>I wonder if porn is, in truth, that bad.
>
> In Japan, porn is very open. People are squeezed together on a
> commuter train, yet several
> people are reading little pamphlets of the grossest porn imaginable,
> yet Japan's yearly sex
> crimes can be easily counted on one hand. No scientific study has
> ever shown a relationship
> between porn and sex crimes.
The assertion re japan's sex crime rate doers not seem to be born out
by available data. While the Japanese sex crime rate is low per capita
compared to many countries, it's not as idyllic as you suggest. With
1500 odd rapes a year (let alone other sex crimes) you'd need a very
large single large hand to count them on.
Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 22(1): 1-22. 1999
Milton Diamond University of Hawai'i - Manoa etc
Ayako Uchiyama National Research Institute of Police Science
Tokyo 102, JAPAN
This report also suggests that in Japan at least, and specifically,
there IS a correlation between sex crimes and pornography.
It has also been suggested that the Japanese tend to ignore certain
classes of sex crimes which would be reported elsewhere - including
some wghich would be abhorrent to many western countries
Pornography research site with a view to demnstrating that porn usage
reduces sex crimes -
Site liable to be offensive to some (some portions of it wouuld be
offensive to me :-) ).
Ignoring Japan for the moment, I find that last assertion interesting.
I was under the impression that a causal relationship had been
formally established BUT I have no references for that. I would
suspect any pornographer who took that as a hard and fast position or
also being a tobacco company executive in their spare time (and
probably used to be on the Enron board).
I find it extremely hard to imagine that there is not a relationship
(LBJ's investigation notwithstanding.(Hey, hey, LBJ ... :-( ). .You
could argue that there is correlation without necessarily being
causation. ie it seems probable to me that the overwhelming majority
of sex criminals (whatever that means) are also users of pornography
but that does not per se establish a cause and effect relationship. I
would be surprised if there were many sex criminals who did not use
pornography. The general rule is that activities that target the
brains pleasure responses tend to "saturate" with use and both demand
greater and greater stimulus levels to achieve the same level of
"pleasure" and drive the user to maintain the pleasure levels. Once
hooked on sex related activities it'srobable that all available
affordable resources will be utilised.
In the case of pornography, what (extremely) little I have come across
of harder core porn over the years has been to me quite sickening and
grotesque. This is not just a puritan knee-jerk morality reaction
(although I suppose there's some of that lurking in there somewhere as
well :-) ) but a genuine surprise at the strange things that people
find attractive once they have worked their way through the more
normal fare. As a (within the range of) normal male I am programmed
much the same as most other men. How and when one runs the program and
with what parameters can affect outcomes quite substantially. I'm sure
that people who now pursue what is to me bizarre and perverse forms of
sexual material started off with perspectives not too unlike my own.
It would be interesting to know what was constituted "proof" of a
causal link between sex crimes and pornography. Unlike tobacco and
cancer where there are disease mechanisms which can be directly
analysed, in the case of P & SC we are dealing with the human mind and
proof is much more tenuous. However, any male who seriously questions
the link between the two is missing his calling as an engineer.
On Apr 9, 2005, at 10:47 AM, Russell McMahon wrote:
> [pornography vs sex crimes]
> I was under the impression that a causal relationship had been
> formally established BUT I have no references for that.
>
First, of course, one has to define "pornography", especially as to
whether
it includes nominally legal glamour and erotica (People who think
Playboy
is porn have ... limited exposure, IMO.) This is difficult.
Judging mostly by spam, it's not so much the acts or the pictures that
offend ME, but the backstory; the "plot." Even legal acts between
consenting adults are likely to be "marketed" as illegal,
non-consenting,
non-adults. And don't get me started on the things people seem to be
doing with mini wireless cameras and cell phones; it seems it's not the
sex that's the turn-on at all; it's doing something BAD...
Must have happened recently. I lived in Japan for several years in the
50's and 60's.
My parents were never concerned about a female being attacked. It just
didn't happen.
Thanks for the enlightenment.
Actually, the porn sites themselves don't bother me, but the porn SPAM
does.
>> I wonder if porn is, in truth, that bad.
>>
>> In Japan, porn is very open. People are squeezed together on a
>> commuter train, yet several
>> people are reading little pamphlets of the grossest porn imaginable,
>> yet Japan's yearly sex
>> crimes can be easily counted on one hand. No scientific study has
>> ever shown a relationship
>> between porn and sex crimes.
>
>
> The assertion re japan's sex crime rate doers not seem to be born out
> by available data. While the Japanese sex crime rate is low per capita
> compared to many countries, it's not as idyllic as you suggest. With
> 1500 odd rapes a year (let alone other sex crimes) you'd need a very
> large single large hand to count them on.
>
> *** Interesting report ***
>
>
> http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html
>
>
> Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan
> International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 22(1): 1-22. 1999
> Milton Diamond University of Hawai'i - Manoa etc
> Ayako Uchiyama National Research Institute of Police Science Tokyo
> 102, JAPAN
>
> This report also suggests that in Japan at least, and specifically,
> there IS a correlation between sex crimes and pornography.
>
> It has also been suggested that the Japanese tend to ignore certain
> classes of sex crimes which would be reported elsewhere - including
> some wghich would be abhorrent to many western countries
>
> Pornography research site with a view to demnstrating that porn usage
> reduces sex crimes -
> Site liable to be offensive to some (some portions of it wouuld be
> offensive to me :-) ).
>
> http://solomonsrefuge.com/PornStudies.htm
>
> ___________
>
> Ignoring Japan for the moment, I find that last assertion interesting.
> I was under the impression that a causal relationship had been
> formally established BUT I have no references for that. I would
> suspect any pornographer who took that as a hard and fast position or
> also being a tobacco company executive in their spare time (and
> probably used to be on the Enron board).
>
> I find it extremely hard to imagine that there is not a relationship
> (LBJ's investigation notwithstanding.(Hey, hey, LBJ ... :-( ). .You
> could argue that there is correlation without necessarily being
> causation. ie it seems probable to me that the overwhelming majority
> of sex criminals (whatever that means) are also users of pornography
> but that does not per se establish a cause and effect relationship. I
> would be surprised if there were many sex criminals who did not use
> pornography. The general rule is that activities that target the
> brains pleasure responses tend to "saturate" with use and both demand
> greater and greater stimulus levels to achieve the same level of
> "pleasure" and drive the user to maintain the pleasure levels. Once
> hooked on sex related activities it'srobable that all available
> affordable resources will be utilised.
>
> In the case of pornography, what (extremely) little I have come across
> of harder core porn over the years has been to me quite sickening and
> grotesque. This is not just a puritan knee-jerk morality reaction
> (although I suppose there's some of that lurking in there somewhere as
> well :-) ) but a genuine surprise at the strange things that people
> find attractive once they have worked their way through the more
> normal fare. As a (within the range of) normal male I am programmed
> much the same as most other men. How and when one runs the program and
> with what parameters can affect outcomes quite substantially. I'm sure
> that people who now pursue what is to me bizarre and perverse forms of
> sexual material started off with perspectives not too unlike my own.
>
> It would be interesting to know what was constituted "proof" of a
> causal link between sex crimes and pornography. Unlike tobacco and
> cancer where there are disease mechanisms which can be directly
> analysed, in the case of P & SC we are dealing with the human mind and
> proof is much more tenuous. However, any male who seriously questions
> the link between the two is missing his calling as an engineer.
>
>
>
> Russell McMahon
>
At 01:38 PM 4/9/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>Must have happened recently. I lived in Japan for several years in the
>50's and 60's.
>My parents were never concerned about a female being attacked. It just
>didn't happen.
I recently noted the number of young (like 8 or 9 year-old) children alone, or
at most in pairs, that were allowed to wander around Chengdu (Sichuan) in
China.
Chengdu has a population in excess of 10 million. I think it's a
combination of
realistically expecting that others in the "neighborhood" will look out for
all of the kids, and less paranoia about the few horrible incidents that will
inevitably occur. None of the panic-stricken look that mothers get when a kid
of theirs gets out of sight in a suburban mall either.
> >Must have happened recently. I lived in Japan for several years in the
> >50's and 60's.
> >My parents were never concerned about a female being attacked. It just
> >didn't happen.
>
> I recently noted the number of young (like 8 or 9 year-old) children alone, or
> at most in pairs, that were allowed to wander around Chengdu (Sichuan) in
> China.
> Chengdu has a population in excess of 10 million. I think it's a
> combination of
> realistically expecting that others in the "neighborhood" will look out for
> all of the kids, and less paranoia about the few horrible incidents that will
> inevitably occur. None of the panic-stricken look that mothers get when a kid
> of theirs gets out of sight in a suburban mall either.
Don't forget the ubiquitous American culture of fear; I think that has something
to do with it. When you hear about a rape/kidnapping every day on the news
(even if it's the same one, over and over), it heightens your fear of it in the
same way as people came to the hospital with SARS when it was in the news,
even if they had never been near Toronto or Hong Kong.
As for the porn thing, I think the primary problem with porn is that it tends
to focus on sexual degradation of one partner to the pleasure of the other.
Anything which generalizes degradation of a group (be it by gender, race,
religion, etc.) is unquestionably bad. And I think the internet is accelerating
the process of, as Russell mentioned, increasing the "perversion" level, or
rather, the level of degradation required to achieve notoriety.
Mike Hord says:
> As for the porn thing, I think the primary problem with porn
> is that it tends to focus on sexual degradation of one
> partner to the pleasure of the other. Anything which
> generalizes degradation of a group (be it by gender, race,
> religion, etc.) is unquestionably bad. And I think the
> internet is accelerating the process of, as Russell
> mentioned, increasing the "perversion" level, or rather, the
> level of degradation required to achieve notoriety.
WELL SAID! I was going to chime in by saying... "well, there is porn and
then there is porn" but I think you beat me to it. Some of it is really
bad, degrading to women, destructive to families, etc.. and some of it
is really good, raising up women as goddesses, promoting loving
relationships with stability and honor, and so on.
The problem is telling which is which without seeing it all first. And
though the moral majority has sacrificed thier innocence to screen
"dirty" movies looking for "dirt" to use against that genre, they have
failed to report which movies were nice, clean porn.
> I recently noted the number of young (like 8 or 9 year-old) children
> alone, or
> at most in pairs, that were allowed to wander around Chengdu
> (Sichuan) in China.
> Chengdu has a population in excess of 10 million. I think it's a
> combination of
> realistically expecting that others in the "neighborhood" will look
> out for
> all of the kids, and less paranoia about the few horrible incidents
> that will
> inevitably occur. None of the panic-stricken look that mothers get
> when a kid
> of theirs gets out of sight in a suburban mall either.
That would be generally safe here and not at all unusual. It's not as
common as it was - far more parents drive their children to and from
school but I think that's as much the cultural changes as vehicles
have become totally commonplace.
It would be "usual" young children of either gender to pass my place
alone or play in the playground in the local park. There are always
the VERY occasional incidents here that allow people to not feel
totally safe but largely there is very little danger. Even in the
"worst" areas in our city children would be safe, and odds are that
there are more children walking in those areas. It may be very
slightly less safe for ME to walk in such areas but there is nowhere
here that is a no-go area safety wise. My major concern for younger
children on our streets would be for their safety in traffic
That said, it's not at all safe to be a paedophile here, even though
the incidence of those who cause trouble is small. We just had one
such very sad high profile case here and the vigilance of the police
didn't another fin upstanding citizen who was being charged for
something else deciding he was judge and jury and knocking him down
outside the courtroom in front of the TV cameras. Fortunately we don't
seem to have got to Jack Ruby status here yet.
> The problem is telling which is which without seeing it all first. And
> though the moral majority has sacrificed thier innocence to screen
> "dirty" movies looking for "dirt" to use against that genre, they have
> failed to report which movies were nice, clean porn.
>
> Maybe we should start a list of wholesome porno?
Sadly, both PornList.com & PornoList.com seem to be taken. However,
NicePornList.com is free, and your evil twin can have BadPornList.com
I didn't check Pic'n'Porn, but here might be a TM problem there.
At 10:12 PM 4/9/2005, James Newtons Massmind wrote:
>The problem is telling which is which without seeing it all first. And
>though the moral majority has sacrificed thier innocence to screen
>"dirty" movies looking for "dirt" to use against that genre, they have
>failed to report which movies were nice, clean porn.
>
>Maybe we should start a list of wholesome porno?
Not porno by my definition that I am aware of but . . . <http://domai.com/>
>>Maybe we should start a list of wholesome porno?
> Not porno by my definition that I am aware of but . . .
> <http://domai.com/>
Had a look at the front page.
Yep. That's porn. Mild by many standards.
Picture seemed somewhat misshapen, but that could be my eyes (or maybe
they are being arty)..
Meets many tests.
I'll comment further anon.
But to give y'all something to go on with: I'll also get my wife to
have a look at some of that site with me (maybe I should get her to
look without me :-) ) and I'll see whether she thinks it
"... is really good, raising up women as goddesses,
promoting loving relationships with stability and
honor, and so on. etc"
I know that site wasn't being referred to specifically by James when
he said that, but I imagine that it would fall within the ambit of
what he intended. He can also tell us what Ali thinks, and I imagine
Dwayne's wife (or significant other or whatever) could also make
useful comment.
On Apr 11, 2005, at 12:54 AM, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
>> Not porno by my definition that I am aware of but ...
>> <http://domai.com/>
>
> Had a look at the front page.
> Yep. That's porn.
I dunno. By most definitions, I thought mere nudity didn't
qualify as porn; that doesn't mean it's acceptable to everyone,
or in good taste, of course. Just not "pornography."
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:45:39 -0600, Dwayne Reid wrote:
> At 10:12 PM 4/9/2005, James Newtons Massmind wrote:
>...<
> >
> >Maybe we should start a list of wholesome porno?
>
> Not porno by my definition that I am aware of but . . . <http://domai.com/>
It's a nice site, and certainly not porn by my definition! There's something of a cultural difference
cross-pond - in the US it seems that topless pictures are regarded as soft porn, whereas in Britain we've had
The Sun newspaper for about 30 years (I think) which has "Page 3" which always has a topless photo. And this
is an ordinary newspaper, not in any way a cheap male-oriented magazine! Now I never read newspapers anyway
(having seen how wrong they can get the facts in a non-contentious event that I witnessed made me realise that
you really can't trust them with getting things right when it matters) but I believe this may actually be one
of the best selling papers in the country.
(The Daily Star, on the other hand, does seem to be a cheap male-oriented magazine - a little like the
National Enquirer but with boobs on show :-)
>>> Maybe we should start a list of wholesome porno?
>>
>
>> Not porno by my definition that I am aware of but . . .
>> <http://domai.com/>
>
>
> Had a look at the front page.
> Yep. That's porn. Mild by many standards.
You must be kidding.. I can't see why this should be porno. Far from. At least not more then a classical nude painting or is that porno to?
At 12.26 2005.04.11 +0200, you wrote:
>Russell McMahon wrote:
>
>>>>Maybe we should start a list of wholesome porno?
>>
>>>Not porno by my definition that I am aware of but . . . <http://domai.com/>
>>
>>
>>Had a look at the front page.
>>Yep. That's porn. Mild by many standards.
>
>You must be kidding.. I can't see why this should be porno. Far from. At least not more then a classical nude painting or is that porno to?
Perhaps when he watches those gals he thinks about a lot of porno stuff he'd like++ to make with them. O;-D
I don't want to annoy (rather than just challenge) anyone here. Odds
are that I will though. Genuine apologies in advance - and you're
welcome to annoy me right back :-)
Firstly, Dictionary.com has a good enough range of definitions and
discussion on pornography to cover most of the arena. Even a smart
comment at the very end.
Obviously not an area where one definition is going to please all
people. Even if a definition was agreed on the application will be
disagreed on. As we'll see :-). In reading this, be ware that I am a
male, am married, have typical enough male feelings and understand
people and the ranges of human nature at least as well as the average
list member. I find some pictures of women, in whatever state of
dress, highly attractive. Others far less so.
A key factor in such conversations is attempting to allow the mind to
be the predominant decision making organ. Often not easy for men.
_____________
>>> Not porno by my definition that I am aware of but ...
>>> <http://domai.com/>
>> Had a look at the front page.
>> Yep. That's porn.
> I dunno. By most definitions, I thought mere nudity didn't
> qualify as porn; that doesn't mean it's acceptable to everyone,
> or in good taste, of course. Just not "pornography."
> It's a nice site, and certainly not porn by my definition!
Did you look past the front page?
OK. Had a look at the site with my wife to gauge her reaction (and
mine). While I said the front page indicated it was essentially porn
site by my understanding of the word, the site proper is very
significantly more so. Given that it limits itself to "only" pictures
of naked women it has limited material to be objectionable with - but
it does amazingly well considering. Nice to look at ?- quite possibly.
Variably so to some. I find it, on balance, rather sickening. It's
entirely conceivable that there may be sites full of pictures of naked
women that I find in no way sickening - my reaction to the site is not
largely based on the nakedness per se - but it's an obvious factor -
and a necessary but not sufficient condition for the subsequent
reaction) . But this page is significantly further up the scale from
"just plain nudes" than it claims to be. It may be less obvious to
those who are more inoculated by porn - as I noted before, continued
exposure to any pleasure centre activity leads to habituation and the
need for an increasing does. This site is for those who have already
got past the beginners does stage. To me, and my wife, the gradation
was immediately clear. It's OBVIOUS that many of these women are
involved in the sex industry in one way or the other - pornography or
prostitution or whatever. A surprising statement? Not one I'm
(probably) going to justify, but if you don't agree that it's obvious
then you've been looking at too much porn yourself :-). Some to whom
it's obvious why I consider it obvious may raise objections to my
stereotyping. I'll stand by the comment.
My wife found the site extremely objectionable. She did not consider
that it has any positive features vis a vis promoting women.
Now, James said:
[WELL SAID! I was going to chime in by saying... "well, there
is porn and
then there is porn" but I think you beat me to it. Some of it is
really
bad, degrading to women, destructive to families, etc.. and some of it
is really good, raising up women as goddesses, promoting loving
relationships with stability and honor, and so on.
The problem is telling which is which without seeing it all first.
... ]
Pornography, in all it's shades, is aimed at providing a sexual
experience in its own right. While it may be used to arouse a person
for subsequent sexual activity it is a counterfeit of sexual
involvement with someone else. [[NB: These statements do not seek to
make moral or other judgement on such sexual experiences in their own
right or the validity of using counterfeits to assist or add to other
sexual experience.]]. Moral judgements follow later :-).
>From my perspective as a committed Christian I find it useful (of
course) to see what the boss says and what the operator's manual has
to say. Non Christians don't have to ascribe the same weight to these
resources as I do, but they may find them useful as a guideline or as
a burr under their saddle.
The boss says * that any man who looks at a woman lustfully has, for
practical purposes, committed adultery. "Lustfully" is obviously a
debatable term, and many will debate it long and loud, while in all
honestly getting the point very clearly. Now we could note that, as
recorded, the boss DIDN'T say "look at images in written or printed
media, data retrieval and storage system, whether electronic,
electromechanical, optical or other, or ..." BUT I'll wager with utter
confidence that "looks at a woman" includes any image of a woman in
this context. And almost certainly any artificially generated picture
of something that looks something like a woman if one wants to push
one's luck. One may also with certainty add in here "look at a woman",
"look at a donkey" and anything else that thy heart may desire. His
point is clear (hopefully). [[ I've wondered for some while whether
paedophiles might legally deal in completely machine generated images
with legal impunity. I don't know what the law has to say on the
matter, but I do know what the Lord has.]].
NOW: Is it possible for we red blooded men within the range of
normal (several standard deviations [unfortunate term :-) ] either
side of male normal, to look at eg web sites of naked women without
behaving "lustfully". I can say for myself, that in the case of the
above mentioned website's photos, that the generation of a degree of
sexual stimulation was unavoidable but that the generally repugnant
nature of many of the images (see above) rather damped my ardour. A
collection of somewhat less professional beauties with less emphasis
on the overtly sexual [[what IS he on about???]] would probably be far
more stimulating. Even the website presented represents, for me, an
invitation for lust that is unacceptable. First such site I've ever
actively sought out and I can't imagine it happening again any time
soon. But highly interesting to see that many (probably, based on
extrapolation of a dangerously small sample of commentators) find such
a site "not porno", "mere nudity", "nice site, and certainly not
porn". Also, presumably, " ... really good, raising up women as
goddesses, promoting loving relationships with stability and honor,
and so on." and not at all "really bad, degrading to women,
destructive to families, etc".
By now I will have annoyed at least some people.
But consider. Just because Christ said it, is it wrong? What would
your partner say? If you spent hours (or minutes) per day browsing
through such "mild" material, would it make you appreciate your
partner more?, would they approve and encourage you, would you or they
consider you were raising up them or other women as goddesses,
promoting your marriage/relationship, adding to the stability of your
relationship [I can see arguments for an against there], honoring (or
honouring) them etc. How many of you would be happy to contribute
equivalent photos of your wives, children and parents etc to a website
for all list members to help honour and promote their own loving
relationships? What lower age limit would you set? if this is a
harmless or indeed affirming activity should you draw the line at 18
years, or 13 or 3 ? Upper age limits are probably not a problem :-).
Should similarly affirming sites of naked males be posted on the list?
I think I may have partially made my point. Anyone want to address
anything raised. Please attempt to deal with points raised - it's easy
to create and demolish straw men that were not intended by the writer
in such cases.
Just for interest: re relationships with women (specifically 'women of
ill repute' were in the writer's mined when he penned this) -
Proverbs 6:25 in KJV has a cute way of putting things.
" 25Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take
thee with her eyelids." :-)
I doubt that many men won't be able to understand the eyelids bit.
I find it extremely hard to believe that pornography of any sort does
not inure a male to sexual responsiveness and make him either less
responsive to his own sexual partner AND/OR desiring of greater and
greater means of sexual gratification. Also, I also find it extremely
hard to believe that exposure to pornography does not increase the
expectation of sexual input from all women that a male encounters. A
person who routinely browses websites containing pictures of 100's of
naked women will necessarily (sez I) routinely browse daily lives
filled with 1000's of women seeking sexual input in whatever form it
may be found. Paradoxically, the porn may have the opposite to desired
effect - the best argument for porn that I can think of :-)
> You must be kidding.. I can't see why this should be porno. Far
> from. At
> least not more then a classical nude painting or is that porno to?
See my recent lonnnng post.
This site has the same core intention of the hardest core heterosexual
porn sites.
The difference is one of scale, not of intention.
There are no doubt sites where the intention level is lower. This site
definitely aims to sexually provoke and stimulate and generate male
lust. Many classical nude paintings also had the same intent fwiw.
Whether this is good, bad or interesting is orthogonal to this.
The message from this site is far far more subtle than for many porn
sites. But for people at the right place on the curve it will
adequately satiate the pleasure centre for the moment. The time will
come, *possibly* has come for those who respond as above, when what
would at one stage have been either exciting or even repulsive,
becomes inadequate to produce a requisite level of excitement.
Note that I'm NOT making moral comment on the merits of running up or
not running up this stimulus - response curve. Just noting that all
forms of sexual stimulation, especially for men, is a classic pleasure
centre activator and provision of regular stimulus always leads to
desensitisation with the the desire to maintain pleasure levels and
the attendant need for higher dose levels to achieve the same results.
And you thought that it was just that you were getting old :-)
Nobody has used the word "erotica". Erotica is pornography by another
name. Ignoring, for a moment, any concept of whether pornography is
good or bad or whatever makes it far easier to decide what constitutes
pornography. Once decided you can turn back on the morality channel
and hang on tight.
I once did a lot of photography (as I know you do now) semi professionally and I created documenting photographs (pass port photo, class reunion, weddings, sports, monuments etc) and things that I (I'm sure I was the only one ;-) ) labeled as art. A lot of the art pictures purpose was to make the viewer feel something. A picture of an old womans face, a nude woman (or man), (and yes) a sunset in the sea. Often we get different feelings from "art-pictures". For me the site named above appears to want to show the beauty of woman. And OK I feel something from the pictures but definitely not the same as with some hardcore photographs. The later which is pornography for me.
If there was all men on the site would it be pornographic?
/Ake
ps I understand and appreciate that we can have different words for the same thing. So this is probably not a big thing anyway. ds.
>>> Yep. That's porn. Mild by many standards.
>>
>
>> Not even close to porn
>
>
>> You must be kidding.. I can't see why this should be porno. Far from. At
>> least not more then a classical nude painting or is that porno to?
>
>
> See my recent lonnnng post.
> This site has the same core intention of the hardest core heterosexual
> porn sites.
>
> The difference is one of scale, not of intention.
>
> There are no doubt sites where the intention level is lower. This site
> definitely aims to sexually provoke and stimulate and generate male
> lust. Many classical nude paintings also had the same intent fwiw.
> Whether this is good, bad or interesting is orthogonal to this.
>
> The message from this site is far far more subtle than for many porn
> sites. But for people at the right place on the curve it will
> adequately satiate the pleasure centre for the moment. The time will
> come, *possibly* has come for those who respond as above, when what
> would at one stage have been either exciting or even repulsive,
> becomes inadequate to produce a requisite level of excitement.
>
> Note that I'm NOT making moral comment on the merits of running up or
> not running up this stimulus - response curve. Just noting that all
> forms of sexual stimulation, especially for men, is a classic pleasure
> centre activator and provision of regular stimulus always leads to
> desensitisation with the the desire to maintain pleasure levels and
> the attendant need for higher dose levels to achieve the same results.
>
> And you thought that it was just that you were getting old :-)
>
> Nobody has used the word "erotica". Erotica is pornography by another
> name. Ignoring, for a moment, any concept of whether pornography is
> good or bad or whatever makes it far easier to decide what constitutes
> pornography. Once decided you can turn back on the morality channel
> and hang on tight.
>
>
>
> Russell McMahon
>
>
> >>> Not porno by my definition that I am aware of but ...
> >>> <http://domai.com/>
>
> >> Had a look at the front page.
> >> Yep. That's porn.
>
> > I dunno. By most definitions, I thought mere nudity didn't
> > qualify as porn; that doesn't mean it's acceptable to everyone,
> > or in good taste, of course. Just not "pornography."
>
> > It's a nice site, and certainly not porn by my definition!
>
> Did you look past the front page?
No, because we weren't talking about anything but the first page
> was immediately clear. It's OBVIOUS that many of these women are
> involved in the sex industry in one way or the other - pornography or
> prostitution or whatever
Not necessarily. There are professional models too, both artistic
and photographic. I've known two, and they were not "tarts" by
any stretch of the imagination
> My wife found the site extremely objectionable. She did not
> consider that it has any positive features vis a vis promoting
> women
What if it had been men ? I've witnessed a couple of hen nights,
and they were not pretty. Anyone will tell you that women are
as bad or worse when it comes to having a good night out
> Pornography, in all it's shades, is aimed at providing a sexual
> experience in its own right
I think you are drawing some pretty long bows trying to equate
erotica or titilation with pornography
> While it may be used to arouse a person for subsequent sexual
> activity it is a counterfeit of sexual involvement with someone else
So what ?
> >From my perspective as a committed Christian I find it useful (of
> course) to see what the boss says and what the operator's manual
> has to say. Non Christians don't have to ascribe the same weight to
> these resources as I do, but they may find them useful as a guideline
> or as a burr under their saddle.
I, a devout atheist, take more notice of what "the boss" says than some
(dare I say many) "Christians" do. I'm a naturally pleasant and nice
person who is kind to people and animals alike and resent being told
I need guidance. Some of the biggest humps I know are churchies and
religion's record re: sexual misconduct does not inspire me to take any
notice of their holier-than-thou preaching when they can't even keep
their own dirty hypocritical hands to themselves
> above mentioned website's photos, that the generation of a degree of
> sexual stimulation was unavoidable but that the generally repugnant
> nature of many of the images (see above) rather damped my ardour
I'd agree that you can have too much of a "good thing". Although I do
like a daily dose of the gorgeous Beatrice Schonberg on French TV2
> collection of somewhat less professional beauties with less emphasis
> on the overtly sexual [[what IS he on about???]] would probably be
> far more stimulating
Oh yes, you would become blase about in your face, so to speak, porn
> Even the website presented represents, for me, an invitation for lust
> that is unacceptable. First such site I've ever actively sought out and
> I can't imagine it happening again any time soon
Time was if you wanted to see a stag film you had to know a bloke
who knows a bloke who can get one for a couple of hours on Friday
night, maybe. The interweb has changed all that. You can now freely
access virtually anybody doing anything to somebody else. And their
donkey
> But highly interesting to see that many (probably, based on
> extrapolation of a dangerously small sample of commentators) find
> such a site "not porno", "mere nudity", "nice site, and certainly not
> porn"
Comparatively, and historically too, mere nudity isn't porn as I would
understand it. No more objectionable than a pin-up calendar. The
boundaries have certainly expanded, but the material was always there.
It's just more accessible now.
> Also, presumably, " ... really good, raising up women as
> goddesses, promoting loving relationships with stability and honor,
> and so on." and not at all "really bad, degrading to women,
> destructive to families, etc".
I wouldn't have made that presumption about the front page of
the site above
> By now I will have annoyed at least some people.
> But consider. Just because Christ said it, is it wrong? What would
> your partner say? If you spent hours (or minutes) per day browsing
> through such "mild" material, would it make you appreciate your
> partner more?
With most couples that probably would (and maybe should be) be
a problem. But viewing porn may be a manifestation of some other problem
in the relationship
Some couples, a minority, are right into porn or deviation. I can say
that because of my involvement with the NZ BDSM community, and
there are many couples
You can't ignore body chemistry in this. Some people thrive on
adrenalin - they race cars, they base-jump off buildings, they go
on the stage or make programs like Jackass
Some others thrive on endorphins. They run marathons or indulge
in kinky sex and like to get spanked like a naughty British Cabinet
Minister. Others still take it to further extremes, but that doesn't
mean all do eventually. Most are content to stay within boundaries
that are comfortable
> Nobody has used the word "erotica". Erotica is pornography by another
> name. Ignoring, for a moment, any concept of whether pornography is
> good or bad or whatever makes it far easier to decide what constitutes
> pornography.
"Erotica" is on a woman's bookshelf. "Porn" is the same material, under
a 16-year-old boy's mattress.
> It's OBVIOUS that many of these women are
> involved in the sex industry in one way or the other - pornography or
> prostitution or whatever. A surprising statement? Not one I'm
> (probably) going to justify, but if you don't agree that it's obvious
> then you've been looking at too much porn yourself :-).
While I myself have not investigated domai.com, I suspect you may be
objecting to certain "enhancements" that some of the women there
(probably) possess. I would argue that such "enhancement" is not
necessarily an earmark of making a trade of one's body; apparently,
over 130,000 breast augmentations were performed in the US last year
alone. While I'm certain many of those women did nothing which
actually improved their appearance, I'm equally certain that not all of
them are sex workers. I live in a small-ish university town in Iowa,
and I see such "augmentations" (usually most obvious beginning
about this time each year) much more commonly than I would
expect, given the age and background of most of the women around
here.
Although it could easily be argued that the unreachable body image
fostered by porn (hard or soft) feeds back into these young women,
whether they are aware of it or not...
>> Nobody has used the word "erotica". Erotica is pornography by
>> another
>> name. Ignoring, for a moment, any concept of whether pornography is
>> good or bad or whatever makes it far easier to decide what
>> constitutes
>> pornography.
> "Erotica" is on a woman's bookshelf. "Porn" is the same material,
> under
> a 16-year-old boy's mattress.
Possibly.
Leave the women viewers out of it for the moment. We are going to have
enough trouble tying the men down :-)
>> It's OBVIOUS that many of these women are
>> involved in the sex industry in one way or the other - pornography
>> or
>> prostitution or whatever. A surprising statement? Not one I'm
>> (probably) going to justify, but if you don't agree that it's
>> obvious
>> then you've been looking at too much porn yourself :-).
> While I myself have not investigated domai.com, I suspect you may be
> objecting to certain "enhancements" that some of the women there
> (probably) possess.
No. Augmentations fall well within the range of normal, even in NZ :-)
I'm not going to do a blow by blow response to each such query but I
suggest, if such sites do not offend you per se, that you have a quick
look at the site (not just the fully misleading front page) and see if
you can spot what I mean. (Have your wife accompany your viewing and
see what she thinks!). I'll stick with "obvious" for now. By all means
someone disabuse me if you think I way off beam, but offlist please.
James - what did Maria think of the site?
(One day REAL soon I'm going to push my luck too far ;-) ).
> Although it could easily be argued that the unreachable body image
> fostered by porn (hard or soft) feeds back into these young women,
> whether they are aware of it or not...
>
Heh. FASHION is porn. That's almost more believable than "nudity
is porn." Sigh.
> > "Erotica" is on a woman's bookshelf. "Porn" is the same material,
> > under
> > a 16-year-old boy's mattress.
>
> Possibly.
> Leave the women viewers out of it for the moment. We are going to have
> enough trouble tying the men down :-)
That's an entirely different genre of material. ;-)
I was more than half kidding- it stems from an episode of "Coupling" where
the protagonist's better half finds an unquestionably (to her) pornographic
film during an unsupervised tidying binge. Her boyfriend is then left
defending his "use" of pornography at a dinner party, and the "erotica vs.
porn" argument is one that he falls to in desperation.
> > While I myself have not investigated domai.com, I suspect you may be
> > objecting to certain "enhancements" that some of the women there
> > (probably) possess.
>
> No. Augmentations fall well within the range of normal, even in NZ :-)
I'm of the persuasion that believes that ANY augmentations are
unacceptable and unnecessary, with the exception of reconstruction
after drastic surgical procedures.
>> Although it could easily be argued that the unreachable body image
>> fostered by porn (hard or soft) feeds back into these young women,
>> whether they are aware of it or not...
>>
>Heh. FASHION is porn. That's almost more believable than "nudity
>is porn." Sigh.
An interesting observation I once heard from a talk show commentator
is that we (society in general or the US public in particular?) consider
child porn the most evil of all crimes, and completely unforgivable.
While at the same time our advertising groups continue to require younger
and younger models in more and more revealing situations.
The above comment does not condone said activity.
Obviously it's a difficult subject, but I don't think the answer lies in
denying the sexual attractions that are an inbuilt part of the species.
If we ban all "erotic" images (define that, please?) we will only create
higher profits for making those images available. I just don't think that
denying what we are or what we feel is part of the answer.
The answer is neither black nor white, but somewhere in the gray area between.
Of course, We are each entitled to our own opinions.
>> Although it could easily be argued that the unreachable body image
>> fostered by porn (hard or soft) feeds back into these young women,
>> whether they are aware of it or not...
> Heh. FASHION is porn. That's almost more believable than "nudity
> is porn." Sigh.
Sigh indeed.
It's hard for we fuddy duddy prudes to get traction :-)
Nobody, so far, has commented on my test.
Here it is again with some expansion:
The term "wife" may be adapted as appropriate.
Answer all questions.
Equal points for all questions.
-100% if any question missed.
Time allowed 5 minutes
- What did your wife think of the oh so tasteful domai site?
- Would you be happy for pictures of your wife and daughters to be
posted on such a "tasteful" site?
- Explain why /why not?
- What's the URL?
- Are there any limitations on where I can post this URL (apart from
bandwidth issues)
Are there REALLY any takers on this list who would be happy with this
for their own family members? C'mon guys. Stand up and be counted.
It's not porn. It's tasteful. It's honouring. It's good clean
uplifting wholesome stuff. Bring out your daughters ...
>- What did your wife think of the oh so tasteful domai site?
I'll ask her tonight, but I know that she won't be offended by it in the
least.
>- Would you be happy for pictures of your wife and daughters to be
>posted on such a "tasteful" site?
I don't have a daughter, but if my wife wished to pose nude I would have
no problems with that whatsoever. It would be totally her own choice
and I wouldn't push her either way.
>- Explain why /why not?
Because we don't have any insecurity problems with our relationship. My
wife often points out other women to me, making comments about how
pretty they are etc. she often spends time with male friends and vice
versa.
>- What's the URL?
>- Are there any limitations on where I can post this URL (apart from
>bandwidth issues)
Yeah, I suspect some of those Church-going types would throw a fit ;)
>
>Are there REALLY any takers on this list who would be happy with this
>for their own family members? C'mon guys. Stand up and be counted.
>It's not porn. It's tasteful. It's honouring. It's good clean
>uplifting wholesome stuff. Bring out your daughters ...
It is what you perceive it to be. If you are a puritan, perhaps it
violates your moral code, but I like to think I'm reasonably open
minded.
=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================
She felt it was ok on its own except that some of the subjects look a bit
young but she felt the site would be used in ways that are damaging. She
doesn't like me to look at that sort of thing, and I generally don't. I have
to agree with her. Having thought about this a bit, I think there is another
dimension that has to be considered: The person viewing the pictures.
The bad part of pictures like this on the internet is that they will, as
with all art, evoke different pictures in different people. Not everyone
should be looking at them. In a normal, mature, male (ahem, such as myself)
they evoke feelings of wonder, appreciation, and a desire to care for and
protect women (ok, it makes me horny as well). In a 14 year old boy, they
probably evoke a totally different, and perhaps less positive set of
emotions. In a woman, they might evoke feelings of concern about her own
body, competitive or insecure feelings, or possibly the same feelings I
have.
I wish there was an effective way to control porn on the internet, but there
is not and never will be, IMHO. Assuming we accept that it is present, the
question is how do we manage it's effect on the broad range of people who
will see it?
Encouraging people to not look at it is probably a very good thing, but I
doubt it will be effective where it is most needed. I would encourage people
to consider the effect it has on them and avoid looking that things that
cause tension or excessive and unwanted excitement. But immature people, who
are likely to have a bad reaction to it, are also the least able to stop
themselves from doing so.
Parents need to keep kids away from it. Monitor their children when they use
a computer. Never put a computer with internet access in a kids room where
they can close, or god forbid, lock the door. Password the family computer
and keep the internet connection locked out at night. Make sure your older
kids have a healthy appreciation of the sex they are attracted to and don't
let them get nuts about sex until they are ready to experience it with
someone they love. For my daughter that will be when she is 21, married, and
has finished college. <GRIN> Seriously, shielding kids from sex these days
is just about impossible, but it should be respected, not feared;
appreciated as a major life changing event, not devalued by constant
exposure.
Sex, fire, guns, cars, etc... and porn. Wonderful or terrible depending on
how you are able to manage them.
> Heh. FASHION is porn. That's almost more believable than
> "nudity is porn." Sigh.
When I got married, I though I would never be able to see another woman
naked. Then my wife started showing me pictures of half naked women in
suggestive poses... Porn magazines? Internet? No... Just your everyday
woman's magazines. "What do you think of her hair?" "Should I do my eyes
like that?" "Isn't she horribly skinny?" I think women do that to get you
fired up for a wild night in the sack...
> An interesting observation I once heard from a talk show
> commentator is that we (society in general or the US public
> in particular?) consider child porn the most evil of all
> crimes, and completely unforgivable.
> While at the same time our advertising groups continue to
> require younger and younger models in more and more revealing
> situations.
>
> The above comment does not condone said activity.
When my daughter was 8, her lips were red, her cheeks blushed and her
eyelids and overall form where exactly what all the fashion models are
dieing for. It really hit home to me that we have a big, big problem in the
USA or perhaps the world. The media is slowly training men (NOT ME) to be
pedophiles. Or perhaps most men are pedophiles and the media is reacting to
that. One way or the other it is SICK! I almost went and got a shotgun, and
I still watch anyone who is around my little girl like a hawk. And she wears
sack cloth and ashes compared to what some of the other little girls are
allowed to run around in.
I have always been attracted to women with curves rather than stick figures.
I like mature, curvatious females with long dark hair and olive skin. And
there was a university study where they showed a representative sample of
males a set of pictures of different women and ask them if they would most
like to A) take this girl out to a public function B) take this girl to bed
or C) take this girl as a partner / wife. The skinny fashion model types
ended up with A. The curvy ones got the B and the overweight ones got C. So
I think most men are like me: Attracted to REAL women rather than the ones
that are trying to look like they are little girls. My answer would have
been, and is: B. B! and B!!!
So why do we have the "heroin chic" (more accurately "pre-pubescent") look
on all the magazines, TV shows, and runways? Damned if I know. It isn't like
that in other countries. Most of the Latin world doesn't have the problem
except when the US imports it.
If there is any one thing we need to talk about and work out in our society,
it is this... IMHO.
>> An interesting observation I once heard from a talk show
>> commentator is that we (society in general or the US public
>> in particular?) consider child porn the most evil of all
>> crimes, and completely unforgivable.
>> While at the same time our advertising groups continue to
>> require younger and younger models in more and more revealing
>> situations.
>>
>> The above comment does not condone said activity.
>
> When my daughter was 8, her lips were red, her cheeks blushed and her
> eyelids and overall form where exactly what all the fashion models are
> dieing for. It really hit home to me that we have a big, big problem in
> the USA or perhaps the world. The media is slowly training men (NOT ME)
> to be pedophiles. Or perhaps most men are pedophiles and the media is
> reacting to that. One way or the other it is SICK! I almost went and
> got a shotgun, and I still watch anyone who is around my little girl
> like a hawk. And she wears sack cloth and ashes compared to what some
> of the other little girls are allowed to run around in.
>
> I have always been attracted to women with curves rather than stick
> figures. I like mature, curvatious females with long dark hair and
> olive skin. And there was a university study where they showed a
> representative sample of males a set of pictures of different women and
> ask them if they would most like to A) take this girl out to a public
> function B) take this girl to bed or C) take this girl as a partner /
> wife. The skinny fashion model types ended up with A. The curvy ones
> got the B and the overweight ones got C. So I think most men are like
> me: Attracted to REAL women rather than the ones that are trying to
> look like they are little girls. My answer would have been, and is: B.
> B! and B!!!
>
> So why do we have the "heroin chic" (more accurately "pre-pubescent")
> look on all the magazines, TV shows, and runways? Damned if I know. It
> isn't like that in other countries. Most of the Latin world doesn't
> have the problem except when the US imports it.
>
> If there is any one thing we need to talk about and work out in our
> society, it is this... IMHO.
>
> ---
> James.
>
>
>
It must be porn, - My company has blocked the site!
(Now I'll definately have to have a look from home).
RP
Jinx
<joecolquitt@cle To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclistspam_OUTmit.edu>
ar.net.nz> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Re:[OT:] Pornography <- was PICList is NOT closing, Bad joke?
piclist-bounces@ ...
mit.edu
11/04/05 21:40
Please respond
to
"Microcontroller
discussion list
- Public."
> > <http://domai.com/>
>
> Had a look at the front page.
> Yep. That's porn. Mild by many standards.
> When my daughter was 8, her lips were red, her cheeks blushed
> and her eyelids and overall form where exactly what all the fashion
> models are dieing for. It really hit home to me that we have a big,
> big problem in the USA or perhaps the world. The media is slowly
> training men (NOT ME) to be pedophiles
One of the best South Parks I've seen lately was "Stupid Spoiled
Whore Video Playset". All about the Paris Hiltons of this world and
what crappy "role models" they are for young girls. Very biting
satire
I also recall Bette Midler on Letterman a little while ago, who was
bemoaning the fact that almost every popular female entertainer
these days looks and acts like a slut. Personally I don't watch the
music channels at certain times because it's just one big rap booty
call or skinny white girls almost in their underwear (Gwen Stefani
& co). Actually now I remember GS on Letterman too, in her hot
pants, and was pleased to notice she had cellulite ;-)))
>>- Explain why /why not?
> Because we don't have any insecurity problems with our relationship.
> My
> wife often points out other women to me, making comments about how
> pretty they are etc. she often spends time with male friends and
> vice
> versa.
You have "male friends"? :-)
Seriously though - a relationship that genuinely has no insecurities
is a blessed one. But protecting oneself against the things which
destroy many relationships, because you value the relationship you
have, can be very wise. Some people may be strong enough to be able to
expose themselves to what would be dangerous to most. Many who fail do
not know their weaknesses until too late. Standing somewhat back from
the dangerous edge is usually well advised in most of life's dangerous
activities - even if the view from the edge is better.
>>- What's the URL?
>>- Are there any limitations on where I can post this URL (apart from
>>bandwidth issues)
> Yeah, I suspect some of those Church-going types would throw a fit
> ;)
Hardly. There's far too much bad stuff out their for one tasteful,
artistic and honouring site of pictures of your wife to bother anyone
:-)
>>Are there REALLY any takers on this list who would be happy with
>>this
>>for their own family members? C'mon guys. Stand up and be counted.
>>It's not porn. It's tasteful. It's honouring. It's good clean
>>uplifting wholesome stuff. Bring out your daughters ...
> It is what you perceive it to be. If you are a puritan, perhaps it
> violates your moral code, but I like to think I'm reasonably open
> minded.
Rather, I think, it is what all the people who view it perceive it to
be - with the "worst case" 10% (say) of viewers setting the level that
you probably care about. You can be utterly certain that for some,
probably many viewers at even the domani site level it is masturbation
material or the mental equivalent, and for almost all a source of lust
generation which is viewed with that in mind. Whether that is "bad" is
another issue. Whether that is what you would be happy to expose your
wife/daughters to is also up to you. If one is reasonably open minded
then there's probably nothing much or nothing at all wrong with the
idea of others lusting after your wife and daughters and fantasising
about them, so if it makes them feel good that's good. The less open
minded may feel slightly differently.
So far I have avoided replying in this thread so far, because I think the whole thing is misconceived from the
start, let alone so far OT for this place that it's difficult to think how it could be further so! But I
think I should do this one, but I won't get dragged in to the discussion beyond this...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 03:55:08 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
> Nobody, so far, has commented on my test.
> Here it is again with some expansion:
> The term "wife" may be adapted as appropriate.
>
> Answer all questions.
> Equal points for all questions.
> -100% if any question missed.
> Time allowed 5 minutes
>
> - What did your wife think of the oh so tasteful domai site?
I'm not married, and I haven't told my girlfriend about it yet (she lives in New York so I can't show it to
her in person. I would guess that she would think it tasteful. If not, I shall report back when I have her
actual opinion.
> - Would you be happy for pictures of your wife and daughters to be posted on such a "tasteful" site?
I have no children either, but it wouldn't worry me for someone over 18 to do what they like in this respect,
however they are related to me.
> - Explain why /why not?
If they are doing it of their own free will, then I'd be quite happy. It's not up to me to decide what
another adult may or may not do.
> - What's the URL?
This is hypothetical - it hasn't actually happened!
> - Are there any limitations on where I can post this URL (apart from bandwidth issues)
n/a
> Are there REALLY any takers on this list who would be happy with this
> for their own family members?
Yes, absolutely.
> C'mon guys. Stand up and be counted.
One! :-)
> It's not porn. It's tasteful. It's honouring. It's good clean
> uplifting wholesome stuff. Bring out your daughters ...
I have to say that I'm disappointed, Russell - I have always respected your writings here, but I feel this
outburst of puritanism (not to mention sarcasm) really isn't worthy of you.
On Apr 11, 2005, at 8:55 AM, Russell McMahon wrote:
> - Would you be happy for pictures of your wife and daughters
> to be posted on such a "tasteful" site?
What does that have to do with whether it's pornography or not?
I can certainly think of many things that I'd be LESS happy for my
daughter or wife to be doing... You're arguing against their claims
of "empowering women", but I'm not sure anyone here is going that
far: we're just claiming it isn't "pornography."
It would be useful if people tried to hear what I actually have and
haven't said. This is an extremely emotive topic and it's easy to get
annoyed by what the other guy SEEMS to be saying, Try to take
statements at face value.
That said
>> - Would you be happy for pictures of your wife and daughters
>> to be posted on such a "tasteful" site?
> What does that have to do with whether it's pornography or not?
I thought it was a reasonable measure of the stature of the site. If
it was a harvest queen website or a PepsiCola bottlers awards site
(should such exist) or a boyscouts/girl guides / line dancing etc
site, then many would be happy enough for their loved ones to be
pictured there. (Some maty draw the line at line dancing).
And if the purpose of any site was to honour, uplift and celebrate,
the same would usually apply.
But if the purpose of the site was for men (mainly) to gaze lustfully
on images of your naked loved ones and <add own text here>. then many
would often feel differently about such a site. Establishing whether
any given person would be happy with this gives a reasonable
indication of the merit of the site.
> I can certainly think of many things that I'd be LESS happy for my
> daughter or wife to be doing...
So can I. As I said previously, it's a matter of degree rather than
type. This site is of course far from a hard porn site. But it's also
far from eg the sort of site that it's front page suggests it is.
> You're arguing against their claims
> of "empowering women",
No. I'm not.
> but I'm not sure anyone here is going that
> far: we're just claiming it isn't "pornography."
I provided an online definition.
I'll attempt my own summary definition here. take the spirit rather
than the exact words.
"Pornography is visual input which is intended to or used to create
sexual arousal when viewed / used."
That gives you a vast range of course, Where and why would you draw
the line? The brain certainly doesn't.
While my ideas on the merits of pornography are probably partially
(certainly not fully) obvious from my emails, can you find anywhere
where I have said that pornography was bad or evil or sinful or
whatever similar?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Russell [@spam@piclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu]
>Sent: 12 April 2005 06:16
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [OT:] Pornography <- was PICList is NOT closing,
>Bad joke? ...
>
>
>I provided an online definition.
>I'll attempt my own summary definition here. take the spirit rather
>than the exact words.
>"Pornography is visual input which is intended to or used to create
>sexual arousal when viewed / used."
>That gives you a vast range of course, Where and why would you draw
>the line? The brain certainly doesn't.
>
>While my ideas on the merits of pornography are probably partially
>(certainly not fully) obvious from my emails, can you find anywhere
>where I have said that pornography was bad or evil or sinful or
>whatever similar?
Out of interest, would you condsider the pictures in http://www.artformgallery.com/ to be pornography also? Do you consider
any pictures of nudity to be pornography? These are serious questions
by the way, I'm not trying to be argumentative.
Regards
Mike
=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================
>>I'll attempt my own summary definition here. take the spirit rather
>>than the exact words.
>>"Pornography is visual input which is intended to or used to create
>>sexual arousal when viewed / used."
>>That gives you a vast range of course, Where and why would you draw
>>the line? The brain certainly doesn't.
> Out of interest, would you condsider the pictures in
> http://www.artformgallery.com/ to be pornography also? Do you
> consider
> any pictures of nudity to be pornography? These are serious
> questions
> by the way, I'm not trying to be argumentative.
Argumentative is OK :-)
Taking my definition above, the answer would be in many cases,
potentially yes. Any definition which describes everything describes
nothing (the principal fault of Marxism fwiw). But, in many of these
cases the artist has sought to arouse some sort of sexual feelings in
the viewer - especially in male viewers. This doesn't make then
unartistic. This doesn't make them bad or wrong or evil. Although
there is always the prospect of all this. But there is an intention to
arouse sexual response. The term "erotica" is probably more useful
here as low end porn - although there is room for substantial overlap.
The posing of the model has been done "just so". I don't find the
result especially attractive or especially sexually stimulating, and
no doubt students of the art could find much to comment on in the
picture per se. But would you (serious question also) suggest that he
wasn't trying for sexual response in his original audience?
Then http://www.artformgallery.com/images2/blaas/01in.jpg also fits my
definition, but I certainly agree is far far far from what has come
today to be known as porn. I can easily appreciate this picture as
fitting under James' definitions of wholesome, uplifting etc. BUT I
also feel that I would be wise not to make such fare part of my
standard viewing. Can I look at it without lusting after the woman.
Sort of maybe - it stirs immediately sexual responses. Do I wish to
have my way with her mentally metaphorically etc. Not per se BUT the
responses are tightly linked to my whole sexuality. It's porn :-).
Very pleasant and innocuous though it may be!!! I'm not so sure about
the fishes though :-)
Then there's things like
www.artformgallery.com/images2/bronzino/01_al.jpg
Can this be porn. Surely not. Horribly classical. May be a great and
famous masterpiece for all I know. Is that God looking on stage right
(or is that stage left). If so it can't be porn then can it? But, what
is going on there in mid picture. Hmm - maybe even some sort of sexual
activity can be non-porn if tastefully framed. Bzzzt. Sorry. Porn. By
my definition. But I'd hate to have to view that sort of thing all day
long. I find very little sexual or other attractiveness in it.
And for good measure. The sleepers
www.artformgallery.com/images2/courbet/02sl.jpg
A bit too lifelike to be really pleasant. And they are indeed
sleeping. And there may well be an entirely innocent explanation for
what we see. But, what is the artist aiming for. What is the viewer
viewing for? Why are more people dwelling on this picture than some of
the others and not answering all the PIC questions etc. Bzzzt.
Litmus test. If I show this email to my wife, my minister, assorted
female friends - what would they think. How much justification would I
have to do to explain myself etc.
Another test. How many people will bookmark this site. How many other
sites of classical paintings but without nudes in them do they have
bookmarked. Bzzzzt. ;-)
I THINK I've been consistent in exploring what IS porn without trying
to ram the moral perspective down people's throats. Some will not
agree. For me the moral aspect is inseparable but doesn't have to be
yelled about.
Is porn bad? - often.
Is really soft and tasteful porn bad? - often - inasmuch as it leads
people into areas where they would be better not being.
Is it possible to accurately judge for other people where they would
be better off being? - very often it's not.
Are there guidelines based on experience which give you a fair idea?
Of course.
> Is this thread going anywhere ? Or did I miss where it went ?
That's a matter of opinion :-)
Michael Rigby Jones raised a good question about the merits of an Ye
Olde masters nude ladies art site and I responded. Whether that's
going anywhere is up to you.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: KILLspampiclist-bouncesKILLspammit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTmit.edu]
>Sent: 12 April 2005 11:42
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [OT:] Pornography <- was PICList is NOT closing,
>Bad joke? ...
>
>Consider this painting from that site
>
> http://www.artformgallery.com/images2/vecchio/01_co.jpg
>
>The posing of the model has been done "just so". I don't find the
>result especially attractive or especially sexually stimulating, and
>no doubt students of the art could find much to comment on in the
>picture per se. But would you (serious question also) suggest that he
>wasn't trying for sexual response in his original audience?
>
I see your point, the pose is meant to be suggestive, but I don't find
the result sexually stimulating either. Perhaps it's WAS porn when it
was painted, but I don't think it is now. Maybe that is evidence of
falling moral standards, or perhaps people more readily accept that the
human form can be attractive without being suggestive.
I also think there appears to be a bluring of nudity and porn, pictures
can be pornographic (i.e. sexualy stimulating) without any nudity
whatsoever, and nudity in itself is not (IMO) evidence of porn. Who
would accuse Michelangelo's David of being pornographic?
Mike
=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================
>> Is this thread going anywhere ? Or did I miss where it went ?
>
>That's a matter of opinion :-)
>
>Michael Rigby Jones raised a good question about the merits of an Ye
>Olde masters nude ladies art site and I responded. Whether that's
>going anywhere is up to you.
And here is li'le ol' me thinking it has gone way off the rails - or maybe
its all gone onto the clothes pegs ...
> > Is this thread going anywhere ? Or did I miss where it went ?
>
> That's a matter of opinion :-)
>
> Michael Rigby Jones raised a good question about the merits of an Ye
> Olde masters nude ladies art site and I responded. Whether that's
> going anywhere is up to you.
I don't think it is going anywhere - to be perfectly Francis I couldn't
care less what other people regard as porn or what their favourite
colour is. The same ground is just being covered. I had my say and
I'll be deleting any more unread
> - What did your wife think of the oh so tasteful domai site?
Didn't show it to her (we have better things to do :). She may or may not
like it; I know, however, from previous instances that she can appreciate
female beauty and that she doesn't think nudity in itself is anything bad.
> - Would you be happy for pictures of your wife and daughters to be posted
> on such a "tasteful" site?
Not sure I'd be "happy" about it. But if anyone of my family (my mother
included :) would like to do that, I'd certainly would not have a problem
with that. I'd try to alert if I see a problem (it's IMO not the site where
it gets published that's the major source of problems, it's the way the
photos are done), but that's it. If it were my wife, I could have problems
with jealousy with the way the photos were done, but that's a different
issue.
> - Explain why /why not?
Why should I have a problem? (That's the explanation...)
> - What's the URL?
N/A. This question shows that you weren't quite as serious (and thoughtful)
about this as you want others to take you.
> - Are there any limitations on where I can post this URL (apart from
> bandwidth issues)
N/A, but no, there wouldn't be. If it's there to be published, it's there
to be seen.
> Are there REALLY any takers on this list who would be happy with this for
> their own family members? C'mon guys. Stand up and be counted.
> I thought it was a reasonable measure of the stature of the site. If it
> was a harvest queen website or a PepsiCola bottlers awards site (should
> such exist) or a boyscouts/girl guides / line dancing etc site, then
> many would be happy enough for their loved ones to be pictured there.
> (Some maty draw the line at line dancing).
Not sure... I don't think that harvest queens, Pepsi or boy scouts are such
good things to be involved with, either.
> And if the purpose of any site was to honour, uplift and celebrate, the
> same would usually apply.
Maybe not. But then, how much of your (our) lives is dedicated to the
purpose of honoring, uplifting and celebrating somebody (besides
ourselves)?
> As I said previously, it's a matter of degree rather than type.
I can relate to this, but then, what's your point? Judging degrees is
usually quite subjective.
> "Pornography is visual input which is intended to or used to create
> sexual arousal when viewed / used."
Ok, so the picture of your dog or your son (in clothes) on your personal
homepage is pornography. What is /not/ pornography, according to this? You
can't control whether somebody uses these pictures to "create sexual
arousal". The term "used to create ..." makes that "definition" /very/
vague, to the point of being useless -- pretty much everything is potential
pornography (until it becomes factual pornography because it gets used by
somebody to create ...), according to that "definition".
I really thought (and think) that you were (and are) smart enough to spot
that flaw in this "definition". If it were about a technical problem, you'd
certainly would have -- and would not even have tried to work with it.
> Litmus test. If I show this email to my wife, my minister, assorted
> female friends - what would they think. How much justification would I
> have to do to explain myself etc.
That "test" depends a whole lot on who your wife is and what kind of
friends you have, which a bit depends also on where you live. (I leave the
minister out here, for a number of reasons...)
Of course, if you live in a puritan environment, you'd have problems.
> Is porn bad? - often.
Probably. "Is TV bad? - often." But this means exactly that you need to
apply individual judgment on individual situations -- everybody for
himself.
> I don't think it is going anywhere - to be perfectly Francis I
> couldn't
> care less what other people regard as porn or what their favourite
> colour is. The same ground is just being covered. I had my say and
> I'll be deleting any more unread
You're very welcome, Sir, she said ;-)
[I've always liked that line - being rude to the high and mighty while
being totally polite]
But, back to the subject, perhaps.
I think it's green, or sometimes maybe blue, or some subtle shadings
thereof. Changes with how I'm feeling at the time.
I'm very happy for you to not consider that it is going anywhere. I
feel that it is actually being productive. If people leave as it
becomes unproductive for them we'll maintain interest and not bore
anyone.
I am, however, deeply concerned by your suggestion that you actually
delete PIClist messages of any sort. That is, of course, sacrilege of
the highest order - in fact almost pornographic in its indecency.
Hopefully you have been misunderstood. Should you feel in need of any
PICList messages I appear to have about the last 66,000 rapidly to
hand and can probably retrieve the last 5 to 10 years worth at a
pinch.
> I really thought (and think) that you were (and are) smart enough to
> spot
> that flaw in this "definition". If it were about a technical
> problem, you'd
> certainly would have -- and would not even have tried to work with
> it.
Maybe I was. And maybe there was a point in working with it.
I'm seldom quite as silly as I may sound :-).
Probably even sillier than i look though.
Sigh....
I find the art very pleasant. All of it. If that makes me a pervert, so be
it! I did bookmark it, and I intend to be back to it. I would hate to have
it censored out of my life.
BTW, I also like pictures of sailboats and airplanes and dogs!
And then there are my favorite artists Vargas, Pettit and more...
I have long felt celibacy the ultimate perversion....
Sensuality is part of the human condition and many of us consider it a gift
from our creator.
>----Original Message-----
>From: John Ferrell
[snip]
>I have long felt celibacy the ultimate perversion....
>Sensuality is part of the human condition and many of us consider it a gift
>from our creator.
Four times this morning I have begun to compose a response, all four times I abandoned it.
John has eloquently stated my point above.. Thank You John.
[other posting]
> Are there REALLY any takers on this list who would be happy with this for
> their own family members? C'mon guys. Stand up and be counted.
Three. :)
And yes, that includes my daughter, who is not quite of the "age of consent". The fault is in the assumption that all things sensual are bad, or will lead to bad. I see this as a false assumption, based on unnatural societal restrictions.
I wish I could express myself in a more succinct way, but I'll have to leave it at that.
Part of the problem, in the United States, at least,
is that in order to limit pornography, you must by
definition limit people's freedom of expression.
Perhaps it's to our detriment, but we (for some years,
at least; it's now moving in the other direction) have
tended to err on the side of freedom where speech is
concerned. In order to legislate pornography, it either
needs to be defined so stringently as to make the
definition easy to skirt (see the assault weapons ban),
or so broadly as to either catch many things it
shouldn't or to catch nothing it should. So we simply
give a loose definition of adult content, wrap it in
plastic, and sell it only to those over 18. There are
a good number of magazines approaching that
standard now, and I suspect there is soon to be a
row about things like Maxim, FHM, etc., being sold
to minors.
The bottom line is, once we start labelling and
singling out "porn" as a suppressible item, that label
can be applied to things that shouldn't necessarily
be labeled as such. A prime example of how this can
be abused is the concept of terrorism. I don't support
terrorists, but I think the word has been bandied about
so much since September 11 that it is being applied
to inappropriate situations to justify extreme measures
which people otherwise might not stand for.
Basically, I'm just making the "slippery slope" argument,
and I don't really trust that lawmakers always have my
best interests at heart.
> - What did your wife think of the oh so tasteful domai site?
Already answered: Better than most but not ok because it will be accessible
to people who can't handle it and the girls seem a bit young.
> - Would you be happy for pictures of your wife and
> daughters to be posted on such a "tasteful" site?
Give some reasonable guaranty of anonymity... Except, again, that I don't
think everyone who would see it would use it for good. If my wife had been a
porn star or whatever, I would not be ashamed of it in ANY way.
> - Explain why /why not?
A) There is nothing wrong with them. They are lovely, beautiful, works of
art. A real testament to their maker(s).
B) Mature, reasonable persons should be able to enjoy looking at them
without loosing control. Note: /should be/ "when you're in love with a
beautiful woman, you watch your friends..." and other song lyrics. I'm ok,
you scare the hell out of me, etc...
C) I'm proud of them. I would love to show them off. Eat your heart out...
<GRIN> Of course, I love them all dearly so I see with more than my eyes.
D) I would not stand in the way of them doing what they wanted to do as long
as I saw no danger. My daughter is MUCH too young and I would not allow her,
but when she was older, if I felt she was mature enough, and her mother
agreed, etc... Actually that would probably end up being past 18 and then I
would have no say. My family has a history of hell raising around that age.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTmit.edu
> [piclist-bouncesEraseME.....mit.edu] On Behalf Of James Newtons Massmind
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 6:43 PM
> To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
> Subject: RE: Re:[OT:] Pornography <- was PICList is NOT
> closing, Bad joke? ...
snip
> Sex, fire, guns, cars, etc... and porn. Wonderful or terrible
> depending on
> how you are able to manage them.
You missed out religion,
Q. why do I feel the need post on this issue
A. Well I discovered self gratification at the age of twelve
thank God I was not Roman Catholic or I'd be going to hell!
In fact in the Church of England, it is enthusiastically encouraged
by the clergy (I was
reliably informed by my fellow choir boys)
Could someone please explain all these references to Bruce Springsteen?
I do have to admit that I was embarrassed the time the Circuit Cellar Ink
subscription list was mailed the "adult" comic book in error. I live in a
very small town and I am sure will always be wondering at least a little
about me!
I was very glad the grand daughter did not bring in the mail that day.
>
>> Are there REALLY any takers on this list who would be happy with this
>> for
>> their own family members?
One has to face facts. My wife and daughters are likely to be subject
(or HAVE BEEN subject to) to a fair amount of lustful thoughts on the
part of certain segments of the population even with their clothes on,
and there's not much I can do about it. And even if I could, SOME
of those people are potentially fine boyfriends, lovers, husbands, and
so on, so I'm not sure I should.
> Sensuality is part of the human condition and many of us
> consider it a gift from our creator.
Yeah. Something like that. I may attempt to curb my daughters'
sensuality to keep them safer, but I SHOULD NOT attempt to curb their
sensuality to make myself more 'comfortable.'
Not meant to be rude anyone (anyhow, I did not follow the thread at all). Somehow, the subject title 'Pornography' hit the right note in this forum since majority of the members are guys !!
I think the word 'pornography' tickled and arouse the male hormone (the beast within). hehehe... did anyone noticed this is one of the longest threads :-)
I know several people like Top Gear, so I'd stretch Russell's
subject to that of freedom of speech, the contention being
that vehicles have their good side and bad side (although would
Russell will argue that there is such a thing as a good nude ?)
My personal opinion is that a GT40 or Diablo or Evo is mostly
unnecessary and 0-60 time is pretty irrelevant for town drivers.
But it's still an entertaining TV hour, and ratings will out. "Third
Gear" probably is a good idea, but how many new Avantis can
you bear to watch ?
Russell McMahon wrote:
> My wife found the site extremely objectionable. She did not consider
> that it has any positive features vis a vis promoting women.
That's her opinion for external use because she loves you
and doesn't tolerate rivals even virtual.
I bet, when without witnesses she would look through the site
pretty interested. It's ok for the normal woman behaviour.
Old Shak explored the topic like mad.
Regards,
Mike.
Sorry if my post is out of context, I didn't follow the thread.
James Newtons wrote:
> ... In a 14 year old boy, they
> probably evoke a totally different, and perhaps less positive set of
> emotions.
13-14 year old boy must see (occasionally) a nude woman. This will
prevent him of getting into a gay later. The site is good for it.
The problem is how to keep him awayy from other sites.
This post is a flame war starter if I ever heard one, so I'm
pre-emptively putting my foot down. I don't want to wake up tomorrow
with 150 nasty emails in my inbox. If you wish to civilly discuss the
cause of homosexuality, please think carefully about whether this is
the correct place to do it. I will defer to the other admins on this
one. However, if you wish to rebuke Mr. Singer's claim in a nasty
manner, do it offlist.
I'm sorry to be censoring like this, but I see bad things arising on
this thread.
Josh Koffman
--
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
-Douglas Adams
On 4/17/05, Mike Singer <RemoveMEpiclist.allEraseMEEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
> 13-14 year old boy must see (occasionally) a nude woman. This will
> prevent him of getting into a gay later. The site is good for it.
> The problem is how to keep him awayy from other sites.
>> My wife found the site extremely objectionable. She did not
>> consider
>> that it has any positive features vis a vis promoting women.
> That's her opinion for external use because she loves you
> and doesn't tolerate rivals even virtual.
No. That's not the primary reason. She may or may not have objections
to my looking at other collections of pictures of naked women BUT her
disquiet in this instance was her own impression. (And fwiw there is
a significant differenece between "vitual", which they presumably are
not, and "remote", whichj they are.)
There are quite probably sites that she would not have found
objectionable. In this one there are various aspects which can lead
the untrained mind to find it objectionable. Interestingly, all other
list members who commented and the wives or partners whose opinions
were reported all found the site essentially pleasant. I suspect, but
may be wrong, that all these had to a greater or lesser extent
"trained minds" so that they were enough accustomed to certain aspects
that they ignored them or found them a normal part of the scenery.
> I bet, when without witnesses she would look through the site
> pretty interested.
I greatly doubt it. We've been married 30 years so my opinion has a
reasonable degree of probability of being right.
> It's ok for the normal woman behaviour.
That's an entirely relative assessment. And it at least implies that
women looking at the site with interest would do so for purposes which
some may disapprove of. I have no current comment to make on any of
that - it's just interesting to examine the assumption set and
implications.
> Old Shak explored the topic like mad.
If you mean William, then yes, he had interesting things to say on
lots of interesting things.
NB: Be sure if responding to address what I said, rather than to what
I said could be taken to mean or to what I didn't say but you didn't
want me to have said. :-) Confused yet? Read Lewis Carrol's Alice's
discussions with Humpty Dumpty re the meaning of words.
> This post is a flame war starter if I ever heard one, so I'm
> pre-emptively putting my foot down. I don't want to wake up tomorrow
> with 150 nasty emails in my inbox. If you wish to civilly discuss
> the
> cause of homosexuality, please think carefully about whether this is
> the correct place to do it.
Let me see if I can edge carefully and respectfully into this one.
Tell me asap if I don't manage or if it's getting out of line.
Y'ALL BE CAREFUL HERE PLEASE
>> 13-14 year old boy must see (occasionally) a nude woman.
That's entirely a matter of opinion and a relative view. Most (but not
all) would agree that a 14 year old boy should have a good
understanding of naked women :-). BUT what "good understanding" means
would vary greatly.
>> This will prevent him of getting into a gay later.
Some would certainly argue that this was the case (regardless of
whether one considers becoming gay is desirable or not). But a large
body of opinion would be that this is utterly not essential to
maintaining a male as a heterosexual. I know of many people for whom
it has not proved to be a necessity.
>> The site is good for it.
I very strongly disagree. This site is considerably further up the
continuum of naked women sites than it could be. If I wished to refer
14 year old boys to pictures of naked women then I would absolutely
not be choosing domani. I'm sure there must be many others that don't
reflect the degree of habituation that most people seem to miss seeing
in this site. For example, I'm not saying that the classical picture
site was one which was necessarily useful BUT it generally lacked the
Domani bias - even though it unquestionably contained elements of
"sexual provocation".
>> The problem is how to keep him away from other sites.
Indeed. And in recognising when a site was in fact an "other site".
While you no doubt meant extreme cases, it seems that nobody who
posted on the subject was able to distinguish domani from "other
sites" which I would find more suitable for general viewing.
Test: Is the site you wish to show to your 14 year old son suitable,
in your assessment, for showing to your 6/8/10/12/14 year old
daughters. Will you answer questions honestly?
My apologies,
I'm not an expert in this field.
Hope nobody offended ...
I'm sure Russell isn't.
Have no time to scan those kind of sites to compaire
which is better.
I've got a bit non-sensitive to this stuff since having been
summer-time residing occasionally on our Crimean
beaches for a couple of decades
engineer.cotse.net .
