DescentBB

come on lothar, you can't seriously be suggesting that Bash has a point to make, he's just trolling.

read all his posts on page 2 alone. he's trolling.
i've been discusted by his conduct in this thread.

Drac's points of course have their own merit. i was kindof waiting for her to talk further on it.

Oh, I see, another cop-out. "You can't argue with somebody who uses anecdotal evidence and says things like "it's evil". There's no point." What a load of bull. Tetrad, you can't argue with Drakona, and it's not because of her anecdotes or her statement that porn is evil. It's because your position is based on the idea that porn is harmless and it's a deserved freedom, and you can't deal with the fact that it actually can and does hurt people. That puts the idea that it's a "legitimate freedom" on shaky ground.

But at least you admit you're ducking the issue. You view porn as not degrading to women, and as soon as you're confronted by a woman who says it is, you quote a "pro-sex" woman (as if my wife isn't "pro-sex") to prove it's not. Why can't you argue your own point?

bash, thanks for trying to keep him honest.
edit: roid, no, I don't think bash "has a point" -- just that bash is doing a good job of pointing out that Tetrad is ignoring the only woman to have posted in this thread.

Says you that it's different from the norm. How the hell would you know if you aren't a woman what a woman feels about pornography? As Lothar stated, you found one very skewed and self-serving article and made that the basis for your opinion that porn is harmless. That's a load of bukkake.

roid, you haven't contributed much beyond your usual *everyone knows* nonsense.

Lothar, maybe you can answer this: Drak said that porn was equal to KKK literature. can you tell me how porn equals anti-semitism?

Lothar wrote:It's because your position is based on the idea that porn is harmless and it's a deserved freedom, and you can't deal with the fact that it actually can and does hurt people. That puts the idea that it's a "legitimate freedom" on shaky ground.

You're making a lot of assumptions there. I never said porn was harmless. And she herself made allusions to other types of harmful speech, which are protected and are legitimate freedoms. Guns "can and does hurt people", but you're not going to see me making the argument that they should be gotten rid of because of that.

Just because something can hurt people does not mean I have to be against it. Likewise, prove to me that legitimate freedoms have to not hurt anybody.

bash wrote:Says you that it's different from the norm.

I was referring to the legal sense.

And it's bukkake.

Duly noted. Watch me, roid, I'll be editing *buttake*. Keep me honest here, buddy.

bash my point about the power of the porn industry was valid, not nonsense, and "everyone knows" was not a typo.

or maybe... it's just YOU who didn't know?

it was a valid and powerful point, don't dismiss it just because we have clashing personalitys.

edit: bash i am unsurprised at your pitiful attempts to piss me off. haha i just got it.

Lothar wrote:You view porn as not degrading to women, and as soon as you're confronted by a woman who says it is, you quote a "pro-sex" woman (as if my wife isn't "pro-sex") to prove it's not. Why can't you argue your own point?

Beowulf said women in porn are degrading themselves. That's what I was talking about.

If by *clashing personalities* you mean I try to make things coherent and substantiated, and you don't feel the need to be confined by such trivial limitations, yea, I guess we do. Do you have anything to contribute to the topic or is today Ankle Biting Day in Australia?

my post was coherent, prove otherwise troll. and my use of teh expression "everyone knows" should have been hint enough to the SUBSTANTIATION of what i was saying.

tell me what about my post you have trouble with and i'm sure we'll settle this

Ferno wrote:Lothar, maybe you can answer this: Drak said that porn was equal to KKK literature. can you tell me how porn equals anti-semitism?

Can you tell me how KKK literature (anti-black) equals anti-semitism? I wasn't aware the Jews were black ;)

OK, seriously now: she didn't say porn was identical to KKK literature, only that they are both hurtful. Here's the quote:

People should be able to objectify women on their own time if they want; people should be able to hate gays on their own time of they want; the KKK ought to be able to distribute their literature, etc. There's all sorts of speech out there that's offensive and hurtful that still ought to be protected and allowed to be spoken. But you gotta realize it isn't harmless. It hurts people. I'm one of the people it hurts.

If you're not sure how porn hurts people, I don't know what to tell you... the point, though, is simple: KKK literature hurts people. Porn hurts people. Neither of these things are harmless.

Beowulf said women in porn are degrading themselves. That's what I was talking about.

Do people always realize when they're degrading themselves?

Lothar wrote:Do people always realize when they're degrading themselves?

People have no real ability to change the way other people view their actions. So yes, they know when they feel degraded (or in this case, not), but it's also entirely possible for somebody to think that same action is degrading. Besides, it's a minor issue that for some reason blew out of hand. I'm not going to sit here and say "you can't look at that and not see something you happen to think isn't right" or what have you.

"Feeling degraded" is not synonymous with "being degraded", and that is not synonymous with "being percieved by others as degraded".

Anyway, whether or not women in the industry "feel degraded", as has been mentioned by a real woman in this very thread, it is degrading to women as a whole. While "degrading" might be a terribly subjective word, that's more of a semantic avoidance than an actual response -- we all know what we mean by "degrading to women".

(heh... I should go to bed... it's like, hella late.)

The whole semantics thing is unimportant compared to the other questions I've posted. And either way the intent wasn't to go against what Drakona posted. I'm not going to discuss it further.

roid wrote:...because the internet is the world's underground.

When the shiz in the underground starts spewing out onto the sidewalk our children walk on we tend to get aggitated.

The current definition that most people use to define obscenity is a good way to know if the 'underground' has gone too far, too fast.

That definition is something like "If a reasonable person finds it offensive relative to the normal standards of society". (I'm paraphrasing because I don't recall the exact wording.)

So right now the 'reasonable people' are starting to get aggitated at the porn industry.
That aggitation is bait for 'puritans' to assault your porn machine.

You think they can't win because it's a 'victimless crime'...hehe...tell that to the pimps and prostitutes in jail...tell that to the pimps and prostitutes who get no respect, treated by society as criminals, have no protection for the 'victimless crime' industry they work in.

Winning the war isn't always about ridding the world of something completely.
Winning the war is forcing the stuff back under the rock it crawls from.

I think the 'reasonable people' who the laws entrust with defining obscenity have decided they can protect their own favorite erotica and still stomp on the crap some of you would force us to accept.

I don't see it as censorship, more like legislating a limit to bad taste.

I like how you thought my post was completely "irrelevant," but then felt obligated to address its core points Oh well, I will take the other position anyway I can get it.

"I look at women like objects when I'm jacking off, but I treat them with respect otherwise." -Lothar

I guess this is where I really disagree. I look at Will Robenson as one of those "damned conservatives," on the DBB, but still really respect him otherwise, in fact partially *because* of the way he is a conservative. I don't look at him as a "conservative object." I look at him as, "someone whom has chosen to take that path in his life."

Your assumption seems to be that you cannot notice a womens sexuality and still have respect for her. Yes I can think of an attractive women as a sexual object for a given "sexual situation", and then go to class and have a completely educated discussion about electron spin with a female whom I *do* respect. I just don't find myself making sexual jokes with her about overlapping wave functions, or that, "Pauli says they can't do it ". One just doesn't negate the other.

I guess this is my "funhouse of relativity," again huh? I dunno, I just don't see why a man can't view a slut as a slut, when she is being a slut, and a Ph.D. female as brilliant. This isn't a 1 or a 0. It's a spectrum of how people present themselves.

I've talked to priests who would admit that when a very attractive girl would walk bye they would be like, "whoah," but then try and remove the thought from their mind. I think this is a core aspect of human nature.

Feel free to *NOT* answer this. But do you never see another attractive women and be like, "whoah," even for a split second. And if you did, does that mean you no longer respect women?

And if you forgive me for this really big assumption. But I believe that the reason you are so convinced that it objectifies women is that you have completely boughten into the stereotype that all these women are, are sex toys....and nothing else.

I can see a women who dresses like a slut, but I still believe that there is something else too her besides that "action" in which she performs.

If this is incorrect please point it out.

On Bash's edits, yeah, wait a few minutes before responding. This isn't something new. However if there is something that you are sure he is going to clip, quote it fast.

Lothar wrote:She said things people have posted here "made her sad" -- but never said the things that made her sad were directed at her. Goob's response is based on the bad ASSUMPTION that she was referring to comments directed at her, when the reality is that she was referring to the sorts of things guys on here say about women in general, the sorts of pictures guys on here post, etc. Yes, she has had people say things on Kali that were entirely inappropriate -- but people don't often say things like that to her on this board (partly because she's earned respect, and partly because she married an admin) so she wouldn't be referring to that as "sad". It's the way a lot of you guys refer to women that's sad. So what this means is Goob's post was irrelevant

Regardless of whether said sadenning material was directed at her, I still fail to see how porn has anything to do with what essentially translates to lockroom talk between a bunch of guys. Goob has a point in that people can say pretty much whatever's on their mind even if it's in poor taste.

Just for clarification, I am all for removing porn e-mail completely. And in fact all porn solicitation from someone who doesn't want it. Someone has just as much of a right to keep it away from them, as someone has the right to bring it close to them.

How the hell would you know if you aren't a woman what a woman feels about pornography? -Bash

How the hell would you, or Lothar, know if porn causes males to objectify women, if you as a male don't watch it?

Completely irrevelent, but does anybody else think it's quite ironic that Dick Cheney's wife used to write erotica featuring lesbians and rape scenes?

scans from the book in question: http://whitehouse.org/administration/sisters.asp

Ok, I got racism mixed up with anti-semitism. I do that sometimes (mix things up).

but still.. equating porn to racism is kind of a stretch...

Ferno, who's "equating"? Nobody's "equating" -- just demonstrating a similarity. Read the quote again -- that's why I posted it.

Goob, I'm pretty sure I skipped your core points, except in pointing out that they were irrelevant. I did use one quote to demonstrate something related to Tetrad. But what you were addressing -- the idea that Drak was upset about people saying things to her -- was not a point anyone had made.

Your assumption seems to be that you cannot notice a womens sexuality and still have respect for her.

Um... what? That's a really, really bad assumption about my assumption. I notice, interact with, and enjoy my wife's sexuality all the time, and I have very deep respect for her. One critical difference is that I notice her sexuality within the context of an established relationship, rather than in isolation, so I don't treat her sexuality as defining her, or otherwise overemphasize it. I treat her sexuality as it should be treated -- as a part of her that helps to define a whole, in concert with her mind and her emotions and so forth. I should point out, it took the first 6 months of marriage to find this balance, even though I started with a pretty reasonable balance when we were engaged. So if you think you've managed to find this balance watching porn, you're deluded. You might be able to recognize that's not all there is to women, but the balance itself is very delicate, and porn presents an extremely skewed picture, so you're not going to find the balance as long as you have porn coloring your perceptions. So you're wrong about my *assumption*.

My *observation* is that guys who tend to spend a lot of time looking at porn and who treat it as normal tend to objectify women and treat them disrespectfully more than guys who tend to avoid porn. Whether or not the aforementioned guys realize there's more to those women, a lot of you sure treat women like crap behind their backs, and a lot don't seem to have the slightest understanding about who women really are (and at the very least, porn reinforces, if not causes, some of the misunderstandings and misconceptions). You claim to respect women -- but if you only respect them in front of their faces, that's not true respect. It's if you respect them when you're alone with other guys that demonstrates true respect. How do you treat them in your "locker room talk"? Would you want your wife / girlfriend / sister / mom hearing the stuff you say about women when they're not around? You don't have to answer that here -- but answer it for yourself, and think about what you might need to change.

I believe that the reason you are so convinced that it objectifies women is that you have completely boughten into the stereotype that all these women are, are sex toys....and nothing else.

You're right, that is a really big assumption. It's even more wrong than the other. You seem to regularly assume wrong things about me -- maybe you should ask more questions and make fewer assumptions.

If all they are is sex toys, porn wouldn't be "objectifying" them, it would be accurately representing them. The reason porn objectifies women is because it displays them as big sex toys, which is an inaccurate picture of who they really are. Like I said before, it isolates their sexuality from the rest of them, or at least skews the perspective of their sexuality in relation to the rest of who they are.

How the hell would you, or Lothar, know if porn causes males to objectify women, if you as a male don't watch it?

"I don't watch it now" and "I've never watched it, looked at it, or seen its effects" are very different positions to be coming from. I doubt anyone here is coming from the second position. We all have observations on which to draw.

Part of my reasoning that porn objectifies women is knowing how I behave both when I look at porn and when I don't. Several years ago, I intentionally avoided a serious relationship with a particular girl because I knew I'd end up treating her like trash, because I'd established this false picture of women based on porn. Another part of my reasoning that porn objectifies women is knowing how friends here and elsewhere behave toward women, in comparison to their porn habits (or some approximation thereof) and their habits of checking out women who walk by. You all keep telling yourselves you treat women with respect, but the locker-room talk often betrays that. Still a third part of my reasoning is the simple knowledge that porn tends to treat sex as isolated from emotional and mental well-being, rather than as closely related and heavily interacting with the other two (as well as other things). In my interaction with a Real Woman (TM) it's become painfully obvious how much you *can't* separate sexuality from the rest of her. Porn, though, tends to isolate sexuality from the rest of the woman. It creates misleading approximations of women, pictures that will attract guys but are mostly unrealistic in terms of the way real women are. And then there's the fourth part of my reasoning -- that on a roughly weekly basis, I hear from people whose marriages are falling apart because of the guy's porn addiction. In watching porn, he's creating an imaginary partner to compete with his real one -- and that's the biggest insult a guy can give to his wife. Seriously -- if an actual flesh-and-blood woman is competing with her, that's bad, but if she's being rivalled by your right hand and a bunch of images on the screen, that's even worse -- what does it say about her if your right hand and computer screen can replace her?

Take an objective look at the way you treat women, especially behind their backs. Take a look at the assumptions you have about the way women are, and compare them to a real woman. A lot of guys would be surprised at what jerks they are. I know I was...

people can say pretty much whatever's on their mind even if it's in poor taste.

Yes, but they can't say it in one breath and turn around and claim they respect women in the next... and they can't say it and treat it as harmless, because it's not. It reinforces this bull-sh!t picture you have in your head about women -- so even if you ignore what it does to women, it harms you. It's hard to have a serious relationship with a woman -- marriage is tough -- and it's harder the more skewed your picture of women has become, and it's harder the more disrespectfully you act toward women in private. Many of you are setting yourselves up for a rough time when you finally grow up and get married, and some who are already married are putting themselves in a less-than-ideal relationship.

Also, people can say what's on their mind, but that doesn't mean society should treat it as acceptable for them to do it in public. If you want to act like a jacka$$, do it in private. Like Will said, winning the war isn't in eliminating the enemy, it's in pushing it back under the rock from whence it came. You have every right to treat women like objects in your thoughts -- but society has every right to tell you that makes you a jacka$$ whenever you make those thoughts known. Society has every right to relegate porn to the little black building on the outskirts of town, or to websites that can easily be filtered. Society has every right to say "you have your right to free speech" to the KKK but not let them stand up and say "we want to kill Jesse Jackson" on the capital steps -- and society has every right to say "you have your right to free speech" to pornographers but tell them to go speak out of the way of society.

I hope Ashcroft succeeds in shaking up the industry, and pushing it back to the other side of the lines it regularly crosses. I don't care to have the stuff completely banned -- but I'd like to see porn pushed out of the mainstream. I'd like to see mistreatment and objectification of women pushed back into social-misfit land.

the idea that Drak was upset about people saying things to her -- was not a point anyone had made.

That wasn't my point, you completely assumed this. I never even said it and it wasn't a point that I made. Let me give you the exact quote from Drakona that lead to my first responce.

But you gotta realize it isn't harmless. It hurts people. I'm one of the people it hurts.

I know not all women feel the same way I do. Maybe I'm oversensetive to it, because I spent my teenagerhood the gamer world, and I used to have to fight tooth and nail for any legitimate respect.

Perhaps that will clairfy my first post a bit for you. I will respond to the rest in a bit.

Lothar, in the quote of mine that you first quoted, I was referring to women other then those in which you are married too. Like I said above, I wont fault you if you donâ??t wish to discuss if you are attracted to other women who are physically attractive, but that question still stands. Of course you can enjoy your wifeâ??s sexuality because you morally allow yourself too.

â?¦tend to objectify women and treat them disrespectfully more than guys who tend to avoid porn.

I wonâ??t disagree with you here. However like you said, a predisposition to treat women badly might cause them to watch more porn. There are also a lot of men who watch porn and do treat women with respect. I even know couples that enjoy watching porn together. Show me the correlation. You said that it is both the cause and the symptom. But you really have not shown at all that it is the cause: just that one seems to exist more when the other exists.

You know that eating ice cream statistically makes you more likely to commit murder? But that doesnâ??t mean that eating ice cream makes you commit murder! Show me where porn *causes* the objectification of women to men who didnâ??t otherwise have these view points.

Part of my reasoning that porn objectifies women is knowing how I behave both when I look at porn and when I don't. Several years ago, I intentionally avoided a serious relationship with a particular girl because I knew I'd end up treating her like trash, because I'd established this false picture of women based on porn.

Lothar, not to drop a bomb shell, but you grew up! Almost all men go through this transition independent of porn. When your younger the hormones are stronger, you want it more, and women are how you get it. When you get older you can control it more and you become more aware of other needs that you have that women can fulfill! I donâ??t believe at all that if you started watching porn again you would suddenly view your wife differently.

And even if you did Lothar, your argument in the above quote is that, â??since when I watched porn my opinion changed, then if anybody watches porn, their opinion will change!â?

Porn=yes
Spam=No

To fight spam, use Hotmail for registering for crap. Turn on its Spam filter.

I've had work email addresses at several different companies over the past 10 years, and I'd be hard pressed to remember the last piece of spam I got on any of them. Only my Hotmail (and my Comcast account, which I never use) get spammed. The Hotmail filter takes care of almost all of these.

As far as my argument is concerned, I pretty much agree with Goob wholeheartedly and am too lazy to type all the shiz out for myself, so I appreciate it buddy

Look, I cannot honestly believe that you think that men take what they see in a porno seriously. I don't understand how a porno could make you view women as sex objects. The only thing that could make me view a woman as a sex object is if she displayed herself as one. We brought this point up in the Post Your Ugly Mug thread about SA's girlfriend. We agreed on this point, Lothar.

If people didn't know me, they might think I was gay because most of my friends are female. I'm the big brother, the shoulder to cry on guy. I've watched porn since I hit puberty. I know that the women I interact with are not sluts, they're not sex objects, they're people with thoughts and emotions and wants and needs like me. They live their lives and their sexuality is part of that, but in a porno the sexuality is the whole point.

Porn can break up a marriage, sure. It can take time away from family members, from responsibilities, from more important things. But anything can when not in moderation. Drinking, drugs, hell even Descent can be detrimental for a marriage if you're playing D all the time instead of doing what you gotta do as a husband or father. The point is, you've got to view things in their proper place and have moderation. Just because you drink occasionally doesn't make you an alcaholic, just because you smoke weed occasionally doesn't make you a drug addict, and just because you watch porn doesn't mean you objectify women.

just to correct lothar...

the KKK are not anti-black, they are anti-everything unwhite. they hate jews too, and asians, latinos, everyone that isnt white. they've calmed down over the years, but it used to be anything not 100% white. i believe now they take people that are "mostly white" or people who just think whites are supreme beings.

ferno was correct in his anti-semetism, even if he didn't mean to be

Well after some 100+ posts I'm surprised no one has defined porn. More precisely, just what porn do you object to? On the one hand there is soft porn where nudity is shown and sexual performance is visually alluded to. Is this what some of you object to? The situational context may not be demeaning to either men or women so does that make it O.K.?

On the other hand for those of you who in general see nothing wrong with porn and defend it as something worthwhile, does this mean you are for child porn? Perhaps your belief that no harm is done should wonder how the childs mind and body are traumitised.

How about a constant diet of rape flicks. I'm sure some of you, since porn is harmless, are of the opinion that such formats would have no influence on a young mans or womens psychi. I suspect those who have a propensity to view such pornography have a certain idea of how male/female relationships should be.

How about porn in anime? Here we have no humans involved beyond those who view it. Is it bad because of the porn being in cartoon format? Is the effect in the same degree as watching violence in our much beloved loonytunes?

Drakona's implicit belief that porn is harmful to women and men only holds true in certain scenarios. I suspect a response by a clinical sexual therapist may give us a different perspective. Certain porn may actually be good for some (not all) married couples to introduce techniques that would expand their sexual diversity beyond the standard missionary position.

So before you state that porn is either good or bad, perhaps you should expand your definition of what porn is.

Great post, Chipper!

Let's have a forest-through-the-trees test. In deference to Chipper's desire for definition, let's frame this discussion as hardcore-heterosexual-real-people pornography. Suppose for a moment you were of an extraterrestrial race and were presented with examples of said pornography and asked to describe the three most common distinguishing characteristics in the samples provided. Let's take the first two obvious ones out of the running.

1) Nudity. Check.
2) A Sex Act. Check.

Who wants to venture a guess as to what the third most common distinguishing characteristic would likely be?

bad titles

lol@thecops
How about that whole seventies wah wah pedal thing, whacka whacka twang...
OK so I'm showing my age there

Bash, were you going for the money shot there?

Overly large parts of the anatomy that are not part of the vast majority of us?

Ummmmmm a cheesy plot? Fake orgasms? Silicone breasts?

most of the guys i know who gawk and forever comment on the RATING of women who walk past are "tradys". ie: tradesmen. it's strange for me to say this coz i hate giving any credit to theorys of existance of social classes: but i think this is a "class thing".

it's just a macho thing, putting on a show to your mates to show your manlyness.

i'd rather be gay than act like those tossers, their attitude towards women makes me sick. (tradys are so engulfed in the companionship of their MALE workmates that they talk lockerroom talk almost 24/7)

interestingly i was once browsing through some anime images (introducing a trady friend of mine to anime) and there was one image that could be considered almost softporn (completely non-sexual though). this friend of mine went gaga and insited i sent the image to him. so uh yeah, it seems he'd never really been exposed to porn before. yet he was a typical trady.
my point is that his attitude towards women had nothing to do with porn.

Pornorgraphy would be anything that would depict a sexually provacitive/suggestive pose or activity. Nudity would not be an explicit requirement.

Its not enough to define porn; we'd have to define it as Ashcroft would see it.

You know, to actually keep it on something relating to the topic of censorship, rather than a debate on the merits of pron.

nonsensical dialogue?

"hey, im here to clean your pool..." berrrnup berrnup berrn nneehhhrrr neeeeehhhrrrrr...

What I dont like is that nobody else should be able to tell me what I can and can't do. Just because YOU don't like and think it's bad does not mean that I do. Everybody could use a good dose of porn here and there. YOu'd learn how to please your woman a bit better than just getting on top for five minutes and finishing off

heh zuruck... I'm sure it makes you feel better to post about what you think my sex life is like... but it also undercuts any credibility you have in my eyes.