A definition of porn

Thread starter gr82bart
Start date Feb 7, 2007

Kerik

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#26

Ed Sukach said:
It is, to me, amazing - we hide some sexually explicit videos behind swinging doors in the local Video Rental places, and VIOLENT gore-filled videos (Actual Scenes of Violent Accidental Deaths- People Burned Alive- Ripped to Pieces!!!) are in the areas accessible to all ages ...

Am I the ony one who has the opinon that this doesn't make sense?

Ed,
No, you're not. It is extremely disturbing to me when I hear my teenage girls talk about their (under 18 year-old) friends who have seen movies like "The Saw" series - with permission and approval of their parents! Luckily, my kids find those kinds of movies as repulsive is I do. Why cruelty, torture and gore are more accessible than images that show pubic hair or (shudder) genitalia in our society absolutely baffles me. Even though pornography involves nudity, nudity in itself is NOT pornography, IMO. Their are few things on the planet nearly as beautiful as the human body (present company excepted, of course )

Scott Peters

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#27

Porn - definition

IMO, there is no redeeming value in porn or violent video's. NONE. Period.

The difference between art (with nudity) and porn....If you can't decipher the difference perhaps you have lost your sense of shame.

It goes like this....have you paid to enter an art gallery? YES. Have you seen works of nude women? YES. So, you have paid to see nude women? YES.

Well, then what's the difference between paying for that and Hustler magazine?

To me there is all the difference in the world. And I certainly don't want my teenage kids viewing it.....

catem

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#28

Now how's that for a coincidence - just read in the 'paper (only the 'Evening Standard' and only a few lines) about a report published yesterday by the LSE (London School of Economics) that "one in six children had seen hardcore pornography on-line". It would be quite interesting to compare these studies, how they've been done, and the definitions used, what the conclusions are...

The article goes on to say (actually it's only a column...)

"Parents of teenage boys talk about how their sons see images far more graphic than anything you can buy in dingy Soho basements. Yet politicians never respond to their concern. The consensus is that the net can't be regulated, even though the Americans think it can...[with regard to gambling sites]..

Nick Cohen - The Evening Standard Feb 7 2007

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 7, 2007

Vaughn

Subscriber

Feb 7, 2007

#29

I agree with Ed and Kerik...I am more worried about the violence of movies and video games (or even worse, soap operas on TV) than the possibility of my three pre-teen boys seeing naked bodies. I have come across conservative Christians who damn the "porn" on the internet, yet consider it quality time to play violent video games with their kids.

I took my three boys (8 yrs old at the time) to a lecture by Judy Dater. She saw my boys and gave a general warning that some of the images she was going to show contained male and female nudity. While I appreciated the thought, I had no worries about it.

I think kids can handle nudity quite easily -- unless their parents have trained them to act negatively to it. And those parents are the ones who should be monitoring their own kids web-surfing, and not applying their standards across the board.

Vaughn

Ed Sukach

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#30

Antje said:
... Yet most of them have been dragged to the sauna from early age.

Oh, I know how it feels to be dragged to sauna!

On a trip to Baden-Baden, I sustained an injury (uh ... that's my story and I'm sticking to it!) to my left knee.... and the only reasonable course of action was to visit the Caracalla Baths to loosen any possible damage to the tissues. Unfortunately (well - sort of...) it was "Mixed" that day, so I had to ... suffer it out (no pun intended).

The "Amethyst" Sauna worked wonders. Brace yourselves for the smilies ....
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

catem

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#31

I agree about the casual violence that seems to be 'acceptable' - the T.V. seems to be full of shockingly graphic murder stories, specially on Sunday evening for some reason...

What should concern us is "hardcore pornography" - referring to the LSE study (which is different from "nudity", or 'soft porn', or 'erotica') where violence often plays a part. The point appears to be (over here at least, according to police testimony) that it is possible to view things on the net that would in any other medium be illegal. Not illegal out of prudery, but because it's pretty nasty stuff. I don't know about in the U.S., but in the U.K. images have to be pretty extreme to be illegal - i.e. to include bestiality, children, graphic violence. These are the issues that need to be talked about, and my worry is that going off on a tangent about inoffensive images - if that's what's happening in certain studies - means this difficult area gets less thought and attention.

And just on the question of parental supervision - whether it is or should be necessary or not, anyone with a teenager over a certain age knows that it's simply not realistic...

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 7, 2007

jd callow

Moderator

Moderator

Feb 7, 2007

#32

JBrunner said:
Unsupervised web browsing is not an appropriate activity for the children of parents who would find a naked body offensive. The problem is not the internet. Government has no place, and no ability to legislate morals, nor should it. What a crock. I mean, how difficult is it to supervise your children? If you're to much of a dolt to do it, why is it suddenly everyone elses problem? Fundies. It boggles.

Agree wholeheartedly.

Meanwhile, only a very sick mind would find nudity pornographic. I would think distasteful or objectionable might be how a normal person would view nudity when unexpectedly encountered whilst surfing the web

Roger Hicks

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#33

jd callow said:
I would think distasteful or objectionable might be how a normal person would view nudity when unexpectedly encountered whilst surfing the web

What puzzles me is that I've NEVER unexpectedly encountered any photographic or even rendered (drawn/painted) pornography on the web, and remarkably few nudes. Come to that, I've seen damn' few nudes, pornographic or otherwise, on the web, that were (or might reasonably have been) expected. I'd always thought it was because I was too mean to pay for such things but maybe I'm not trying hard enough.

As for 'kids can't handle nudity', I'd have to ask, why not? Nudity doesn't seem to be a problem in e.g. Japan, and I was the one who had the problem with a particular French pissoir publique of my acquaintance, not the teenage girls walking past (it was right next to a school, and I have to say that I didn't realize this and that there was no-one walking past when I started). Maybe it is the duty of the rest of the world to point out the absurdities inherent in those societies that inflict adults' problems on kids who can handle almost anything.

Cheers,

R.

copake_ham

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#34

JBrunner said:
....The problem is not the internet. Government has no place, and no ability to legislate morals, nor should it. .....

So government has no place?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/07/kids.online.porn.ap/index.html

jstraw

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#35

Scott Peters said:
IMO, there is no redeeming value in porn or violent video's. NONE. Period.

The difference between art (with nudity) and porn....If you can't decipher the difference perhaps you have lost your sense of shame.

It goes like this....have you paid to enter an art gallery? YES. Have you seen works of nude women? YES. So, you have paid to see nude women? YES.

Well, then what's the difference between paying for that and Hustler magazine?

To me there is all the difference in the world. And I certainly don't want my teenage kids viewing it.....

Define "porn." Is all eroticism, porn? Is eroticism without redeeming value?

Antje

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#36

Ed Sukach said:
Oh, I know how it feels to be dragged to sauna!

On a trip to Baden-Baden, I sustained an injury (uh ... that's my story and I'm sticking to it!) to my left knee.... and the only reasonable course of action was to visit the Caracalla Baths to loosen any possible damage to the tissues. Unfortunately (well - sort of...) it was "Mixed" that day, so I had to ... suffer it out (no pun intended).

The "Amethyst" Sauna worked wonders. Brace yourselves for the smilies ....
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Poor guy!
Similar story: I was at a customer site and had a sore back from standing all day. And of course I was dead tired and in need of some peace. So, I had chosen this hotel for the nice and always deserted sauna, stretched out on the benches and relaxed, feeling the pain subside slowly - until the door opens and in comes THE CUSTOMERS!!!! All of them, the whole merry bunch. I mean, I love them, I really really do. But well, it turned out to be the least relaxing sauna experience of my life.

Antje

jd callow

Moderator

Moderator

Feb 7, 2007

#37

copake_ham said:
So government has no place?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/07/kids.online.porn.ap/index.html

Your link applies to enforcement of the law as it applies to violent acts against and exploitation of the innocent, which is quite a bit different than viewing images of legal behavior.

copake_ham

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#38

jd callow said:
Your link applies to enforcement of the law as it applies to violent acts against and exploitation of the innocent, which is quite a bit different than viewing images of legal behavior.

Actually, my link was in response to JD's "extreme" libertarian argument that would seem to hold that nonthing can be "pornographic".

And the law enforcement being pursued in the immediate instance is two-pronged. Against both the perpetrators of the initial crimes and against the consumers of the graphic images.

jovo

Membership Council

Subscriber

Feb 7, 2007

#39

Roger Hicks said:
As for 'kids can't handle nudity', I'd have to ask, why not?
R.

During adolescence, embarassement and insecurity about their bodies is extremely typical for many kids. Girls are more likely than boys to feel that way, but for overweight or otherwise 'uncool' kids in general, nudity is just one more difficult hurdle to live through. (It may also be coulpled with curiosity and prurience as well....or at minimum, a good deal of very powerful and natural feelings.) For those with certain moral/religious upbringing it's also felt to be shameful. Ask a middle schooler if they take showers in school after phys ed. (when I was that age, we did); ask a high school kid the same question. The answer is most likely that they do not! You can do the research if you want to. I speak from 31 years of dealing with kids and being sensitive and aware of the issues they face. I am also speaking as an American. I have no knowledge of customs of other countries and cultures.

jstraw

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#40

jovo said:
During adolescence, embarassement and insecurity about their bodies is extremely typical for many kids. Girls are more likely than boys to feel that way, but for overweight or otherwise 'uncool' kids in general, nudity is just one more difficult hurdle to live through. (It may also be coulpled with curiosity and prurience as well....or at minimum, a good deal of very powerful and natural feelings.) For those with certain moral/religious upbringing it's also felt to be shameful. Ask a middle schooler if they take showers in school after phys ed. (when I was that age, we did); ask a high school kid the same question. The answer is most likely that they do not! You can do the research if you want to. I speak from 31 years of dealing with kids and being sensitive and aware of the issues they face. I am also speaking as an American. I have no knowledge of customs of other countries and cultures.

You're describing the cultural hangups that are heaped upon kids in *this* culture as though they're the natural, instinctive reactions of adolescent human beings and in my opinion, they're anything but. I think you're mixing up cause and effect, frankly.

jd callow

Moderator

Moderator

Feb 7, 2007

#41

copake_ham said:
And the law enforcement being pursued in the immediate instance is two-pronged. Against both the perpetrators of the initial crimes and against the consumers of the graphic images.

There is no difference between the consumers and the perpetrators of the sexual exploitation of children.

The government cannot successfully enforce morality or mores, either on the web or in private nor should it be attempted. It is no longer a moral issue when people are harmed. Nudity and sexual acts depicted on the web need to be sought out. No one is ever forced to view them. I wonder if only those who are already damaged can be harmed by inadvertently viewing nudity or sexual acts?

catem

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#42

Roger Hicks said:
What puzzles me is that I've NEVER unexpectedly encountered any photographic or even rendered (drawn/painted) pornography on the web, and remarkably few nudes. Come to that, I've seen damn' few nudes, pornographic or otherwise, on the web, that were (or might reasonably have been) expected. I'd always thought it was because I was too mean to pay for such things but maybe I'm not trying hard enough.

R.

I'm certainly no expert, so could very easily be proved wrong on this, but I have a feeling that there aren't many images of naked people on the web - apart from a few photography forums that is - that isn't at least soft porn. I somehow can't see it as the environment or medium for a lot of 'tasteful nudity'/nude studies. Could be wrong of course, but that's my hunch. Or maybe, like you, I just don't come across it - though I wouldn't object if I did.

By all accounts the pornography is readily available - you just have to know where to look, and the savvy to find it certainly seems to exist.

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 7, 2007

OP

OP

gr82bart

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#43

Joe Lipka said:
I'm reading this thread with the really nice portrait of Summer by Sanders McNew as the latest gallery photo.

I find the combination of that photograph and this thread mildly amusing.

So do I. My GF and I know Summer well and we'll meet her this weekend. I'll tell her about this 'event'. She'll get a kick out of it.

Regards, Art.

copake_ham

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#44

jd callow said:
There is no difference between the consumers and the perpetrators of the sexual exploitation of children.

The government cannot successfully enforce morality or mores, either on the web or in private nor should it be attempted. It is no longer a moral issue when people are harmed. Nudity and sexual acts depicted on the web need to be sought out. No one is ever forced to view them. I wonder if only those who are already damaged can be harmed by inadvertently viewing nudity or sexual acts?

I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that government cannot successfully enforce morality or mores. It does so all of the time. Doing so is the very basis of criminal law.

The issue is really one of whose morals and which mores shall be enforced by a particular government. But, regardless of type and degree, every society engages in such enforcement to some degree or another. For example, in many Muslim societies a woman who commits adultery or fornication can be put to death under the law. We in the West might consider that wrong - but it is a clear example of government successfully enforcing morality.

jovo

Membership Council

Subscriber

Feb 7, 2007

#45

jstraw said:
You're describing the cultural hangups that are heaped upon kids in *this* culture as though they're the natural, instinctive reactions of adolescent human beings and in my opinion, they're anything but. I think you're mixing up cause and effect, frankly.

Does it matter? The fact is that the culture is what it is, and adolescents behave the way they do in this culture. It isn't my intent, or mission, or even a particular interest to change the culture or rail against it or cheer it on. I'm reporting what kids I work with day in and out are like. If, however, you doubt the reality that adolescence is enormously turbulent and stressful for those going through it, then you need to do some homework. I witness kids in profound distress about competition for grades, for college acceptance, for athletic success, for first chair in orchestra, for social popularity, etc. which is just what they deal with in school. Then there are the family dynamics and dysfunction of divorce, blended family issues and all the rest for a number of them. It's a major delight to know some kids who are balanced, happy, loved and successful.

Whether the members of this forum like it or not, nudity is, for some kids, a difficult situation. End of story. Last post by me on the subject.

jstraw

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#46

Do we punish murderers because murder is morally wrong or do we punish murderers in order to protect potential murder victims by introducing a consequence into the equation?

I would argue that the latter is the province of man and the former, of "god."

Scott Peters

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#47

jstraw said:
Define "porn." Is all eroticism, porn? Is eroticism without redeeming value?

My point exactly...where soes shame begin and end for you?

jd callow

Moderator

Moderator

Feb 7, 2007

#48

Society enforces morality and mores and it only succeeds where there is near unanimous acceptance -- homogeneous societies. The government does not successfully enforce morality as can be seen by the success it has had in all the sin laws (drugs, sex, alcohol...). It can try, but it never succeeds.

jstraw

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#49

jovo said:
Does it matter? The fact is that the culture is what it is, and adolescents behave the way they do in this culture. It isn't my intent, or mission, or even a particular interest to change the culture or rail against it or cheer it on. I'm reporting what kids I work with day in and out are like. If, however, you doubt the reality that adolescence is enormously turbulent and stressful for those going through it, then you need to do some homework. I witness kids in profound distress about competition for grades, for college acceptance, for athletic success, for first chair in orchestra, for social popularity, etc. which is just what they deal with in school. Then there are the family dynamics and dysfunction of divorce, blended family issues and all the rest for a number of them. It's a major delight to know some kids who are balanced, happy, loved and successful.

Whether the members of this forum like it or not, nudity is, for some kids, a difficult situation. End of story. Last post by me on the subject.

I think it profoundly matters and the aspects of our culture that make what you describe the case, have many other, even more corrosive effects. To say that kids can't handle nudity is not the same as saying that our culture has corrupted the significance of nudity to the point where it's become a danger zone for our children. If the Swedish or the Japanese or whover have been successful in maintaining a disconnect between a state of undress and issues of sexuality and body image, perhaps struggling to "protect" children from the manefestations of our cultural neuroses is closing the barn door after the livestock has escaped.

jstraw

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#50

Scott Peters said:
My point exactly...where soes shame begin and end for you?

Those weren't rhetorical questions.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share:

Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email