GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Aegis
Wow! You really know your porn, CE!

Honestly, I simply believe in trying keeping myself informed about things that influence us human beings and our behaviour and concepts of things. However, I didn't watch a porn movie until I was over 20, and by then, I realised porn could never even come close to the real thing. I actually find porn very boring - moving naked bodies are only exciting when they are close to me

Originally posted by C Elegans
moving naked bodies are only exciting when they are close to me

Is that what attracts you to SYM?

Originally posted by Georgi
Is that what attracts you to SYM?

ROFLMAO No, since I actually have some demands on the bodies too, and Aegis is too young

Originally posted by C Elegans


ROFLMAO No, since I actually have some demands on the bodies too, and Aegis is too young

Don't think of it as "young", but rather as "energetic"

Originally posted by Aegis
Okay, I can accept that, but the basic concept is the same. While porn does promote certain ways of thinking about sex (whether it be by new methods, or even just things to spice it up), so does peer pressure among teens. The only major difference, as you said, is that the porn industry makes a profit.

Not just "makes a profit." There's a world of difference in intention.

Your friends want you to be "a man," by their definition (and I'm glad you resisted 'em--good for you). That's all they want, besides a few smarmy stories. The porn industry wants to convince you that what they have represents ideal beauty, perfect "gentleman's" entertainment, and a virtual reality that is *better than the real thing.* If you accept their definition, you fall into the same trap as anyone else who has ever bought a car based on a commercial: you have agreed to let your perceptions of reality be guided by a carefully calculated campaign that cost millions of dollars--if not more--to generate.

The porn merchants don't simply make a profit. In the upper echelons, they work in Madison Avenue's most expensive suites, studying data about how men and women of various demographics and psychographics respond to various stimulae. Then they produce and package "high class" porn, accordingly, and all the lower end porn follows their lead to the best of their ability.

So porn doesn't just turn a profit. Its an enormous business meant to create a need in you, and then control that need. In that sense, they're pushers.

Originally posted by Georgi
Is that what attracts you to SYM?

I see the spam has started on a serious thread (but without a "no spam" request by the originator). As I only have a few minutes before heading off to bed, I will now indulge our friend CM and gratuitously spam an intellectual discussion thread.

Ha! See you all in the morning.

when the porn industry began making a big push in the regular commercial world (behind the green door, the devil and mrs. jones, deep throat), they were very degrading to women. they were mob financed and the women were forced to play their roles. linda lovelace, who recently died, played deep throat ( a great performance) she was forced to play the part and there are records of her completely black and blue. she later testified before congress about what happened to her and the evils of the porn industry.

but today, the women do it because they like sex and want to make money doing it. so, no...porn, in and of itself is not degrading to women.

@ Aegis
His collection isn't the only thing HLD "whipped out" for this debate

(I can't believe no one else took that)

As for the actual topic, I have nothing against the porn industry. I just think it is a really bad way for kids to learn about sex. I'm personnally not a fan of porn. I think it's just degrading to watch for my ethics. If other people like to watch it, feel free, just don't mind if I leave.
I have to admit, it can be funny. the one show my friends convinced me to watch was called maTrixxx. Man, it was sooo bad, yet so funny. I couldn't stop laughing. They eventually kicked me out when I started mocking the whole thing. I ruined the atmosphere.

One thing that surprises me though, is the amount of women who watch too. The guys are downstairs, but so are most of the girls. Most, not all, but a fair number. If it is meant to cater to guys, whats the reason behind it?

Now that we can spam this thread...

Porn is hilarious! It's just so tacky that I'm surprised anyone can take it seriously enough to accept it as arousing. My friends and I consistently mock porn, we even started writing one using all the worst dialogue we could imagine(funnily enough no-one was willing to use our script, even though we submitted it to a few companies ).

On a more serious note, I couldn't agree more that it should be up to people to decide what works for them, and that there are a ridiculous number of unhealthy stereotypes out there, and not just from the porn industry.

@CE-the more I learn about the Swedish mind-set the more I like it, it all seems to make so much more sense than the traditional western mentality. *hug*

on topic - with a twist....

Most things that I could (and would have said) have already been said - mostly by CE and fable... BUT -

What I miss so far is the impact of porn on the MALE consumer - especially the teenage male.

Most men have at some point (or the other) in their life serious doubt on - ahem - the size of their "equipment"....and/or their "efficiency" (i.e. - endurance and the like..) .

Now if someone in this situation watches your average "run of the mill" porn flick what does he see ?

He sees men with HUGE organs who are able to "keep it up" for HOURS on end and for the "money shot" they ejaculate seemingly GALLONS and "shoot it off" several inches (if not yards )....

If this happens at a critical time in their personality-development they're likely to be inhibited by this experience for the rest of their lives...

SO what about us poor males ? (That's NO trick question !)

Worries,

Beldin

Off-topic.

Does anyone want to buy the rights to a movie by the name of "D!ck Moorc0ck"?

If this is too cheeky @the mods feel free to delete as necessary.

Dang this thread grew over night. I agree 100% with Fable CE and Viv. I believe porn is degrading to women and in many cases esp. in the third world, they are forced into it and then can't get out. But in the US it is an industry were people do join by choice in same cases.

But fable and CE provided good information even if it is in general terms. This is exactly what i need to continue the discussion. Also isn't it a social thing? over here in switzerland and i think in europe, porn is seen as a common thing. The local cd music shop has a section for porn open to all. Men, women chldren everybodyc an see the section and they don't stop young teenagers from buying.

That i don't agree with. I agree with the back room policy they have in the US, that the porn stuff is in a seperate room away from kids and the like.

Whilst I have to agree that some porn (ie. the 'deviant' stuff that has already been mentioned) should be kept away from impressionable minds, I think (generalization warning) the American oversensitivity and heavyhanded tendancy to censor most things to do with nudity and sex is actually far more damaging than attempting to naturalize sex. Australia does the same thing as America, and as a result sex is somehow made to seem 'wrong' during adolescence, the time when most people are attempting to come to terms with their own feelings and sexuality, rather than showing sex for the natural part of life that it is. A lot of this is because the Australian government is heavily influenced by the right-wing religious groups, but I can't help but feel that when teenagers are made to feel guilty over having perfectly normal desires that something is not working.

*sigh*Maybe I should go live in Sweden .

Originally posted by Aegis
Ok, valid question.

As I said, though, I said that if the starlet feels good about herself, then I got no problem about it. To be honest though, when I responded, those particular pieces had slipped my mind. While I am against even considering those types of the depictions, they are for the most part just that, depictions. Thus, the starlet still must agree to do that particular movie.

Find and watch a channel 4 documentary called Hardcore, you will see it isn't such a cut and dry situation.

It is one of the best documentaries i ever witnessed, plus one of the first for the documenters to ever get involved in what they were filming.

Quite often a woman will sign up to do something easy and perhaps fun and be forced/coerced into engaging in degrading acts against their will

Originally posted by nael
but today, the women do it because they like sex and want to make money doing it. so, no...porn, in and of itself is not degrading to women.

@Nael, where are you getting your information, regarding women doing porn because they enjoy sex and want to make money doing it? I've seen some of the research and interviews that have been done off the record, and nothing points to women doing porn because they "like sex."

I would also question whether the attitude of those who are involved in an industry automatically determines the quality of the product, as you've indicated above. Even if every person in the porn trade was happy, well-insured, emotionally stable, etc, that still wouldn't mean that the results--the porn, itself--was any less degrading to women. Or, for that matter, men.

First of all, I am going to limit my comments to people who willingly enter the sex business. I'm not talking about people like Linda Lovelace (who was coerced by her producer/husband), slaves who are photographed or filmed, or people who are forced into doing acts they did not sign on for. In any business, whether we're talking porn, migrant farming or a sweatshop, that is reprehensible.

@fable:
Let me ask you this (going back to your example near the beginning of this thread): In principle, how is someone who chooses to make porn for the money different from a lawyer who defends murderers? Both may or may not enjoy their work, but it pays their bills, so they do it. Lawyers are bound by a code of ethics which requires that they defend a client; their guilt or innocence is not an issue and they will face disbarrment if they refuse to perform their job, even if that client is Joseph Goebbels, Charles Manson or OJ. I don't know about you, but I've had a couple of jobs in my life that I loathed, but I still showed up because the money was good. In effect, I was willingly prostituting myself to perform a service (not in the sex industry, though) that I happened to be good at, but hated doing. Is that any different from some who shows up on a set for an afternoon and makes more in three hours than they would working as a medical transcriptionist in a week?

I am not going to debate C Elegans's point about the high rates of abuse and emotional distress among porn stars; in fact, you can probably check out some studies and see similar results among strippers, prostitutes and other people in similar sex industry businesses. Still, there are a number of people who get into the business despite having normal upbringings without abuse. Why do they do it? Money. Fame. Because they couldn't make it as a "real" actress.

I've said before that I think that porn in general does not convey a positive image of women in its viewers and I think that C Elegans's other point about porn dictating sexual behaviours is well taken.

However, I am not quick to condemn porn as necessarily harmful, and I also believe that there are other outlets which are far more influential in people's self-image and sexual behaviours. I think part of our fascination with pornography is that (at least in the United States) sex is very taboo. The Christian Coalition wants to bury any references to sex and thinks that by putting their heads in the sand that it will go away; never mind that people have been having sex for a long, long time and they always will. Hell, I can't even watch shows that aren't even about sexuality on The Learning Channel that shows a woman's breast without the censors blurring them out. I think this denial of the natural and positive aspects of sexuality fuels our desire to see porn because if no one is going to tell people how sexuality works, what Peter North and Teri Weigel are doing must be the right way.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
However, I am not quick to condemn porn as necessarily harmful, and I also believe that there are other outlets which are far more influential in people's self-image and sexual behaviours. I think part of our fascination with pornography is that (at least in the United States) sex is very taboo. The Christian Coalition wants to bury any references to sex and thinks that by putting their heads in the sand that it will go away; never mind that people have been having sex for a long, long time and they always will. Hell, I can't even watch shows that aren't even about sexuality on The Learning Channel that shows a woman's breast without the censors blurring them out. I think this denial of the natural and positive aspects of sexuality fuels our desire to see porn because if no one is going to tell people how sexuality works, what Peter North and Teri Weigel are doing must be the right way.

This is the point I was trying to make earlier, thanks @HLD for expressing it better than I could at the time.

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Lawyers are bound by a code of ethics which requires that they defend a client; their guilt or innocence is not an issue and they will face disbarrment if they refuse to perform their job

I can't resist quoting some Pacino "This court is out of order!"

I think part of our fascination with pornography is that (at least in the United States) sex is very taboo. The Christian Coalition wants to bury any references to sex and thinks that by putting their heads in the sand that it will go away; never mind that people have been having sex for a long, long time and they always will. Hell, I can't even watch shows that aren't even about sexuality on The Learning Channel that shows a woman's breast without the censors blurring them out. I think this denial of the natural and positive aspects of sexuality fuels our desire to see porn because if no one is going to tell people how sexuality works, what Peter North and Teri Weigel are doing must be the right way.

I am in agreement. When sex becomes a taboo issue then the rebelious youth is more likely to go against his parents wishes and go out and have sex. If one is open about the relevant intricaces then i think it can only be beneficial.

Censorship is an interesting place to take this conversation, as my boss says, how can it be offensive 30 years ago and now it is accepted, either it is wrong and offensive or it isn't, passage of time shouldn't effect the basic truths. (take it and replace with anything you like, My Ding a ling if you wish )

An interesting fact, in Germany they are allowed to show a man "aroused" but only to a certain degree, once it gets past that degree they have to censor it in some way. (this makes me laugh for some reason )

Let me ask you this (going back to your example near the beginning of this thread): In principle, how is someone who chooses to make porn for the money different from a lawyer who defends murderers? Both may or may not enjoy their work, but it pays their bills, so they do it. Lawyers are bound by a code of ethics which requires that they defend a client; their guilt or innocence is not an issue and they will face disbarrment if they refuse to perform their job, even if that client is Joseph Goebbels, Charles Manson or OJ...

When I wrote of those who make porn above, I specifically referred to porn merchants, and meant just that: those people who run the industry. You may have misunderstood me to mean the guy who owns a single porn shop, but my comments were directed at those corporate heads who create a market to live off it.

With that in mind, I don't think we have an argument, except to note that my perception about lawyers was that they defended guilty clients because of the concept of the Law, which is above bias. Abstract concepts are not notably an aspect of small business, whether the job is selling shoes, goldfish, or porn.

The Christian Coalition wants to bury any references to sex and thinks that by putting their heads in the sand that it will go away; never mind that people have been having sex for a long, long time and they always will. Hell, I can't even watch shows that aren't even about sexuality on The Learning Channel that shows a woman's breast without the censors blurring them out.

The abuse of censorship by zealous, self-proclaimed moral crusaders isn't the issue of this thread, though. (In fact, we have a thread ready-made for discussing that.) I see nothing wrong and everything right with teaching unedited versions of Boccacio's Decameron and Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye in school; but that's not the point. The demeaning depiction of women in porn, and the sleazy treatment of women in the industry, are another matter entirely.

I don't know what, if anything, should be done about porn, except that the most obvious way to stop its consumption is for parents to educate kids early in life to understand the frank, open, outrageously wonderful joys (and concerns) of sex; and to skeptically challenge the message packagers who are out to create perfect little consumers of every person on the planet.

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
This is the point I was trying to make earlier, thanks @HLD for expressing it better than I could at the time.

You were under the influence of the fungal spores, right?