Pornography - are you for or against it and why?

[Violet]

, and feeding a multibillion dollar industry that subsidizes (at the worst) or encourages pedophilia is not something I would contribute to.

I thought we were talking about the porn industry, not the cathoholic church.

Tacky doesn't contribute to the catholic church though >_>

[tackattack]

, and feeding a multibillion dollar industry that subsidizes (at the worst) or encourages pedophilia is not something I would contribute to.

I thought we were talking about the porn industry, not the cathoholic church.

We can talk about both, but I don't contribute to either.

[theVOID]

I prefer more reality less distortion, but to each their own. Do I think society would be better without it? Yes I think society would be better if people weren't so uptight as to determine how other people should live their lives and have to invent a word called pornography. What's done is done though, and feeding a multibillion dollar industry that subsidizes (at the worst) or encourages pedophilia is not something I would contribute to.

1. There is nothing uptight what-so-ever about allowing people to participate in the consensual trade of their choosing, porn is exactly that. Being critical of the choices other adults make is the only uptight part of the debate. The word pornography was invented just the same as the word toast was invented, to refer to a specific category of object or action.

2. Pornography does not create sexual desires for children, it can at most help people facilitate their desires. Participating in the abuse of children in any form, be it making or watching (encouraging) the production is morally abhorrent and should be punished with the full force of the law. However, in the same way as banning knives because a sparse few might kill someone is absolutely immoral, banning pornography because some absolute minority might film the exploitation of children is just as bad.

The argument you use against porn with pedophilia is no more valid that someone arguing that gay marriage leads to child rape.

[tackattack]

1- It's an 1858 word and erotica has been around far far longer than that. They used the word as a desciptor to write about unseemly prostitutes to elicit a sexual reaction. My point was there was no need for the originating mentality based on class, that by default some people are better than other and have the right to judge others for their lifestyles. I said I didn't oppose anyone doing it. I contribute to art galleries and artists that display erotica (That's not my soul measure of quality, but it's not a hinderance). I agree that people should be able to participate in the consensual trade of their choosing, with a semblance of safety and in a taxable free market, without being stereotyped. Theory is one thing and practice is another, if you're a hooker or a porn star, you're not going to be perceived as an upstanding citizen most places. The question is which will change views first or easiest, true societal equality or natural human sexuality? I just figure it's easier to change what society feels is attractive would be easier to change than universal equality.

2-It is in err to not believe that a vast majority or adult males, by the very nature of natural mate selection , prefer young, clean attractive females. If you feel society in general, and particularly pornography, doesn't feed that culturall biased archetype, you should take a look at a porn site. I used to be addicted to porn (yes I said it's an addiction and not a choice) and if you look at a majority of the sites you'll have at least 5-8 entire categories of fetish relating to younger women. A natural attraction to young WOMEN(18-21), is a far cry from pedophelia, but it reenforces an unproductive societal archetype. For those that do cross that line you can't say constant input of categorically sexually stimulating material does form some substance of that drive. Also, if you think that pornography addicts aren't the driving primary force behind demand for child pornography (at some portion of the whole group) then I feel you're out of touch.

-side note: If my anology were false, it's at least both based on levels of sexual addiction, not apples and oranges as was yours.

[theVOID]

1- It's an 1858 word and erotica has been around far far longer than that. They used the word as a desciptor to write about unseemly prostitutes to elicit a sexual reaction.

They may have once, that's hardly the case now - Pornography has no implication that the woman is a prostitute.

My point was there was no need for the originating mentality based on class, that by default some people are better than other and have the right to judge others for their lifestyles.

You don't think there should be a distinction between nude semi sexual art (erotica) and sex on film? I think the distinction is perfectly reasonable.

I said I didn't oppose anyone doing it.

Good.

I contribute to art galleries and artists that display erotica (That's not my soul measure of quality, but it's not a hinderance).

Tacky, you kinky fuck

I agree that people should be able to participate in the consensual trade of their choosing, with a semblance of safety and in a taxable free market, without being stereotyped. Theory is one thing and practice is another, if you're a hooker or a porn star, you're not going to be perceived as an upstanding citizen most places.

That's the problem of a largely biases, self righteous and judgmental population, letting these biases get in the way of the evaluation is a problem.

The question is which will change views first or easiest, true societal equality or natural human sexuality? I just figure it's easier to change what society feels is attractive would be easier to change than universal equality.

Porn stars are treated fairly under the law already, prostitutes aren't - As if filming it makes it okay - absolute nonsense in my opinion, they should both be free to do whatever they like as long as they do not impose on others. We could far more easily change the laws to allow this than we could convince people to like it, that's exactly what we should do - Having laws based on such obvious biases cannot be a good thing.

2-It is in err to not believe that a vast majority or adult males, by the very nature of natural mate selection , prefer young, clean attractive females.

I'd assume that is true, but young adults, as in 18-26.

If you feel society in general, and particularly pornography, doesn't feed that culturall biased archetype, you should take a look at a porn site. I used to be addicted to porn (yes I said it's an addiction and not a choice) and if you look at a majority of the sites you'll have at least 5-8 entire categories of fetish relating to younger women.

It can be an addiction in the same sense that gambling can be. Glad you're over it.

As for catering to people who like young women, so what? Even if the women are dressed to look younger than 18, which I've seen relatively infrequently, it is still not pedophilia. Do I find it a bit creepy? More and more as I get older. Do I think that we should ban it in any way? Absolutely not. Find me a causal link and I'll change my mind, though it seems to me far more likely that this acts as a satisfiers to desires people have that would be absolutely abhorrent to satisfy - We cannot control people's desires nor punish them for having such, so if they can satisfy themselves via illusory porn like that then it can only be an ultimately useful tool.

A natural attraction to young WOMEN(18-21), is a far cry from pedophelia, but it reenforces an unproductive societal archetype.

No, in reinforces a reality - That men tend to like younger women. It's not in any way unproductive, desire satisfaction is beneficial, even when the satisfaction is purely mental it is often enough.

For those that do cross that line you can't say constant input of categorically sexually stimulating material does form some substance of that drive.

Yes I can, because you are merely asserting that porn focused on younger looking actresses causes sexual desire for children, I find that to be nonsense. A guy being attracted to women 18-21 is perfectly reasonable and implies no one iota that he will be latter "driven" to a sexual attraction for children. Even people who do already have a sexual desire for children, watching young adult actresses is absolutely preferable to their fulfilling their actual desire.

Also, if you think that pornography addicts aren't the driving primary force behind demand for child pornography (at some portion of the whole group) then I feel you're out of touch.

I think Pedophiles are the driving primary force, not just the general 'porn addicts', some of them are likely porn addicts, this is almost certainly because they have no physical means to satisfy their desire and not because of some causal link.

-side note: If my anology were false, it's at least both based on levels of sexual addiction, not apples and oranges as was yours.

You are claiming a causal link that is better explained by a correlation through desire satisfaction.

[tackattack]

There may be where you are, but porno actresses aren't considered "real actress" in this part of the world. There's a societal bias there that's tangible to me. I'm not going to bother trying to justify it with numbers, because it's not the focus of the conversation. I agree with you it just shows bias. The word, industry and demand for born, realistically won't ever cease. My point was that the creation of the word, bigotry and lack of equality contribute vastly to the continuing separation of the class gap between the porn industry and other industries.

I know there's no indication that just because you're attracted to young women (18-21) that you'll turn into a pedophile. But I'll guarantee that pedophiles are porn addicts attracted to young women and child pornography. You may think that the release they get from viewing child porn is less abhorrent than them acting out their fantasies (Which I agree with). But that completely ignores the victimization of the children forced into this industry to support the fortification of those fantasies. It hold no accountability to the industry that encourages those fantasies (like your example of portraying of age women as younger than consensual age). I think if the porn industry would put some PR and distance(in age range) between their youngest legal stars and the illegal ones for a few years, it might do them some good towards being seen as a more productive part of society.

The thalamus in the limbic system ('leopard brain') converts the physical need into an urge within the cortex. It is, in effect, saying 'Hey, do something! You have an unfulfilled need!' Cognitively-driven urges have a similar effect, where internal imaginings trigger an urge response.

Urges are, quite literally, urgent. They have priority and force other matters aside. They are frequently felt as a kind of 'emptiness', typically felt physically as a gnawing feeling in the abdomen.

Feeding the urge with continuous fantasies while that simultaneously is in conflict with urge to be socially excepted/moral is like handing a can of soda to a man who's hands are uncontrollably shaking. Until individuals can do away with the desire to be graphically aroused (as opposed to physical) to escape feeling like a social pariah, there's not going to be an easy solution. That's why I feel erotica has it's place for the sake of artful enjoyment, it's intent shouldn't be for shock or arousal. I feel sexual arousal should be consigned to sexual actions and not hiding in your head and kept to yourself..

[theVOID]

There may be where you are, but porno actresses aren't considered "real actress" in this part of the world.

Firstly, no they aren't considered 'real' (as in theatrical) actresses.

Secondly, what the fuck has this got to do with anything?

There's a societal bias there that's tangible to me. I'm not going to bother trying to justify it with numbers, because it's not the focus of the conversation. I agree with you it just shows bias. The word, industry and demand for born, realistically won't ever cease. My point was that the creation of the word, bigotry and lack of equality contribute vastly to the continuing separation of the class gap between the porn industry and other industries.

I'm sorry but I don't have a clue what your point is...

I know there's no indication that just because you're attracted to young women (18-21) that you'll turn into a pedophile. But I'll guarantee that pedophiles are porn addicts attracted to young women and child pornography.

Sure they're porn addicts, they have a sexual desire that they cannot easily fulfill, they resort to porn.

Paedophiles might *also* be attracted to young women, they might also like cheseburgers....

Again, what point are you trying to make here?

You may think that the release they get from viewing child porn is less abhorrent than them acting out their fantasies (Which I agree with). But that completely ignores the victimization of the children forced into this industry to support the fortification of those fantasies.

No it doesn't, and I've explicitly said already that it should be prosecuted to the full extent of our abilities. The demand for child porn, while being less harmful than every single pedophile seeking physical fulfillment, is still about as morally evil as you can get.

It hold no accountability to the industry that encourages those fantasies (like your example of portraying of age women as younger than consensual age).

No, they don't encourage those fantasies, these people already have those sexual desires. You are imposing the same false causal link again, one that you above conceded you could offer no indication of.

And like I said in my last post, it's analogous to knives. Because knives may facilitate someone's desire to murder does not mean we should either ban knives OR condemn the manufacturers, because someone makes a porn film with an adult who looks young does not mean they bare any responsibility for someone's sexual desire for children.

I think if the porn industry would put some PR and distance(in age range) between their youngest legal stars and the illegal ones for a few years, it might do them some good towards being seen as a more productive part of society.

Are you going to say that a woman cannot consent to be in porn because someone may think she is younger than 18? That is what your little dictate would requite. I am absolutely against restricting the freedoms of consenting adults in all circumstances, whether or not some twisted evil person elsewhere will use it as a facilitation (which I still disagree is even plausible).

The thalamus in the limbic system ('leopard brain') converts the physical need into an urge within the cortex. It is, in effect, saying 'Hey, do something! You have an unfulfilled need!' Cognitively-driven urges have a similar effect, where internal imaginings trigger an urge response.

Urges are, quite literally, urgent. They have priority and force other matters aside. They are frequently felt as a kind of 'emptiness', typically felt physically as a gnawing feeling in the abdomen.

Right, and this lends absolutely no credence to your argument.

Feeding the urge with continuous fantasies while that simultaneously is in conflict with urge to be socially excepted/moral is like handing a can of soda to a man who's hands are uncontrollably shaking.

So you are saying that instead of allowing the consenting trade between two adults that may satisfy the urges of an individual with a disgusting desire in a way where no person is exploited we should eliminate the only outlet they may have that is free from child exploitation? That would do far more harm than good, not just to the children, but in terms of imposing on the freedoms of adults.

Until individuals can do away with the desire to be graphically aroused (as opposed to physical) to escape feeling like a social pariah, there's not going to be an easy solution.

Right, and your solution is worse on both accounts, in terms of the impact on children AND the rights of the adults consenting to make porn. You think it's a coincidence that the catholic church who suppress sexual desires have such high rates of abuse proportional to the rest of the population? Eliminating the only outlet free of exploitation that a pedophile may have is far worse.

That's why I feel erotica has it's place for the sake of artful enjoyment, it's intent shouldn't be for shock or arousal. I feel sexual arousal should be consigned to sexual actions and not hiding in your head and kept to yourself..

So you think whenever someone with pedophile urges gets aroused they should be consigned to sexual actions???? That is the absolute worst thing you could do!

[tackattack]

Ok, let me try this again. You don't give a convicted killer or a psychopath a gun do you? No there are protections in place, it still happens and is a great societal tragedy. There are no such restrictions on porn. The dumbest teenager can still click yes that they are over 18 and access pornography. It's in ads and popups all over the web. I'd have way less of a problem with pornography if they had some standards and put some safeguards in place. Examples for instance:
1- abolish all free porn or at least make it illegal to transmit. Then it would actually be a lot harder for minors to have acces to porn. It would also make illegal porn easier to track and prosecute. I know it's impractical, but I think it would have a positive impact.
2- Convicted child molestors/ rapists get therapy, their IP tracked and regular computer scans (or maybe some accountability software).
3- Convicted Child molesters/ rapists get blacklisted (kind of like Vegas casinos) by the reputable network of porn sites.
4- Issue some sort of artistic liscense to producers (just a written contract to not intentionally produce something illegal)

I do think that pedophiles should be consigned to sexual actions. I think it's ludicrous to exploit and molest children so that sick individuals can get their rock off. If they can't control their urges and get caught, they get real help and a target on their back or get dead. I don't want to eliminate a sickos legal outlet for release. That's not what I'm saying at all. However it's feeding their fantasies and building their urges more often then releasing them from the cycle.They shouldn't have to supress those urges (or allowed to act on them of course), they should be able to get help for them, which they won't do if they can reenforce those fantasies in privacy.

If we can't trust the porn industry to police itself and no one else is policing it, it's just a breeding ground for illegal activity. I have nothing against a normal adult making, selling, buying, watching or enjoying 2 other consenting adults (which is another conversation entirely) sex acts. What I have a problem with is rampant greed, demand and lack of concern for societal morality (such as child abuse, rape, monogamy, physical abuse, drug abuse) being the only controls on an industry that closely ties in with the basest human urges.

[Skipper]

It seems you are equating child porn and normal porn as almost the same thing. There are laws and rules against child pornography, including some of the measures you suggested, like convicted paedophiles having their computer usage monitored and so on. I don't think anyone goes as far as killing them as you suggest (what is it with your recent blood lust aye Tack?! haha) but there are rules and laws to try and control paedophilia, how about we use them to fight it and not attack the porn industry which produces legal content, for legal adults to watch legally. It's such a knee jerk reaction to attack the porn industry for what is a completely different and completely disgusting abuse of children.

[tackattack]

No there is no direct causal link I can think of to go from happy legal porn viewer, to sick pedophile. I'm not equating the two, persay. When I see categories in legal porn like rape (even though the legal stuff is all fake), hitting women, dressing up women to seem of illegal age, cheating on your spouse, old on young, abuse of authority (schoolgirls, fucking the babysitter, daddy's girl etc.) they have nothing to do with artistic enterprise and frankly they disgust me. They're fundamentally about objectifying and devaluing another person and encourage people to fantacise about breaking the law. A delicate mental dominate/ submission roleplaying is one thing, it's portrayed as concensual. Creating a looks like a snuff, pedophile or rape film, is not something that I can support from an industry, however legal it may be. For instance, if McDonalds started making whale burgers and promoted them as "get them before they're extinct" I think a lot of people would have issues with it. That would bring that whole chain's percieved social bias down, it's the same opinion I have for the porn industry. There is a definite line betwen pedophelia and consensual sex, but the industry intentionally tries to blur the line, which is a practice I can't support, because I feel it reenforces real pedophile/abuse fantasies only increasing the drive and urges for those things. I would just prefer we try and out the "closet" pedophiles instead of catering to their fantasies.

As far as my blood lust, idk, I'm trying to be more of an asshole Christian, so I'm tring new things and commenting on things I usually would have no opinion on at all, like porn and politics.Oh and I hope I conveyed to try and help them fBEFORE killing them. But frankly if you're going to feed energy to a time bomb, not be able to diffuse it and then expect it not to go off, I'd at least like to see it prevented from hurting anyone (locked up for life).