A definition of porn

Thread starter gr82bart
Start date Feb 7, 2007

Vaughn

Subscriber

Feb 7, 2007

#51

I agree with you, jstraw. Cause or effect are important to differentiate between if one wants to figure out a solution to a perceived problem.

Jovo appearently has left the building, but if it is our duty to eliminate all the difficulties experiences by children, we would also have to eliminate school (except for those who enjoy it), enforce high standards of parental care, over-see all their social interactions, ad nauseum. But it is the difficulties that force us to grow as children and as adults.

I think the trend away from public gym showers at high schools to be a fairly distrubing indicator of the body-phobia of American culture. But what we have done is to eliminate the effect (the preceived embarassment of showering in public) and thus have only contributed more to the cause.

I have nothing against adult porn -- except in the cases where the subjects are mis-treated or in any way harmed by their participation. The feminist argument is that women are harmed (loss of self-esteame, cheapen or whatever) thru the stereoptyping that occurs thru porn (woman as objects rather than people). To a certain extent this is true and the world probably would be a better place if it disappeared (either because woman refused to participate and/or men refuse to look at it.) At that point, the only "porn" that would exist would be that of a high artistic standard.

Vaughn

arigram

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#52

It all brings back memories of this thread:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Funny that I found that discussion much more mature and creative that these here dead end pit fights between age-old ethical differences. After all, there is no chance one might be "enlightened" by the ethics of the other and "switch sides". It really comes down to either accepting that the world doesn't revolve around your beliefs or living inside a fragile bubble.
This kind of thread must file under "redudant", along with "analog vs digital", "environmental issues of processes", "I hate this company", etc

copake_ham

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#53

jstraw said:
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."

While punishment is usually a consequence of conviction of a crime - it is not the purpose for making acts criminal. Trying to separate morality from criminal law is like trying to unscramble an omelet.

Have you actually studied criminal law?

And with that , like jovo, for his reasons, I'll too will leave this thread to the "internet philosophers and experts" for whom formal education and knowledge is just so "old school". Why let the facts get in the way of a good opinion or witty saying anyway?

John McCallum

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#54

jd callow said:
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.

The difficulty any govt has (and always will) is that the sense of moral responsibility in a person can not be instilled or even significantly influenced by anyone that has not been given permission to do so. The idea that it can is frankly ridiculous.
They can of course influence behaviour with the fear of consequences. But if this is significantly far out of line with the desires of culture of those governed, it is called oppression. Easy to point a finger at when viewed from afar (no?).

How do you explain the prevalent attitude:-

Burglar1: "What'd you do wrong"
Burglar2: "I got caught"

copake_ham said:
While punishment is usually a consequence of conviction of a crime - it is not the purpose for making acts criminal. Trying to separate morality from criminal law is like trying to unscramble an omelet.

Nice in theory, but to my mind says more about the ego of highflying barristers than any real understanding of human behaviour and sense of self.

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 7, 2007

JBrunner

Moderator

Moderator

Feb 7, 2007

#55

copake_ham said:
So government has no place?

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

Straw man, again.

johnnywalker

Subscriber

Feb 7, 2007

#56

When I lived in Peru I had my daughter and son (10 and 12 yrs) come down for a visit with their mom. I took them on a train trip from Cuzco to Puno. Puno was pretty cool in the evening, so I took them to a store to buy some sweaters. While looking in the store, I saw my son paying a lot of attention to some small statues behind a glass cabinet. Next thing I hear is him calling is sister, "Come and look at this, it's disgusting!!". The girl behind the counter started to giggle, and their mom went over to see what was happening. She told them if it was so disgusting to stop looking at it, which they did. The statues were pretty graphic all right.

Anyway, this story has no point, except that the kids forgot the whole episode 2 minutes later and it left no lasting scars.

Vaughn

Subscriber

Feb 7, 2007

#57

arigram said:
This kind of thread must file under "redudant", along with "analog vs digital", "environmental issues of processes", "I hate this company", etc

And perhaps posts about redundant threads are inthemselves a bit redundant -- just like this redundant post about redundant posts about redundant posts

jstraw

Member

Feb 7, 2007

#58

copake_ham said:
While punishment is usually a consequence of conviction of a crime - it is not the purpose for making acts criminal. Trying to separate morality from criminal law is like trying to unscramble an omelet.

Have you actually studied criminal law?

And with that , like jovo, for his reasons, I'll too will leave this thread to the "internet philosophers and experts" for whom formal education and knowledge is just so "old school". Why let the facts get in the way of a good opinion or witty saying anyway?

This was a civil disagreement till you couldn't resist issuing a condescending snipe.

I'd have adressed the substance of your post if not for that.

Roger Hicks

Member

Feb 8, 2007

#59

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.

Dear John,

I fully take your points, but really, you reinforce my point about 'Why not?' I'm a qualified teacher, though I've not taught for years, and I've lived in a number of countries as well as visiting many more. What you are describing really is quite culturally specific and therefore (by definition) unnecessary.

There's also a big difference between being nude themselves -- some children are comfortable with it, others not, as evidenced by many European beaches -- and the nudity of others, where the only rational attitude is that it's the other person's choice.

Of course there's curiosity, especially around puberty, but if nudity is not regarded as a great taboo, I'd argue it's generally easier to manage that curiosity, not more difficult. I'd also suggest that an awful lot of insecurity is culturally generated, reinforced and even approved.

Cheers,

R.

catem

Member

Feb 8, 2007

#60

I can't help thinking this discussion is off on the wrong track. A consensus or discussion of individual morality will never get anywhere on any forum, it just results in people - on both sides - getting understandably upset.

I did think twice about posting anything to this thread (maybe I should have thought three times) but if this is in the 'Ethics and Philosophy' section of a photography forum I think the emphasis should be on how far we, as photographers, can or should take any sort of line on the matter of 'difficult' images on the internet - presumably our interest is because these images are photographic ones.

The question is, is it possible for us to step back from our own individual morality/beliefs in order to do this? Or not? For example, as a parent rather than a photographer I've thought about the issue of my son looking at pornographic images, through his teens, and ultimately it comes down to trusting your relationship with your child, the values you may have instilled into them. I'm certain, if he ever looked at anything that was harmful to the subject (for what it's worth I don't believe he's had any interest in any sort of 'porn') then he would very quickly have stopped looking. However, if I step back I know that many other youngsters are more vulnerable, less sure of themselves, more easily led etc. So I'm not sure that a totally 'laissez-faire' attitude works overall. Do photographers have any sort of moral role and responsibility in society, particularly in relationship to the internet? If so, what is it and what do we do about it?

I'm not suggesting any answers - I just think that if we can't step back and see matters objectively, particularly as photographers, then there's little point having this kind of discussion at all.

I do realise, in retrospect, that the discussion was about particularly a U.S interpretation (or possible interpretation) of what pornography is (always confusing to someone from outside the U.S.). Sorry to go on, but I think there are other more important and wider issues to discuss around this whole area.

Roger Hicks

Member

Feb 8, 2007

#61

catem said:
...I think there are other more important and wider issues to discuss around this whole area.

Absolutely. One of them is what children can/should be expected to 'handle' -- and learning how to 'handle' things is an essential part of growing up.

A completely non-sexual example that springs to mind is when I was maybe 9 and my brother was therefore about 6 or 7. I asked my parents if we could go to Mdina that day. "Of course," they said, "Here's the bus fare." Mdina was a few miles from where we lived, probably in Gzira at the time; I can't remember.

"Can't you take us?" I whined.

"No. We're busy."

"But I've never been on a bus on my own before."

"Now's the time to learn, then."

And, after another few minutes of pleas and arguments, my brother and I walked to the bus stop and went to Mdina and back on the bus, and it was a part of growing up. If you always treat kids like kids, 'respecting' what they can 'handle', they'll stay kids all their lives.

Cheers,

R.

arigram

Member

Feb 8, 2007

#62

There are not really many societies in this world that are mature enough to handle the basic truth that God/Nature created us naked and that is our natural state. There are not many societies in the world that prefer to teach the young about their bodies instead teaching them about violence. Heroes after all carry swords and artists rarely are respected unless they bring revenue to the locallity by their fame.
But I digress.

I wanted to tell you about this phonomenon that has been gripping the greek society: young students recording with their cellphone their sexual activities and sharing them among each other. Some times its a blowjob in the school's bathroom, sometimes its a rape, sometimes its a gang rape of an immigrant girl, like the case that unsettled Greece.
To be the Devil's attorney, it is good that teenagers feel comfortable with their sexuallity (because suppressing your sexuallity brings serious psychological problems), but those are extreme situations, bad, ugly situations. They often lead to harassing or even blackmail as well.
Who do you blame?
The TV with its Big Brother shows that those kids live on?
Schools, parents for being absent from the child's development, especially the sexual one?
The Cell Phone companies with the builtin megapixel videocameras in each phone and the transfer capabillities such as the MMS?
Can you blame the internet where webcam girls are now all over the place, where you can also trade those videos?

Jumping the fence,
what do you think of Sally Mann and David Hamilton?
Are they pervert pedophillic bastards?
Isn't their work pedopohillic porn?
Or can you accept them because of their artistic merits?

Edwardv

Member

Feb 8, 2007

#63

Maybe it is time everyone in the world goes naked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then the:confused photogrpahers who photograph nude models will photograph clothed models and we will call it erotic, porn or whatever we can make up.:confused:

arigram

Member

Feb 8, 2007

#64

A nude is not erotic by itself. It needs something:
a piece of cloth, an accessory, a provocative pose, a sensual light, a much promising look in the eyes, something.
That's why I started that other thread some time ago, because nudity isn't enough to tickle my loins and "doctor look at me well, please, am I allright" spreading girls of Playboy don't do it either.
One has nothing, the other too much, you need a little of something to be erotic.

JBrunner

Moderator

Moderator

Feb 8, 2007

#65

arigram said:
A nude is not erotic by itself. It needs something:
a piece of cloth, an accessory, a provocative pose, a sensual light, a much promising look in the eyes, something.
That's why I started that other thread some time ago, because nudity isn't enough to tickle my loins and "doctor look at me well, please, am I allright" spreading girls of Playboy don't do it either.
One has nothing, the other too much, you need a little of something to be erotic.

There is that aspect, and the OP was concerned with language that equated nudity with pornography. It seems however there are those than equate being free to view Michelangelo's David, with pedophilia and sexual abuse of children. It is unlikely that any amount of reason can prevail when faced with such irrationality.

Antje

Member

Feb 8, 2007

#66

arigram said:
A nude is not erotic by itself. It needs something:
a piece of cloth, an accessory, a provocative pose, a sensual light, a much promising look in the eyes, something.
That's why I started that other thread some time ago, because nudity isn't enough to tickle my loins and "doctor look at me well, please, am I allright" spreading girls of Playboy don't do it either.
One has nothing, the other too much, you need a little of something to be erotic.

Absolutely agree.

Regarding body image and neurosis: It helped me a lot to learn (when I was an awkward 12 year old with no breasts) that 30something women I thought of as role models regarding their appearance (when clothed) actually owed their beauty to a careful choice of clothing and a good bra. I grew up seeing real life naked people with varicose vein and cellulitis and saw the devastating effects of gravity - long before I saw plastic people on TV. After seeing that, being an awkward teen wasn't too bad.

Antje

Ed Sukach

Member

Feb 8, 2007

#67

jovo said:
... 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!

They DON'T??? When did all this start?

When I was in school, we most certainly DID shower after P.E. --- and it would be socially unacceptible to sit around and STINK for the rest of the day. I've already checked ... Middle and High School showers are still as active as ever.

I've always thought the I lived in "Puritanville" U.S.A., but apparently there are other places more uptight than we are ... where did you go to school?

Ed Sukach

Member

Feb 8, 2007

#68

"Have I no shame?"

About what? ... The work of God (or "The Creator, Manitou ... whatever..)??

No ... I don't. Why should I be ashamed?

Scott Peters

Member

Feb 8, 2007

#69

Perhaps some interesting reading....a major study on porn influence on rape and other violent behavior. Clearly there is a link. Here is the conclusion of the study. I am not saying that all viewers become violent or rape, but there is strong evidence that most rapists are influenced heavily by porn. To think that porn is 'harmless' to society i believe is ignorant.

http://www.dianarussell.com/conclusion.html

Vaughn

Subscriber

Feb 8, 2007

#70

As long as one also uses her definiton of porn, I will agree with some of her conclusions..."I define pornography as material that combines sex and/or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone, or encourage such behavior."

She approves of erotica that does not fit the above definition. Other than that, I find some of her conclusions a little slippery when it comes to cause and effect. They remind me of the arguments against marijuana -- because most hard drud users tried weed before the harder drugs, it was mistakely claimed that weed use always led to harder drugs.

jstraw

Member

Feb 8, 2007

#71

There is also research that suggests that certain people are predisposed toward violent sexuality and that it's more likely that they will engage in such activity if it's *suppressed* in their fantasy life....that living something out in one's imagination provides an outlet.

I don't subscribe to one belief over the other. I'm just saying there is research to support a variety of points of view.

Scott Peters

Member

Feb 8, 2007

#72

Slippery? And research to support a variety of points?...let's see it. And please make it good research....come on.....pre-disposed? With no triggers? Supressing a fantasy life....I'm done with this nonsense.

Ed Sukach

Member

Feb 8, 2007

#73

I TRIED to investigate Ms. Russells site with an open mind ... which became more difficult when I read the following:

"While correlation does not prove causation, and it therefore cannot be concluded from these studies that it was from the consumption of the pornography that was responsible for the males higher acceptance of violence against women, their findings are consistent with the theory that a casual connection exists." (note 1)

This is an interesting statement; first we are led to doubt the credibility of the "studies" ... then - about face ... BUT ... it IS consistent.

Let me write something similar, with a less emotionally-charged subject:

Extensive studies have shown that 100% (note: perfect correlation!) of mass murderers drank water at some time in their lives.
While correlation does not prove causation, these findings are consistent with the theory that a casual connection exists between the consumption of water and the crime of murder.
Of course they are consistent ... but NOT (even remotely!) significant.

I then kept on ... What can be said about a site dealing with an important and sensitive subject as this one does ... where the author chooses to
include images proving how physically flexible she is?

It might be an idea to consider the change in the amount of aggressive behavior caused by the repeal of MOST of the anti-pornography laws in Scandinavia during the ... 1960's - '70's? There certainly WERE changes - sexually explicit material flooded the bookshelves - AND - the incidence of crimes of violence - both involving sex, and not involving sex - DECREASED significantly.

Old saying: Beware of those who refer to what they have written before as absolute truths.

(note 1) I've read that over a couple of times; either I've copied that incorrectly or there is a bit of "strange' syntax there.... in any event I get the idea.

jford

Member

Feb 8, 2007

#74

I think the point about pre-teens not being hung up on nudity is very valid. By way of corollary, my five year old son had a student working at his kindergarten in full burka, ie. woman in Islamic dress with only eyes showing. I was a bit shocked by this and thought this inappropriate in for a kindergarten teacher. He barely even noticed. As far as he was concerned she was just another adult, no matter what she wore. He had no real emotional baggage around the issue at all. Similarly, I think he would see a nude as a picture of an adult with no clothes on, rather than an adult with clothes on. It is only when he hits puberty that any form of awareness or shame will kick in.

Besides, the difference between pornography and erotica is easy. It's lighting.

John.

Ed Sukach

Member

Feb 9, 2007

#75

I copied this from somewhere ... I've been trying to find it again, without success. I am NOT sure of the author - I have "Aeolius Stilo" noted ... but he was Roman, and I thought this was written in ancient Greece some time before Stilo ... ca. 500 - 400 BCE.

Anyway, I think it has some bearing on the issue of prornography, and art ... and whether "redeeming qualities" are necessary in every facet of our lives...

The Greek "Dionysus" was the god of Wine, the Symposium, revelry ... and general (irrational, unredeeming) partying.

"To resist Dionysus is to deny the irrational within the self, the repression of which can only and inevitably lead to its destructive release. The human spirit demands Dionyiac ecstasy, for those who accept it, the experience offers spiritual power. for those who repress the natural forces within themselves or refuse it to others, it is transformed into destruction, both for the innocent and the guilty. To have awareness of one's own nature, and therefore, one's place in nature is wisdom (sophia) itself."

I don't think celebrating Dionysus each and every minute is a good idea ... everything in moderation ... but once in a while it seems to be necessary to avoid a brittleness of the spirit.

Sour godliness is the devil's religion.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share:

Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email