To Porn or Not to Porn?

Pornography has been around as long as fucking.
It's bloody human nature.
The extreme forms of pornography however, are a more modern deviant.
 
madanthonywayne said:
More than that, some have argued that sexual dimorphism exists in humans to facilitate rape.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense. Rape would discourage that sort of sexual dimorphism. In species where "rape" is common, the females develop physical defenses. For instance, female bedbugs mate with multiple males, and then fertilize eggs from different mates. To get around this fitness barrier, males evolved penises to bore through the female's abdomen straight to her ovaries. In response to this, females evolved shield-like plates to prevent this, males evolved sharper, better boring penises, etc etc.

I think sexual dimorphism exists in humans largely due to selection on the immune system. Masculine traits are signs of a healthy immune system and good development. Chimps and orangutans, for instance, are immensely more powerful than humans, but lack all the stupid looking muscles that men grow to impress women. Being big and buff aren't really indicators of how strong or tough you are. The toughest, strongest people on earth look like this:
Wadshagga-Tribesman.jpg


not this:
freak.jpg
 
From the Strange File

Madanthonywayne said:

More than that, some have argued that sexual dimorphism exists in humans to facilitate rape.
Click to expand...

That's even better than rape among fruit flies.
 
jessiej920 said:
[To Porn or Not to Porn?]

For all the porn lovers, porn haters, porn advocates, porn viewers, porn sluts, porn freaks, porn addicts, porn actor/esses, porn makers or the simply "pornless"...you get the idea...
Click to expand...

The very term porn is rather loaded. Wikipedia defines it as "Pornography or porn is the depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer. Pornography makes no claim to artistic merit, unlike erotica which does."

But that's not a full description. Put simply, not everything that's classified as porn was recorded 'for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer'. Conversely, some stuff that is -not- meant to sexually excite anyone does. Sometimes laws are based on this fact. What sexually excites or arouses a person is highly variable and frequently the person has little if any control over what arouses them, although they may be able to theorize as to the reasons that they are aroused by one thing or another.

Another issue which I think is crucially important is this divide people have between doing something (and obviously seeing it if you're one of the involved parties) and allowing it to be recorded; that is, at times, it can be illegal to record something but legal to do it. MadAnthonyWayne has brought the subject up before in his sexting threads and there's also the example of nude beaches.

As to erotic recordings, I think the issue is whether the people in question are benefitting on the whole both from the event as well as from the recordings. If the answer is yes to both, then it's good. If not, then it's not.
 
scott3x said:
The very term porn is rather loaded. Wikipedia defines it as "Pornography or porn is the depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer. Pornography makes no claim to artistic merit, unlike erotica which does."

But that's not a full description. Put simply, not everything that's classified as porn was recorded 'for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer'. Conversely, some stuff that is -not- meant to sexually excite anyone does. Sometimes laws are based on this fact. What sexually excites or arouses a person is highly variable and frequently the person has little if any control over what arouses them, although they may be able to theorize as to the reasons that they are aroused by one thing or another.

Another issue which I think is crucially important is this divide people have between doing something (and obviously seeing it if you're one of the involved parties) and allowing it to be recorded; that is, at times, it can be illegal to record something but legal to do it. MadAnthonyWayne has brought the subject up before in his sexting threads and there's also the example of nude beaches.

As to erotic recordings, I think the issue is whether the people in question are benefitting on the whole both from the event as well as from the recordings. If the answer is yes to both, then it's good. If not, then it's not.
Click to expand...

but do both people have to benifit?
 
Asguard said:
actually i suggest you ask any women who has already had sex if they could chose to give it up for good (no sex, no masterbation ect). Think you might be surpised by the answer you get (asuming they dont slap you)
Click to expand...

NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! give up sex?? JEEZ NO WAY!!!! That whole idea gives me shivers down my spine
 
Give up masturbation? Do you want to see me in a padded cell, screaming and thrashing myself against the walls? :D
 
The Supreme Court, Pornography, and Penises

Scott3x said:

"Pornography or porn is the depiction of explicit sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer. Pornography makes no claim to artistic merit, unlike erotica which does."
Click to expand...

I though it worth pointing out that the Wikipedia definition you provided is political. That pornography makes no claim to artistic merit is, in the first place, bullshit and, to the other, a statement intended to characterize pornography against the Roth Standard, which is a bar for judging obscenity. One of the key elements of the Roth Standard. From Roth v. United States:

All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance -- unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion -- have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. This rejection for that reason is mirrored in the universal judgment that obscenity should be restrained, reflected in the international agreement of over 50 nations, in the obscenity laws of all of the 48 States, and in the 20 obscenity laws enacted by the Congress from 1842 to 1956. This is the same judgment expressed by this Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 ....

(Brennan)​

To reiterate: But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.

This is what whoever wrote that bit for Wikipedia was aiming at.

(I'm aware of a user-generated pornography website that recently claimed it was facing a lawsuit for allegedly violating some user's rights. Their explanation was brief—excuse me, concise—but never did explain the core legal issue. One thing I do recall, though, was the strange explanation that the complainant had come to the site because he thought he had a small penis and was searching pornography sites in order to confirm this and understand the notion of an average penis, or some such. But it literally had to do with a guy with a small penis claiming to be trying to view other penises, and how the site treated galleries featuring any penises. Really, it gets strange trying to figure out what the alleged tort actually was, but the point is that there are plenty who would assign some sort of redeeming social value to pornography.)
____________________

Notes:

Brennan, J. William. "Opinion of the Court". Roth v. United States (354 U.S. 476). Supreme Court of the United States. June 24, 1957. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. Accessed May 5, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0476_ZO.html
 
Tiassa said:
I though it worth pointing out that the Wikipedia definition you provided is political. That pornography makes no claim to artistic merit is, in the first place, bullshit and, to the other, a statement intended to characterize pornography against the Roth Standard, which is a bar for judging obscenity.
Click to expand...
To determine whether or not pornography is "art", one must first decide what art is. To me, art is a representation of something presented in such a way that it induces an emotional response. Great music, for instance, can definitely induce an emotional response. Muzak, on the other hand, can not. Pornography? In as much as lust is an emotion, I say it is art.
 
lets break it down to where people can understand...shall we?

your eating dinner with your family (including your children) you have a nice window table at the restaurant and along comes an old man and proceeds to play with himself.

is that art?

your sitting at the same table with your family and along comes an old man who sits down and starts playing a fiddle.

is that art?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top