Victimless crimes

[azalea]

There is nothing immoral about nudity. I have no problem with nudity or skimpy clothing. Heck, the porn industry is part of the CAUSE of that being seen as immoral! It has to do with what the PURPOSE is -- a nude figure as art is beautiful, a magazine with photos shot for the purpose of sexual self gratification is harmful. I would love to walk around in this 90 degree heat without a shirt on -- too bad for me pornographers have made my breasts something "dirty" and "nasty" in the eyes of many men (who like the "dirtiness" and "nastiness"). This is not a moral issue (although I do have thoughts on the matter as a moral issue as well), it is a social issue. I mean why is it okay for women to be portrayed in pornography, but it isn't okay for computer images of children to be used? Just how far are you willing to let things go so that each and every person can get his jollies and another person can make a buck off of it?

Any reasonable person can see the difference between porn and art/ literature. Do you really think that the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights for that? Please!

[BeardofPants]

What's so harmful about sexual gratification, exactly? Educate this poor dumb beast please.

[Lizra]

(I wish I knew how to do the quote thing!)

Rana Eressea, please read my earlier debate with AE about why I think many women get involved in the porn biz.

Bop, very funny Capitalism has encroached on everything, and it's not necessarily a good thing!

Noldo. I meant exactly what you said, Homosexuality is a burden when straight laced society makes it so. Two people making or being in love is not a burden, its beautiful.

Jersy Devil, Yes it is my opinion, and I'm tired of defending it. I'll speak with my vote as usual.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea

Any reasonable person can see the difference between porn and art/ literature. Do you really think that the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights for that? Please!

The Bill of Rights was written for exactly that and was forced by the states to guarantee individual rights. Our form of government is set up so no single power can control or make haphazard changes based on whatever direction the wind is blowing for that day. That includes people just making moral judgements on society. John Adams, coming from Puritan New England, thought that Philadelphia was a city of sin because they had theatre, things were open on Sunday, etc. He would much rather have had his beliefs and morals forced on the US.

In terms of everyone can tell the difference between porn and artwork - obviously not everyone agrees with what is art and what isn't. The Brooklyn Museum was critisized by many people, including Mayor Guiliani, for the showing of "Mary covered in Dung". I have no idea what the actual name of the artwork was called. basically it was a painting of Mary with crap splattered all over the place. One person's art is another person's garbage. Who's morality should we use to decide this? Some people think that nudity in artwork is immoral - including artwork from famous painters such as Michelangelo.

The thing is - your not in the porn industry - and I doubt you know anyone in it. So why are you so upset by it? Don't buy the tapes, don't go to those kind of movies, don't buy the magazines. It's an indivual choice for people to be freely able to decide for themselves. By the way - there is porn magazines for woman too - so to say that woman also don't enjoy it, is completely false.

Just to let you know - the porn industry had nothing to do with making breasts "dirty" and "nasty". Religion, in particular religions like the Puritans, did that.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra

Jersy Devil, Yes it is my opinion, and I'm tired of defending it. I'll speak with my vote as usual.

That's good. I'm just saying that concenting adults should be able to do what ever they want to with their bodies. If someone doesn't want to watch porn, fine, if someone is into S&M fine. Just as long as it's between two consenting adults - it should be no one else's business.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

Just to let you know - the porn industry had nothing to do with making breasts "dirty" and "nasty". Religion, in particular religions like the Puritans, did that.

Yes!! Exactly.

And anyway, sex IS art. Not everybody is good at it...

"Mary covered in Dung"

We had a similar piece of work at Te Papa down in Wellington. It was Mary in a condom... Didn't take long for THAT piece to get thrown out!

[Lizra]

JD between two consenting adults, fine. Just get it off the magazine racks in the only bookstore in town, get it out of the video rental place, right there where my children can see it, and get it out of my computer. I know, I know, don't shop there, blah,blah,blah! I'm sick of someone elses sexuality being pushed in my face. Mary with crap all over her, oh please.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

We had a similar piece of work at Te Papa down in Wellington. It was Mary in a condom... Didn't take long for THAT piece to get thrown out!

The Brooklyn Museum fought it and won. Guiliani was threatenting to pull city funding from the museum - but it was determined that the mayor couldn't dictate what art was shown. The thing is - because of the publicity - the Museum had lines wrapped around the block trying to get in to see it.

[azalea]

Actually breasts were being covered long before the Puritans came along.

There is nothing wrong with sexual gratification, it's the fact that porn obectifies women -- hey here's a novel thought -- how about sex with a flesh and blood human -- that's a lot of fun, and better company than a magazine or computer or TV screen.

I'm not exactly "upset" by it (and funny you should mention but I actually do know someone in the porn industry), but I just am against it. I am simply stating my views and clarifying my points as they are argued against. I feel I do have a vested interest in the matter because, being a woman, I take offense that women are objectified in this way.

Hey, wasn't this thread about crimes, though? Since porn is legal, how about throwing out something that's illegal -- oh yeah what about my comment about computer generated child porn? That's illegal.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
JD between two consenting adults, fine. Just get it off the magazine racks in the only bookstore in town, get it out of the video rental place, right there where my children can see it, and get it out of my computer. I know, I know, don't shop there, blah,blah,blah! I'm sick of someone elses sexuality being pushed in my face. Mary with crap all over her, oh please.

Like I said before - if we were to remove everything that offended someone - we'd have NOTHING on the bookshelves or in the movie theaters or in the video store or on TV. Whether you feel it is immoral is your feeling - but why should I accept your morality being pushed on me? I'm for individual rights. I support the KKK being able to march - I hate them and what they stand for - but I support their right to do it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea
Since porn is legal, how about throwing out something that's illegal -- oh yeah what about my comment about computer generated child porn? That's illegal.

Actually the courts haven't ruled as to whether a computer modified picture that is made to look like child pornography is illegal or not. The last time I heard the courts were leaning toward that fake pictures don't constitute child pornography.

Or are you talking about real child porn? If you are - then that isn't exactly victimless since the child is not a consenting adult and legally can not make those decisions on their own. Unlike a woman in the porn industry or a prostitute.

[BeardofPants]

Bah! Objectification my heiny. Britney Spiers causes more havoc with her belly button baring, cleavage popping dance routines than any porn I know. I mean, look at all those 11 year old girls trying to dress like her, and look at all the older men oggling them! Ergh. And I'll say it again, WOMEN objectify as well! If you go to both Showboys AND Showgirls, which one has screaming hordes of people grappling with the stripper, and trying to rip the strippers costume off? That's right folks, Showboys. Women are notoriously bad for it! So don't harp on about objectification. It's a load of clap trap. I think the real issue here is that women are threatened by porn NOT because of the objectification, but because they feel they can't compete with some blonde bimbo. Oh, puh-lease. Maybe if you actually slept with the poor hubby on occasion, you wouldn't have to feel threatened by the porn industry!

Okay, flame away girls.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Bah! Objectification my heiny. Britney Spiers causes more havoc with her belly button baring, cleavage popping dance routines than any porn I know. I mean, look at all those 11 year old girls trying to dress like her, and look at all the older men oggling them! Ergh. And I'll say it again, WOMEN objectify as well! If you go to both Showboys AND Showgirls, which one has screaming hordes of people grappling with the stripper, and trying to rip the strippers costume off? That's right folks, Showboys. Women are notoriously bad for it! So don't harp on about objectification. It's a load of clap trap. I think the real issue here is that women are threatened by porn NOT because of the objectification, but because they feel they can't compete with some blonde bimbo. Oh, puh-lease. Maybe if you actually slept with the poor hubby on occasion, you wouldn't have to feel threatened by the porn industry!

Okay, flame away girls.

Wow - I'm speechless. I'm not even that ruthless.

Having said that - I've gotten into discussions with people complaining about Britney Spears. I really don't care what she wears. Britney is over 18 years old and before she turned 18 - it was between her and her parent's what she did or wore. As far as I'm concerned - it's the PARENT"s resposiblity as to what their children wear. I'm sorry - but clothes for a 10 year old - doesn't just appear in their closets out of thin air. I do think it's completely sick that parents would let their kids that young out like that.

There was a backlash against some department store's commercial out here. It had the daughter getting ready to leave the house for school and the mother stops her and goes- "You're not leaving the house like that" and then the mother tugs her jeans down lower below the waist and says "Now that's better". To me that commercial was far worse than pornography. The company ended up pulling the ad because of the outrage.

[BeardofPants]

Wow - I'm speechless. I'm not even that ruthless.

Thanks JD. Being a woman, I guess I've got more leeway.

I really don't care what she wears.

Just to put it out there, I don't care either. But I thought it was a valid point to mention. People gripe about porn and their children getting their filthy mitts on some magazines in a store, and yet they send them out in revealing clothes?! Go figure!

To me that commercial was far worse than pornography. The company ended up pulling the ad because of the outrage.

My point exactly.

[Lizra]

oh Bop!!!! I think you need to spend some serious time viewing some serious porn. Britney spears and showboys is nothing. Also spend some serious time living with a male (maybe twenty years?), Honestly, I don't think you know what you're talking about here.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lizra
oh Bop!!!! I think you need to spend some serious time viewing some serious porn. Britney spears and showboys is nothing. Also spend some serious time living with a male (maybe twenty years?), Honestly, I don't think you know what you're talking about here.

Oh, you gonna patronise me cos I'm young and stoopid? I assure you, I know what porn is like. And just cos I haven't lived with a horny male for 20 odd years doesn't mean I don't know what I'm missing out on... er... yeah!

Later edit: And the point about Britney Spears was that young girls try to emulate her, and then older boys/men objectify them! I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the men of society oggling women who are over the legal age.

And the point of showboys was to merely point out that women are pretty good at objectifying as well. Strange that you never hear men complaining about it.

[Lizra]

Get real!!!! I'm not patronizing you. I'm saying you are full of it if you think I'm threatened by some blonde bimbo faking it. Ha!!What a load of crap. I certainly don't need my husband chasing me around the house 24hours a day because he's artificially horny from looking at the pictures of the blonde bimbo with the lip gloss. (the usual 12 hours will do) Just you wait!

[BeardofPants]

*pencils in being chased around by horny BF... 8pm*

[Cirdan]

Yes BoP, I think she is right. She wasn't patronizing you, she was being condesending.

But beyond that, aren't there men in some of the porn? Why obsess about calling it "objectifying women" and just say it objectifies people?

Sexual inconpatibility can be a big problem with couples. There are plenty of women who enjoy frequent sex and some males that don't (although popular culture says it's the other way).

I've been lucky, at least on that count.

If your husband is checking out porn 24 hours a day, then that wold be a bit on the deviant side.

Porn is sexual seasoning. Too much spoils the main course.

[Lizra]

he's not veiwing porn, he's chasing me! I am not bland,I'm naturally well seasoned, no porn needed thank-you, (condescending, hmmm I might try that word....}