Why is pornography considered a degrading thing?

I don't buy it. Playboy is there for the nude women. That's the big selling point. Don't kid yourself.

OK, don't buy it, but i'm not kidding myself. i just know more about marketing and the magazine industry than you seem to. here are some quotes from the business press for you:

"Playboy has been plagued in recent years by an upsurge in periodicals aimed at the same male demographic it vies for. Magazines like Stuff, Maxim, and FHM are providing intense competition, and when juxtaposed against these fresh, vibrant entries, Playboy can appear a bit antiquated to those who grew up on Sony's (NYSE: SNE) Playstation system and received their cinematic educations from hip movies like Time Warner's (NYSE: TWX) The Lord Of The Rings trilogy."

- The Motley Fool

"But the move comes as Playboy still tries to find the right formula to attract younger readers who have flocked to newer magazines like Maxim, FHM and Stuff, said Martin Walker, a magazine industry consultant."

- Reuters

"A makeover to appeal to younger readers and a foray into New Media have helped the bunny hop into the black. Under new editor James Kaminsky, Playboy Enterprise's flagship magazine received a much-needed facelift to fight intense competition for readers and relevance in a post-Maxim publishing world."

- BusinessWeek

I guess what I'm trying to say, Vezner, is this:

You're wrong, and I hate you.

 

Playboy's nothing, Hustler is where it's at.

 

Vezner, your mentioning of Playboy and windue_likes_yoda's response raises an interesting question. It is impossible to always know a person's intents. You say Playboy publishes nudes to arouse men. While this may be the case, you really have no way of knowing that. Where do you draw the line, then? One person's porn is another's study of the human form. The grey area is so huge that there's really no way of objectively discriminating between the two.

If you outlaw anything that can be construed as pornography, what can we allow? Sure, magazines like Hustler, Penthouse, and Barely Legal are out. You said yourself that Playboy should be stopped, even though they've made a bit of a name for themselves in sports journalism. There's nothing sexually explicit in there, just nude pictures of attractive women. But let's not stop there. Let's get rid of all naked pictures. A couple that I have on my computer come to mind. They're very nice pictures, not from a sexual perspective, but from an artistic point of view. I've seen all kinds of nude photography, and a lot of it is nowhere near pornographic. If we're to prevent those pictures from getting published, what next? Nude paintings? Studies of the human figure in charcoal? There goes half of every university's art curriculum. Let's just tear down Michelangelo's David, or at least put some pants on it, for Christ's sake. We wouldn't want to leave underaged tourists confused and offended by old Dave's oversized penis, now, would we?

I guess what I'm trying to say, Vezner, is this:

You're wrong, and I hate you.

HAHAHA! Well, I guess you have a problem then because I certainly don't care what your opinion is of me. *shrugs*

In the end, you can try to limit the definition of porn all you like but it is what the definition states that it is. If you don't like it, tough. You're only kidding yourself. Next thing you know people like you will try tell me that sex was never meant for the reproduction of the species but solely as a fun extracuricular activity.

...

Oops, I guess some of you have already tried to do that.

Hopeless I say. Hopeless.

I don't even know why I responded to this nonesense. I am officially, and finally this time, going to leave this thread. It has gotten so ridiculous that it's funny. I never thought it would get to the point where people would try to tell me that Playboy's big selling point wasn't the nude women but the sports articles. Yeah, right. I bet when you pick up a Playboy you head straight to the articles and don't even give the centerfold a second though. Yeah. What was I thinking when I said Playboy wasn't meant to arrouse men? How silly of me. It's obviously there to educate those who are interested in SPORTS! I'VE BEEN SO BLIND!! Whatever.

*rolls eyes*

 

Playboy's nothing, Hustler is where it's at.

a few years ago, Larry Flynt was in town for the opening of the new Hustler store. my friends and i went to try to get his autograph, but the crowd was insane and we couldn't get anywhere near him. anyway, we did see him waving as he left, and get this: the man has a brass-plated wheelchair with red velvet seat cushions. sooooo pimpin' ...

the only thing more pimpin' than that is whichever guy from G-Unit has a tricked-out white Escalade with a vanity plate that says "YAYO" (as in "Chi-chi, get the yayo").

 

! That's awesome.

 

Way to miss the point, there, Vezner. No one's forcing you top read Playboy, but I'll be damned if you even try to take that right away from me.

 

And the other is NOT indecent, it's nature. Is the animal channel pornography? I don't think so, and I doubt you'll find too many other people that will.

Okay, it really irritates me when people try to rationalize it like that. It's called civilization. We don't crap in front of each other either, and I don't see people calling us repressed for that. But, if you insist on going the "nature" route, you don't see gorillas watching each other go at it do you?


Pornography does objectify women. Of course it's their choice to do that. I'm not campaigning for making porn illegal. I personally don't care what other adults do (as long as it's consenting of course). However, it really does mess up kids.

I read an article recently about it. They did a study on teenage boys who started looking at porn when they were young - before they even had girlfriends. A lot of them had real issues with viewing women as possessions, not people. In porn they'd see women being submissive, being used, and think that's how it's supposed to be. They also thought that sex was their right, and had problems with girls over this, often dumping a girl who wouldn't "put out".

If you're going to teach kids about sex, you need to teach them about healthy relationships and respecting each other too. That's just not the message that porn sends.

 

In the end, you can try to limit the definition of porn all you like but it is what the definition states that it is. If you don't like it, tough. You're only kidding yourself. Next thing you know people like you will try tell me that sex was never meant for the reproduction of the species but solely as a fun extracuricular activity.


What's the meaning of pornography?


I ask all members who have posted here to do this: Post your meaning (or definition if you prefer) of pornography.


Mine is the simulation of sexual acts involving penetration. I wouldn't consider any of the modeling gigs that Aria has done to be porn, but rather art. And that's why I like 'em, and her, because she's got a beautiful body and one that you can appreciate (if you're a lover of aesthetics like me).


I read an article recently about it. They did a study on teenage boys who started looking at porn when they were young - before they even had girlfriends. A lot of them had real issues with viewing women as possessions, not people. In porn they'd see women being submissive, being used, and think that's how it's supposed to be. They also thought that sex was their right, and had problems with girls over this, often dumping a girl who wouldn't "put out".


These studies make me laugh.



I blame parents for that view, and society, too. They can have 'studies' all they want and get whatever preconcluded result they want. But what it comes down to is that society views women as objects. Hell, even religion teaches that view or should I say that it did, but still has lingering teachings of it? Man and wife is a good example of this. And Britney Whores, and Christina Fuguilera teach this, too. Now I don't think that's their true intent but it happens. Oh and you can blame beer commercials, and you can blame rap (you know, that's the 'in' thing these days), I'm sure you could blame the gestation periods in the womb for that, too, somehow.


I mostly blame the parents because if your parents suck then you're going to suck. For the first three years of life a kid's friends are his parents. They are his or her world, that's when you instill something resembling morals within them. So if these 'studies' show anything it's not how damaging porn can be but how damaging parents can be.

 

well alot of people in our world are nuts.


somone can watch a adult film and be normal.


but


half of them will get drunk watch a adult film go out and rape some kid.


thats a reason why people say it's degrating.

but adult films are usually for adult couples to set the mood.

 

half of them will get drunk watch a adult film go out and rape some kid.

Half? Are you out of your mind? Maybe one in a 500,000 if that. Most will watch a film, spank their monkeys and go on about their business.

 

half of them will get drunk watch a adult film go out and rape some kid.


Are you mental? Have your screws gone loose? Are all cogs working efficiently?

 

is anyone aware that the person who started this thread was banned some time ago for his...rambunctious (yes, that's a good word for it) posts?


just some food for though on what he considered the seriousness of this thread....

anyways though, that one guy's right...i did go get drunk after watching porn but hooked up with a hooker...gave me nasty crabs...still hurts to think about...

 

To quote George Carlin, twice

"People want to ban pornography on the grounds that it encourages violence against women. The Japanese consume far more violent and depraved pornography then we do, and yet there is almost no rape reported there. A woman is twenty times more in danger of being raped in the U.S. than she is in japan. Why? Because Japanese people are decent civilized and intelligent."

I believe that In america, our culture produces that bottom denominator of the sick twisted guy who will go out and rape someone. No culture is perfect. We still have to fix this but eliminating pornography wont fix it.-Me, not a quote

#2

"Isn't it interesting that only sex and excretion can be found legally obscene in this country? Not violence, not neglect, not abuse of humans. Only ****ing and ****ing.Two of natures most necessary functions and irresistable forces. Were always trying to control and thwart nature. Even in our language. **** that ****!"

Just thought I'd throw these quotes in because they do have exact relevance to the conversation.

This comedian's quotes do not necessarily reflect the opinions of OBI-BEN-KENOBI.Except were otherly mentioned. To reiterate, I'm only quoting and for the record I was not obscene in my language.I put stars instead of Mr Carlin's more, unique, words.

 

Okay, it really irritates me when people try to rationalize it like that. It's called civilization. We don't crap in front of each other either, and I don't see people calling us repressed for that.

we stopped crapping in front of each other relatively recently (a few hundred years) and mostly for sanitary reasons. there's nothing unsanitary about watching a video.

But, if you insist on going the "nature" route, you don't see gorillas watching each other go at it do you?

yeah, you do, actually. primates screw in front of each other all the time.

"People want to ban pornography on the grounds that it encourages violence against women. The Japanese consume far more violent and depraved pornography then we do, and yet there is almost no rape reported there. A woman is twenty times more in danger of being raped in the U.S. than she is in japan. Why? Because Japanese people are decent civilized and intelligent."

this is actually one of the best arguments against the whole porn-leads-to-rape argument. i've been watching porn since i was like 14 or 15. i like porn. i like kinky porn. in fact, i like really kinky porn. i even have a pretty kinky sex life of my very own. i probably have the highest tolerance for kinky porn of anyone i know. despite that, not to make generalizations, but i still think Japanese porn is seriously messed up. like, i get seriously squicked by it sometimes, and i don't get squicked by much. if porn, especially violent, degrading, etc. porn, led to rape, Tokyo would look like some kind of atrocity site with brutalized women strewn around like rag dolls.

but it doesn't. in fact, it's safer than the US on that count. this leads me to believe that the roots of rape and sexual violence run deep in American culture.

 

Thats exactly what I was saying. Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

this is actually one of the best arguments against the whole porn-leads-to-rape argument. i've been watching porn since i was like 14 or 15. i like porn. i like kinky porn. in fact, i like really kinky porn. i even have a pretty kinky sex life of my very own. i probably have the highest tolerance for kinky porn of anyone i know. despite that, not to make generalizations, but i still think Japanese porn is seriously messed up. like, i get seriously squicked by it sometimes, and i don't get squicked by much. if porn, especially violent, degrading, etc. porn, led to rape, Tokyo would look like some kind of atrocity site with brutalized women strewn around like rag dolls.

but it doesn't. in fact, it's safer than the US on that count. this leads me to believe that the roots of rape and sexual violence run deep in American culture.

Edit: I thought you were a girl. Damn. That would've been sick.

But good point, nonetheless.

 

As usual, a serius discussion is brought to a screeching halt after I quote George Carlin. Wher'ed the other side of the argument go?

 

Playboy was created to get you horny. Michealangelo was not. It doesn't take Einstein to figure that out. Dude, you have issues if you can't see the difference. You honestly believe that "shows penetration" is the only thing that "explicit" means? *rolls eyes*

Okay, snide remarks from you aside for now, why is it so hard for you to understand that it is YOUR INTERPRETATION of the "definition" you posted that I am questioning? No matter what some online dictionary says, vaguely about what porn is, as someone who works in the industry, I am TELLING you what it is. You may not like this, but you are wrong. I do know more about this subject than you do, because I am PAID to know more about it. Your definition is nothing more than what some small-minded people want porn to be, not what it actually is.

Again, it doesn't take Einstein to figure out the difference between classical artist's portayal of nudity vs the Playboy channel. One is meant to show the human body as a form of art. The other is there to make you horny. BIG difference that I am suprised you can't understand.

Hmm. Again with the snide comments about my intelligence. I'll still let that go, for now. You say it doesn't Einstein to see the difference between Playboy and classic artists? I say it obviously doesn't take Einstein to INVENT said difference. It is great however, that you know the intent of everyone else and their actions and work. That's a real gift you have their, son. Maybe because of that unique gift I can continue to overlook your asinine and simple-minded comments about my understanding and/or intelligence.

The intent argument has got to be one of the lamest ever used by anyone. Think of all the everyday items laying around your home, and then realize that at least half of them, someone, somewhere, has used in a manner OTHER than they were originally intended for. Intent really means very little. What if you owned a pistol, and you were being very careful loading it, only at the gun club where you use the pistol solely for target shooting, but something spooks you and you accidentally drop the gun and it goes off and kills the guy in the next booth? You didn't INTEND to kill him, but he's still dead, isn't he? So do we ban guns because of an accident?

Okay, maybe guns are a touchy subject, so what if you are driving your car in the winter, and you skid on a patch of ice and accidentally kill some kid waiting for the school bus on the side of the road? You certainly didn't INTEND to kill the kid, right? Should we ban cars because of these type of accidents? Because they do happen, and will continue to.

You can't use intention as an argument, because it simply doesn't make sense. You don't know the intention, and so you can't judge if your conclusions are correct or not. And just because some people, (incorrectly,) see Playboy as porn, that doesn't mean everyone who reads it does, and that doesn't mean that was Hef's intention.

Also, why are only the "classic" artists immune to the porn label? What about modern artists. Careful with this answer, because then we have to also try and define what ART is, and that is something that is in the eye of the beholder. So why is Michaelangelo an artist and Hef isn't? Just because they use a different medium? That would be most asinine. What about more modern artists like Frank Frazetta, or Boris Vallejo, or Julie Bell, or Luis Royo, or I can go on and on. Are they porn? If so, what is the difference between them and Rembrandt, or Picaso, or whoever you might consider a classic artist? If not, I ask again, what difference, other than the medium, is there between this and Playboy? And remember, the intent argument can't be used because you don't know what the intentions of the artists were, do you? No.

No. The definition is simple to understand. For some reason you just don't get it. You are the one that is trying to force your own "interpretation" into the simple definition of this word. You, no matter how much you try to justify your mean

 

One: selling something simply for the purpose of turning someone on is not a bad thing. Why? Because being turned on is not a bad thing. To use a similar analogy that someone used earlier, it's a natural thing, like crapping--maybe we don't want to watch people crap in public, but are we really going to condemn someone because they crap?

I got turned on seeing Hayden Christensen shirtless in the December 2003 US Vogue. I got turned on watching Ewan McGregor in "The Pillow Book". So what?

half of them will get drunk watch a adult film go out and rape some kid

I've got a real issue with punishing sane adults for the sins of some idiots.

 

Right. Sorry to have brought a scientifically conducted study into a serious debate, guess I never thought that your own opinions and speculation were more likely to be considered factual.

If you're wondering where the other side of the argument is, they've gotten tired of being called narrow minded and having their points disregarded on no rational basis.

Yes, it is human nature, yes, boys dumping girls who don't put out is just boys being boys. So what, we're supposed to encourage that? We show them that objectifying women is okay, that all we're good for is sex?

Edited to Add: Jedi-Monkey, for someone who declares themself to be so openminded, you sure do attack Christianity a lot.

 

Sorry to have brought a scientifically conducted study into a serious debate, guess I never thought that your own opinions and speculation were more likely to be considered factual.

I don't suppose your argument was that pornography influences violent behavior, was it?

It seems people are tossing that aside, and it's unfortunate. Numerous psychological studies have come out in favor of that argument, and the data is solid. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary, of course, and nothing is concrete. But, the idea that violence is connected to pornography is scientifically supported and based.

It's too bad I sold my social psychology textbook. This is the second issue on which it would have provided citations for.

The same people who toss aside the value of studies are often only too happy to hold up their value when the results support their own conclusions.

 

Actually my argument was that porn encourages the objectification of women, but that can be directly linked to violence.

 

From a strictly legal basis, I don't care.

As far as whether or not porn should be acceptable in society -- I don't think the effects of pornography are usually particularly salutary, though I think in most reasonably well-balanced people it is unlikely to cause harm. In my ideal world, pornography would not exist, probably. But I think it's a choice involving an individual, his partner (if he has one at the time) and their moral/ethical beliefs, and that there's no reason to stigmatize porn -- that probably, doing so is simply harmful.

In terms of studies connecting porn to violence, I'd like some hard numbers, and I'd like details on how the study was conducted and what sorts of controls were used. The reason is that I question the assumption of causation here. A study could show that men who consume pornography are more prone to violence toward women. Or, depending on how the study was conducted, the very same data could indicate that similar personality traits can make a man wish to consume porn and also cause him to be violent toward women -- that it's not porn that causes violence, but that they stem from common traits. I'd be interested as to what sorts of techniques were used in studies on the subject to avoid such issues.

Either way, the argument is purely academic in my eyes. Like anakin_girl, I'm just never in favor of banning everyone from something simply because some people are irresponsible.

-Paul

 

The reason is that I question the assumption of causation here.

For my part, I'm quite sure that there's no such thing as causation between pornography and violence. Nothing provable, at least. Rather that there's a correlation between the two.

 

And there is a really fine line between "influence" and "causation" which I'm not quite sure how to define. Hmm. Must think.

Correllation? Very possible. I just question whether or not pornography provides any encouragement to the violence aspect.

-Paul