged by a football team of ex-convicts.


Cornelius

"Your suffering will be legendary, even in Hell", Hellraiser
[ Parent ]

Sexuality, Biology, and Pornography? (none / 0) (#139)
by bouncing on Wed Aug 21, 2002 at 06:34:56 AM EST

I think something we're glazing over here is the difference between sexual content, content that exposes human forms non-sexually, and pornography. You made some very accurate observations, and I don't disagree with any of them. My contention though, which seems to be challenged at least by others, is really this: The simple act of seeing genetalia is not, by itself, harmful to children. Neither is understanding their function. The context of gaining that understanding is a different matter. Obviously showing a three year old hardcore pornography would be dangerous because it would encourage that three old to engage in similar activities. However, I don't see the leap between a ten year old boy seeing a poster of a sexually posed woman in a swim suit as opposed to a sexually posed woman nude.

You made the point that a parent would not expose or explain his or her own sexual organs to children. In our society, this is probably for the best and I don't challange that. However, if you take a child to most any community swimming pool or recreation center, there will certainly be a locker room. People politely look away from each other, of course, but children are none the less exposed to what in a movie would be rated R.

[ Parent ]

Industrial Economics (none / 0) (#145)
by vectro on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 06:05:57 PM EST

It's unclear to me why it's exploitative to go to places where labour is cheaper. I mean, if your hypothetical pornographer can find actors for $1 an hour while their friends are making $.01 an hour, isn't that still a good deal for the actors?

Besides which, this sort of behaviour ought to be encouraged, from a macroeconomics perspective, because it brings money into poorer countries, thus helping to reduce the inequality. That's one of the fundamental principles of market economics.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]

John Ashcroft answers the phone. "Hello!" (4.00 / 1) (#135)
by cht on Tue Aug 20, 2002 at 03:36:24 PM EST

So jjayson sez:

"Your source clearly says that Ashcroft did not know anything of it. There wasn't even a hint that he was responsible, besides some reporter that asked was was told Ashcroft has better things to do that worry about what he is standing in with pictures."

Please see THIS as it does seem to refute the assertation that Ashcroft knew nothing about it.

In a Nov. 29, 2001, E-mail, an aide was instructed to "obtain three bids for the permanent drape hiding the statues," "Spirit of Justice" and her male companion, "Majesty of Law." A later E-mail said, "The pipe [frame] and drape to hide the statues will be installed in the Great Hall tomorrow." And a Jan. 23 E-mail announced that, "The new drape in the Great Hall to cover the statues has been installed."

Not a whole lot there about backdrops, but a lot of talk about "hiding" and "covering". I wonder who "instructed" that aide to begin the coverup?


Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
[ Parent ]
Uhh, slap a label on us will ya? (none / 0) (#76)
by em emalb on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 12:40:09 PM EST

The bible belt is an old mis-used term. Yes, there are many religious people down here in the south. Yes, there are religious zealots down here. However, there are MANY MANY more people that are not religiously suppressed living here. Stop calling it the bible belt, please. As the older generation dies, we will see an increase in enlightened people. As I have said before, this isn't your father's south anymore.
Never match wits with a Sicilian when death is on the line!
[ Parent ]
those who wear the bible belt do so willingly (none / 0) (#112)
by Shren on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 08:19:08 AM EST

I live smack in the middle of the 'bible belt'. Here, the church is perfectly capable of running your life. They only do it, however, if you want it. Some people are quite happy living that way. As for the rest of us... let's just say that I had a rather interesting weekend, full of all sorts of un-Christian things which I did not hide and suffer no social stigma for.

[ Parent ]
Sad people watch porn (1.92 / 14) (#33)
by Phillip Asheo on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 04:01:27 PM EST

People with a life go out and have sex themselves.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long

--or bring someone back to watch porn with them. (5.00 / 4) (#36)
by Stanley on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 04:38:35 PM EST




============
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" -- Douglas Adams
[ Parent ]
Whatever (1.66 / 6) (#45)
by Phillip Asheo on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 08:56:41 PM EST

Porn is bad for the soul in so many ways. However, its ubiquity is the logical result of living in a secular/capitalist society.

Its interesting to note that the largest consumer of porn in the world is also the country which produces the most greenhouse gasses, and which is responsible for many wars around the world.

Perhaps it is the de-humanising influence of porn that is partially to blame. You might also be interested to know that as part of psyops operations, porno movies are routinely shown to fighter pilots before going into battle, in order to increase their kill-rates. This is because porn movies have been psychologically proven to make people less empathetic with others.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

I call BS (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by greenrd on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 12:37:46 AM EST

Perhaps it is the de-humanising influence of porn that is partially to blame. You might also be interested to know that as part of psyops operations, porno movies are routinely shown to fighter pilots before going into battle, in order to increase their kill-rates. This is because porn movies have been psychologically proven to make people less empathetic with others.

What a whopper. You're making that up.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

You would like to believe I am making it up (3.00 / 2) (#72)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 11:37:00 AM EST

Unfortunately for your world-view, I am not making it up.

prior to bombing raids during the Persian Gulf War, U.S. pilots were shown films of disrobing bikini-clad women. These films were called "motivational" films ; "now I know why I'm fighting" grinned one enthusiastic pilot.


--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

sure.... (none / 0) (#86)
by Anon 17933 on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 04:09:23 PM EST

oh yeah -- that's a reference. I could write something like that too. It still wouldn't make it true. I know for a fact it's false -- porn is illegal in the military. How do you explain that? I know that because I spent the last five years of my life on an aircraft carrier. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist -- but it's certainly not officially sanctioned, or shown to fighter pilots before they go off to bomb someone. Where's your proof? Other than some article somebody wrote for an unknown publication, I mean.

[ Parent ]
Where there's a will (none / 0) (#98)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 08:22:39 PM EST

porn is illegal in the military

So are drugs. Doesn't stop them giving the pilots amphetamines if it suits them to do so.


--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

sure (4.00 / 1) (#138)
by Anon 17933 on Wed Aug 21, 2002 at 06:24:28 AM EST

whatever. You can continue to believe your BS news sources if you want -- I prefer to go with what I know. Pilots aren't stupid -- they have strict schedules to ensure that they get plenty of rest before they fly their missions. Anyone who would go out and strap into a 40 million dollar fighter to do close air support hopped up on amphetamines would have to be completely insane. You have no comprehension of the CYA culture in the military's officer corps if you continue to believe this.

[ Parent ]
I didn't pull it out of my ass (none / 0) (#102)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 08:46:36 PM EST

U.S. Naval pilots were shown pornographic films before flying bombing raids during the Gulf War in Iraq.

I will try and find you a more trustworthy source for this allegation, since you are correct to point out that it is not a mainstream news source.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Right OK (none / 0) (#89)
by greenrd on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 05:15:49 PM EST

And the other bit?


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

The other ? (4.33 / 3) (#99)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 08:27:55 PM EST

I assumed everyone would be familiar by now with the many bad effects of pornography without me having to provide links. However if you want me to spoon-feed you, here you go:

Malamuth (1978) conducted a study using three male experimental conditions. One group would read aggressive pornography (depicting a rape), one nonaggressive pornography (loving interaction between a man and woman), and the third neutral stimuli (National Geographic articles). After exposure, all subjects were insulted by a female and were then put in a situation where they could aggress against this woman via the ostensible delivery of electric shocks. Half of the group was told it was permissible to be as aggressive as they wished (disinhibitory communication), while the other half were given a message to make them self conscious about aggression (inhibitory communication).

No results were found in the inhibitory group, but in the disinhibitory group the highest levels of aggression were recorded for those who had been exposed to the aggressive pornography.

Now, you may or may not want to believe this, but it is documented scientific fact. It will be interesting to see if you modify your world-view when faced with the incontrovertable evidence!

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Doesn't prove the 'bad effects' of porn (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by Phelan on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 09:24:02 AM EST

the highest levels of aggression were recorded for those who had been exposed to the aggressive pornography[rape].

This doesn't prove that pornography harms people. This only shows that people are disturbed by watching rapes. No shit. AFAIK rape videos aren't legal in many countries, including the US.

[ Parent ]

Many find porn very calming (3.66 / 3) (#54)
by 2chance on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 02:39:53 AM EST

This is because porn movies have been psychologically proven to make people less empathetic with others.

That contrasts with findings in Copenhagen where caregivers have found that pornography and prostitutes have a greater calming effect on their elderly patients than traditional medical treatment.

[ Parent ]

Which country is one of the biggest porn producers (4.00 / 1) (#70)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 11:22:23 AM EST

Denmark.

What a surprise that research from one of the world's top porn-producing nations finds in favour of porn.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Top Porn producing country ... (none / 0) (#95)
by nictamer on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 07:26:00 PM EST

... the United Christian Fundie States of America.

Do as I say, not as I do.
--
Religion is for sheep.
[ Parent ]

And interestingly enough (none / 0) (#101)
by Phillip Asheo on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 08:32:41 PM EST

... the United Christian Fundie States of America

A hell of a lot of pro-porn propaganda comes from the USA too. So lets see, we have two porn-producing countries who seem to generate a lot of research "proving" the benefits of porn. What a surprise. Excuse my cynicism.

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

False dichotomy (4.66 / 3) (#48)
by epepke on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 11:29:59 PM EST

I like sex a lot. I go out to have sex a lot. I admit that I don't go out to have sex "myself"; I do so to have sex with other people. The other people I go out to have sex with a lot are people who also like to go out to have sex with other people a lot. It's a lot of fun. Did I metnion that I liked it a lot?

This behavior is externally called "swinging," internally more often called "the lifestyle." It happens at "clubs," (a somewhat external term) or "party houses" (more of an internal term). And every single damn one of them has one or more televisions playing pornographic films. This elicits reactions ranging from eroticism to comment on technique.

Oh yes, the people who go to these places tend to be a lot healthier and have far less sexual pathology than, say, your average singles' bar.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
have you lost your perspective? (3.66 / 3) (#78)
by jjayson on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 01:54:45 PM EST

Oh yes, the people who go to these places tend to be a lot healthier and have far less sexual pathology than, say, your average singles' bar.
What? You call having group sex with people you barely know somehow not sexually pathological? "The lifestyle" as you descibe it seems to be close to the peaks of sexual perversion.

-j
"It's text. It's mostly anonymous. It pretends to be diverse. It steals little boys' innocence. It's the Internet. I'm a 12 year old Asian girl from
[ Parent ]
I have a different perspective (none / 0) (#96)
by epepke on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 07:41:44 PM EST

That's all, really. People have sex, or else they don't. If you're not going to have sex, well then, fine. (On the other hand, due to the recent evidence on Catholic priests, I'm skeptical of any such claims.) But if you are, then swinging is a much safer and far less pathological way to do it, because you're in a community that maintains standards. For example, STD transmission is almost unheard of.

The fact that you assume that it's with people I don't know shows, basically, that you don't know what you're talking about. Which is OK by me. Enjoy your life!


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
What a horrible way to thing about sex. (5.00 / 2) (#107)
by jjayson on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 03:23:09 AM EST

The false dichotomy of sexual activity doesn't capture the essence is sex or many people's beliefs of it. Sex is more than just an action and you defile it by treating as nothing more than a sport or greeting, like shaking hands. Sex is colloqially called "making love" for a reason. It is something special for you and your loving partner to share, in the bonds of a strong committment. Sex should be about love and devition, and about the expression of that love and devotion.

The fact that you assume that it's with people I don't know shows, basically, that you don't know what you're talking about.
I didn't say that you didn't know them. I said that some people you have sex with you don't know very well. Do you live with all of them or have you been close friends with all of them for years? Are you saying that you only have sex with people who you have lengthy and full relationships with? Then good.

However, it really doesn't matter. It is still defiling of the action of sex and yourself. You views on sexuality do nothing to support the notions of love and intimacy. They just bring it down to animal level fucking.

Swinging is just one of many ways that people try to make sex what they always thought it should be. It is formed because people find something lacking in their sexual being. I am sorry to break it, but you will not find it by adding more people to the mix. You will only find it by adding love and devotion to your intimacy and sex. I used to be similar to you. I was a known slut in college. Now I have learned my lesson. My reward is better sex than you can imagine.

-j
"It's text. It's mostly anonymous. It pretends to be diverse. It steals little boys' innocence. It's the Internet. I'm a 12 year old Asian girl from
[ Parent ]

K5 Article? (none / 0) (#120)
by QuoteMstr on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 01:04:40 PM EST

I'd be very interested in learning more about "the lifestyle." Any links? Maybe an upcoming K5 article?

[ Parent ]
Interesting idea (none / 0) (#122)
by epepke on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 03:40:16 PM EST

I don't have any links. There is a USENET group, but it seems mostly to consist of arguing about swinging rather than giving useful information. There are some reasonably good books out there, but they're mostly written by people who are leaders and have a "top-down" view of the lifestyle.

Once I started to put together an ethnography of swinging. I've moved several times since then and wouldn't be able to find my notes, but I remember most of it. I do remember thinking, "Just where the hell would I be able to publish it?" Maybe I could publish it here. Of course, I'd have to informalize it a bit.

I'd also, if I were to publish it here, have to deal with the people who--well, you know.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Highets sex crime rate in Europe (3.88 / 9) (#42)
by martian on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 08:17:33 PM EST

One thing I hear all the time, and often the people saying this have the figures to back this up is that Britain has the highest rate of sex-crime in Europe. Also Britain has the toughest anti-porn Laws. If this is true, there must be a connection. many psychologists agree that repression of a feeling, often leads to crimes against that feeling. My question is, is porn actually good for us?

Correlation, meet causation. (4.33 / 6) (#47)
by docvin on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 09:50:53 PM EST

If this is true, there must be a connection

Congratulations. That one's gonna be used as an example in logic textbooks for centuries to come.

[ Parent ]

nope (5.00 / 1) (#116)
by tealeaf on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 11:17:59 AM EST


If this is true, there must be a connection

Congratulations. That one's gonna be used as an example in logic textbooks for centuries to come.

Connection is not the same as causation.  You should be charitable in an argument, meaning, you should assume the best and not the worst.

[ Parent ]

oops, should think a bit harder before posting (4.00 / 3) (#49)
by martian on Sat Aug 17, 2002 at 11:34:31 PM EST

completely agree with you here, its not a good case of logic. I'm trying to say if it turns out that cultures with a high level of censorship have higher levels of sex crime than others, is it the censorship that contributes to this?

Some hardcore figures (none / 0) (#61)
by non3mouse on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 05:56:39 AM EST

Ppl convicted of viewing porn in France: 0 Ppl convicter of porn where it's illegal: many

[ Parent ]
French porn is for the uninitiated (4.60 / 5) (#58)
by Meatbomb on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 04:49:59 AM EST

Pornography is about people fucking. At least from a male perspective, what makes it interesting is the fucking part. I have had some girlfriends who were completely anti-porn, and some who would watch French-style porn - tasteful, sensuous, passionate stuff with soft lighting and respectful camera angles. But it was the ones who would sit and watch the German stuff with me (and enjoy it) who consistently proved to be the best at sex.

You call German porn "traumatic", which suggests to me that you don't really want to watch people fucking (hey, free world, that isn't a problem). I'll take Lenka in a rubber nurse uniform screaming "FICH MEIN ASCHLOCH!" while she gets pounded by five masked slaves over soft lights and tasteful camera angles any day. Emmanuelle might be good for repressed British teenagers, but it doesn't do much for me.

Just my two pfennigs.

_______________

Good News for Liberal Democracy!

Funny again? (1.00 / 2) (#68)
by drquick on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 10:41:47 AM EST

Yet another parody of an European countrys culture and heritage. The humor inwolved is apropriate only for the authors culture. Humor in understanding culture describes the author not the analyzed country.

All in all I find this brand of k5 humor very distasteful.

What? (none / 0) (#69)
by m0rzo on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 11:01:27 AM EST

Okay, firstly, learn to spell. Please. It gives your 'argument' far more credence. Now, what's bothering you? Did you even read this fucking article? Please outline clearly and so there is no doubt, exactly where I have made 'parody' of a European country's culture. This is not an 'analysis' of France's culture and never claims to be. I think you must have a corgette stuck up your arse or something like that. This is a serious matter and I've addressed it seriously whilst injecting, what I feel to be, something refreshing which Kuro5hin currently sorely lacks.

All in all, go and bury yourself. Thanks.


My last sig was just plain offensive.
[ Parent ]

correction-links (3.50 / 2) (#73)
by loudici on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 12:05:35 PM EST

you make it sound like there is porn on all channels all the time. There is one porn movie a month on one channel, which is a pay-channel ( encrypted for non subscribers). it is just as easy to find a porn movie in the US.

On a side note you might want to check the web site of one of B.Root's star actress, who besides being a porn actress, is a militant feminist and a very smart young woman.
http://www.ovidie-pornslut.com/
gnothi seauton
When I was in Paris... (none / 0) (#74)
by m0rzo on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 12:12:08 PM EST

..there were back to back porn movies on one channel on all the days I was there (three days). And every time I've been since, for example, when I was in Boloigne and Lille it was on then. Coincidence?


My last sig was just plain offensive.
[ Parent ]

It's cable TV (none / 0) (#117)
by CtrlBR on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 11:27:44 AM EST

And encrypted thus. The fact that your hotel or host provided you easy access doesn't means that kids can see it easily.
If no-one thinks you're a freedom fighter than you're probably not a terrorist.
-- Gully Foyle

[ Parent ]
Porn is the commodification of human sexuality. (2.20 / 10) (#82)
by Uncle Noam Chomsky on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 02:26:54 PM EST

It's a pathology of consumer capitalism. It takes a village of wankers to raise a liberalist.

That is all.

---
I'm not the Noam Chomsky your big sister studied in college. I'm the Noam Chomsky who fucked her in the faculty lounge.

Noam? (none / 0) (#121)
by pantagruel on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 01:12:31 PM EST

would that make you the Noam Chomsky who owes her back child support?!

[ Parent ]
The bane of the MPAA/RIAA manifests itself (4.20 / 5) (#83)
by mbac on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 02:39:11 PM EST

I personally can't stand watching pornography that treats women like sex objects (unless of course part of some larger role playing exchange).Unfortunately, this is all too common in professionally produced pornography. It just isn't a turn on and it's not at all erotic. It's slightly better than masturbating to a brick wall.

Pornography in the US is flawed. I think most men have an idea of pornography that is in fact a complete lack of understanding that they're supposed to be watching sexual intercourse. You know, those men who, when watching it as a group, will groan uncomfortably and claim what a turnoff it is to see a close up of a giant throbbing penis. How could they be so put off by 50% of the sexual equation (well, if you're watching straight porn). They can't be drawn to the sex, it must be some other factor. Perhaps it's taboo-ness of it all. Maybe they just want to see naked boobies--which explains why something as sexually useless as playboy can sell so well.

I can't think of any way to describe this trend other than it having something to do with Christianity. Weird.

My theory is that porn houses produce pornography that is so off the mark simply to target this grade of what can be called pornographic phillistines. It would certainly explain how these men can go out and tolerate pornography that edits out all penetration, genitilia, etc. Whereas I find it completely unacceptable.

If this is what feminists are angry about, I'd definitely have to agree. This kind of porn sucks ass and we'd do well to learn from our european counterparts.

I think the best porn is porn that is realistic. The absolute finest being home videos. The homegrown video series (from vivid video) seems to get the picture, but sadly still leaves something to be desired. Perhaps it still seems to o professionally done.

Thankfully, file sharing media such as Gnutella and Kazaa make this kind of amateur porn exchange possible. Perhaps the media companies are afraid of these networks not because of copyright control, but because they may become unnecessary when people start producing and distributing homebrew content. Like in every fledging new media industry, pornography is first on the scene. However, unlike in the previous media shifts, professionally produced pornography is for the first time on the decline, making way for grassroots content. Can music and movies be far behind? The porno lobby isn't going to get congress to pass any laws to save their business, but the RIAA/MPAA sure can try.

Shout out to Jay Sulzberger for making the connection between amateur porn and the copy control lobby.



wise words. (4.60 / 5) (#85)
by werner on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 03:51:46 PM EST

My old French professor once said something very insightful:
How can it be okay to show illegal things on television - like murder, theft etc. - yet not okay to show something perfectly legal and natural, like sex?


Porn is not about humans having sex. (2.71 / 7) (#88)
by Uncle Noam Chomsky on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 04:50:17 PM EST

Humans have always had sex. Humans have always created erotica. Heck, the Song of Solomon is erotic literature.

But this is not porn. Porn is a business. Hundreds of millions of people do not do porn. A handful of people do porn and hundreds of millions of liberalists consume it. Apparently, this is not supposed to have an impact on the way society views and treats its women.

The rationalizations for porn are utter wank in every sense of the word.

You can weave rational explanations for porn that legitimize it beyond its need for legitimization. Your explanations are unimportant, and there is no reason for anyone to believe in them. Material relations precede theory and one fully expects a rationalization for porn if porn is a material relation in society; and porn is a material relation in society because no one ever produced porn except to make money.

A woman walking down the street past gaudy neon signs, peep shows, racks of dirty magazines, x-rated video stores, and so one, will be asked to listen to an explanation for why all of this is somehow good, or right, or an expression of freedom. What if we replaced all that porn with the objectification of geeks. It's true that women have soft breasts, but it's also true that geeks have pudgy bodies. It's true that women write the blurbs next to the staple in the navels, but it is also true that geeks have no social skills. It's true that woman love to be fucked up the ass by the cable guy, but it is also true that geeks masturbate over anime. The objectification of women makes you feel good. The objectification of geeks makes me feel superior.

I'll give you $50 dollars if you show me your Linux.

---
I'm not the Noam Chomsky your big sister studied in college. I'm the Noam Chomsky who fucked her in the faculty lounge.
[ Parent ]

Choke on my Linux, biotch! (3.00 / 1) (#91)
by 0xdeadbeef on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 05:35:27 PM EST

It's true that woman love to be fucked up the ass by the cable guy, but it is also true that geeks masturbate over anime.
Are you implying an equivalence between these two ratios? Damn, I need to change careers...

[ Parent ]
You are in the anime business? (3.00 / 1) (#92)
by Uncle Noam Chomsky on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 06:30:03 PM EST

Contact me, I have a business proposition for you — www.capitalistcumguzzlingbitches.com. I think it's a natural fit for the Internet's demographic.

We'll talk.

---
I'm not the Noam Chomsky your big sister studied in college. I'm the Noam Chomsky who fucked her in the faculty lounge.
[ Parent ]

Confused.. (4.00 / 1) (#108)
by biggs on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 03:30:55 AM EST

Heck, the Song of Solomon is erotic literature. But this is not porn. Porn is a business.

Publishing Toni Morrison's work isn't a business? I bet Song of Solomon has made a lot more money than "FUCK SLUT CUM BITCHES 2000."

because no one ever produced porn except to make money.

bullshit.

What is it that you are really trying to communicate here... you are confused... If I was going to read into what you are saying... it seems like if something has no merrit beyond sexual stimulation, and is not thought provoking or more artistic by your standards somehow it is more of a materialistic business?

--
"Rockin my 'hell I made it' wetsuit stitch so I can swim in elevators crazy wet through piss" -Cannibal Ox
[ Parent ]

Business? (4.00 / 1) (#113)
by bogado on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 08:28:16 AM EST

In todays world every single piece of art could be labeled as a business. Several film makers have to change their movies because "screen tests" weren't favorable (if they're luck and the movies is a hit, they can launch a "director's cut" DVD later). Something being a business is not a problem, is a fact of life. It brings some disadvantages,

I also don't agree with the argument of objectification, in my opinion, this is not because of the porn industry. In my opinion the porn industry just follow what the society thinks. Why not fight objefication by producing, or advertising porn movies that don't do it?


[]'s Victor bogado da Silva Lins

^[:wq
[ Parent ]

Objectifation of Women (none / 0) (#144)
by vectro on Sat Aug 31, 2002 at 05:53:40 PM EST

Nude pictures are not necessarily objectifying. I think it is important to recognise and appreciate natural beauty, not stifle and hide it.

See, for example, DOMAI.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]

porn sucks and so do consumers of porn (1.35 / 14) (#100)
by Jim Tour on Sun Aug 18, 2002 at 08:29:48 PM EST

I'm not going to bother making any kind of detailed argument. I'd just like all you fuckhead porn enthusiasts to know that a good swath (the better swath) of humanity still looks at you and sees fuckheads. Sex is for making new people ok? So it brings a certain pleasure, yes. Nature programmed it that way to make sure we'd do it often enough. But to blow it up into a big thing in your life just shows yer a depraved unbalanced twit ok?

Gourmet food sucks and so do people who eat it (4.33 / 3) (#119)
by Dr. Zowie on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 12:38:29 PM EST

I'm not going to bother making any kind of detailed argument. I'd just like all you fuckhead restaurantgoers to know that a good swath (the better swath) of humanity still looks at you and sees fat slobs. Food is for energy ok? So it brings a certain pleasure, yes. Nature programmed it that way to make sure we'd eat often enough. But to blow it up into a big thing in your life just shows yer a depraved orally fixated twit OK?

[ Parent ]
I'd agree with that (none / 0) (#126)
by Jim Tour on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 07:26:54 PM EST

We've lost our souls and are trying to fill the space with appetite gratification. We suck.

[ Parent ]
what? (bis) (none / 0) (#124)
by zanskar on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 05:38:59 PM EST

What about learning to spell yourself?

  • it is not "fichen" (at the end of the original posting) but "ficken".
  • it is not a "corgette" but a "courgette" that you should stuck up your own arse.

and if this poorly written report on pornography in France is all you can manage after having visited a foreign country/continent, you should better fu*king stay home.



Bring back hanging. (none / 0) (#134)
by m0rzo on Tue Aug 20, 2002 at 07:32:27 AM EST

Did your dipshit mind ever think to reply to my post in the thread it was in? Yes, I agree with you. I should stuck up my own arse. Ha, ha, ha. Concerning my 'poorly written report', you only wish you could write as well as me.


My last sig was just plain offensive.
[ Parent ]

Essen mein scheisse... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
by otis wildflower on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 05:55:33 PM EST

"okey dokey!".. "What the FUCK is wrong with German People?"

hehehehe...

ps: for pure camp value, you can't beat Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, though it's technically only softcore...

banning pornography (none / 0) (#127)
by micmatic on Mon Aug 19, 2002 at 07:35:08 PM EST

I remember the regular porn-movie marathons on weekend nights throughout the German cable channel landscape (non-encrypted) back, maybe 10 years ago.

I basically grew up seeing "Fritz the Horse Caretaker" teaching young Heidi whatever he thought he was doing there.

They edited out lots, of course, but you'd see an occasional erection, a drip of semen flinging across the screen or a woman's labia - they couldnt edit it all out at all times I guess.
It never really got overly explicit (visually) due to the editing, at least not to the point where you'd see close-up carnage.
Among the most irritating and oddly arousing scenes I've ever encountered on public tv (and I know this will help feed another stereotype) was oral sex a woman had with a cow's udders.
Anything like this however was rare and it usually restricted itself to the fundamentally proven in-and-out game.

The point is, that porno films on German television were so abundantly aired and so obnoxiously shoved down everyone's throats that people just grew sick of 'em. They're now entirely absent - to my knowledge, but interestingly not because of censorship but simply because people got tired of it and switched off.
Even us school kids, like me, at some point stopped watching them.

In the mid-to-late 90's we've had another wave of obnoxious tv-pornography in the form of pseudo-journalistic 'whorehouse-reports' which ran across most cable channels throughout Germany and annoyed most of the population not by its content (which had hardly differed in explicity) but by its repetitive and unsubstantious nature.
This phenomenon, too, declined last thing I checked, then I stopped having a TV in my home.

I actually forgot what my point was. But my opinion is that by censoring pornography you're not helping the situation at all. People will have to grow sick of it by themselves and eventually will.
I guess every generation needs its bit of smut and filth, and usually it grows mature.

Levels of tolerance towards sexuality or any kind of cultural content are shaped by social consensus, not by law.
I can hardly think of any jurisdiction that has undeniably succeeded in enforcing prohibition of any sort of human culture.
There's prostution in all parts of America, pornography in the UK, and I'm sure the kids in Iran have got a tape of Western music or two to listen to.
So what's the point? Legal prohibition of any sort is usually nothing but waste-paper, and cultural content almost always manages to crawl back onto the surface of society after evading into safe niches.

Looking back, as an adult, I couldn't think of any situation in which I'd wished my parents (or any other kind of authority) to keep me from seeing one particular thing or another, and thus enforce prohibition over me.
I learned to filter incoming information myself and decide what's interesting/educating/disturbing to me.

So this goes to all those intelligent young dads and moms out there thinking their kids need some "basic censorship" or politicians saying (as a German parliamentarian referring to internet content put it recently) "The government should definately have a right to decide whats good for the people to see and what isn't".
Is that so ? Is he better at deciding what's good for me to see and what isn't ?
Pardon sir, but I'll decide upon that myself, once I've seen it.

"I'd rather be a sad Socrates than be a happy pig."

Some counterarguments (none / 0) (#143)
by number33 on Sun Aug 25, 2002 at 06:10:43 AM EST

The move to ban pornography on French television is a step-backward in my book and serves only to reinforce outdated, moralistic ideas that sex is shameful and sex is sin.

I could just as easily see banning pornography on TV using the argument that sex is sacred and neither shameful nor sinful. This is, in fact, my position on the matter, and insofar as we are talking about allowing cultures to breathe, the push to place sex so prominently into the mainstream consciousness I find to be rather suffocating.

Getting down to brass tacks, let me identify the two prominent reasons why one would want to watch porn: (1) for education, or (2) to get off. It seems to me non-French porn is just as successful in this regard, even without all the awe-inspiring camera angles and whatnot. If you're looking for a "tasteful" tale of love and romance, I honestly don't see why graphic sex need be a part of it. In fact, I can't help but see how graphic sex is counterproductive in this sense.

And the argument that parents just have to "spend more time looking after their children," while appealing in principle, in practice doesn't amount to much. The President himself (any president, not necessarily G.W.) could go on and on about how parents need to spend more time looking after their children, but is this really going to affect the apathetic parents? No, and while we don't want an overly paternalistic government, there are certainly paternalistic functions that I think are worthwhile for the government to carry out. This is one of them.

(That is, in keeping graphic sex off of unencrypted channels, not necessarily off of TV entirely. An earlier comment mentioned that it's just as difficult--or easy--to get porn on TV in France as it is in the U.S., so long as you're not in a hotel. I consider that to be acceptable.)

if only (1.00 / 1) (#146)
by arcoiris on Sun Sep 01, 2002 at 04:22:36 PM EST

If only porn did not always, even, somehow, in lesbian porn, subjegate women and emphasize the dominence of men, then it might not infuriate me so. Even porn targeted at women, and even, in a strange way, dominatrix style porn, presents women in a subtly (or blatently) chauvenistic light. In my mind the issue at hand is not sex. Who cares about that? Porn is the most extreme example of a cultural artifact that systematically condones (and even legitimates) the persepctive that women are inferior to men, and that the only true value in a woman is her sexual appeal.

Egalité, Fraternité, Liberté - Non! | 146 comments (146 topical, 0 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!