Pornography, Good, Bad or Ugly?

Discussions that deal with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: How should one live? What is right (or wrong) to do? What is the best way for humans to live?

Re: Pornography, Good, Bad or Ugly?

Postby Nick_A on May 11th, 2019, 10:58 pm 

Thanks only to the successes of modern progressive education we can agree that Michelangelo's statue of David can now be considered porn since we create our own reality. It is politically incorrect to discriminate between artistic nudes and porn. They are all the same. That's good to know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)
Nick_A
Banned User
 
Posts: 209
Joined: 09 Mar 2019


Re: Pornography, Good, Bad or Ugly?

Postby Lomax on May 12th, 2019, 7:43 am 

I'm a little perplexed because nothing in your (broken) link supports your claim, and nothing shows up on a Google News search either. Rachel Johnson made a similar claim recently about the publication of Lolita, conveniently overlooking that the right wing made efforts for decades to get this masterpiece banned from libraries, and it is under right-leaning governments such as that of Iran that the reading of it is still considered scandalous, as the work of Azar Nafasi documents. Nabokov did in fact have to go to a French pornographer to get the book published, because nobody could tell the difference at the time, as you allege they can't now. I don't see what this has to do with progressive educational establishments, other than the fact that all of society's ills are laid at their door, lately.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3703
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Pornography, Good, Bad or Ugly?

Postby Lomax on May 12th, 2019, 7:55 am 

On the difference between art and porn: Justice Potter Stewart famously said he couldn't define porn but "I know it when I see it". I think most of us, if we were being honest with ourselves, would have to concede the same about art. This doesn't mean there's no difference - it means lexicography is difficult. I have to add that this is only a problem for those who would outlaw or censure one and not the other.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3703
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Pornography, Good, Bad or Ugly?

Postby edy420 on May 12th, 2019, 7:28 pm 

Any object is observed from a perspective that is dependant on the observer.

I'm not aroused by a naked David. It's not pornography to me. (maybe to some)

As long as I don't look with lust, then I'm happy to assume I am not perceiving the object as pornographic. To me, a woman in tight clothes can be considered pornographic. When I see a woman naked, it triggers the exact same responses as when I see a woman in tight clothes. I don't care for colours. It's shapes that catches my eye.

Simply glancing means that she is just an attractive woman. But if I purposely look a second time, now I'm saying that I desire her (lust)and I'm now objectifying her in a pornographic way.

- it means lexicography is difficult. I have to add that this is only a problem for those who would outlaw or censure one and not the other.


What about from the individual perspective. Put simply, if it arouses you then it's pornographic. If it only excites you then it's art. Is there a need for a blanket rule, ie this is porn and that is not?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Pornography, Good, Bad or Ugly?

Postby someguy1 on May 12th, 2019, 8:08 pm 

edy420 » May 12th, 2019, 5:28 pm wrote:What about from the individual perspective. Put simply, if it arouses you then it's pornographic. If it only excites you then it's art. Is there a need for a blanket rule, ie this is porn and that is not?


Isn't that a bit subjective? How would you make that the basis of a law? And what is the difference between excitement and arousal? It's a distinction without a difference. And the slightest familiarity with the diversity of human sexuality would show that people are excited and aroused by the most unlikely things. I could mention furries, as one contemporary example. There are many others. One need only consult a list of paraphilias to see the extraordinary range of inanimate objects and perfectly normal activities regarded as sexually arousing by someone somewhere. I'll give a link, but modesty forbids my quoting too many of these. Someone might become excited. Or aroused.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias

Autagonistophilia, anyone? That's sexual arousal from being on stage or on camera. I dare say many of our famous actors and actresses have a touch of that. Not to mention some politicians.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 758
Joined: 08 Nov 2013
Lomax liked this post


Re: Pornography, Good, Bad or Ugly?

Postby edy420 on May 12th, 2019, 9:46 pm 

Isn't that a bit subjective?


Can you think of anyone better, who can say what sexually arouses you?

How would you make that the basis of a law?


It's already a law I try to abide by. Thou shalt not covet.

And what is the difference between excitement and arousal? It's a distinction without a difference.


I'm super excited about combat sports. But that excitement doesn't make me want to engage in sexual relations with someone, or objects. The difference with arousal is it entices you to engage in a sexual act. Its lust when you can not have what you sexually desire.

I choose not to watch Game Of Thrones because I'm aroused by the sexual activity. It has both excitement and arousal, for me at least. But not for others. I would rather label it drama/art than pornagraphy as a general rule. But for me personally it's Games Of Porns.

And the slightest familiarity with the diversity of human sexuality would show that people are excited and aroused by the most unlikely things....
Autagonistophilia, anyone? That's sexual arousal from being on stage or on camera.


If an inanimate object arouses you, then how is it not pornographic? Nothing is pornographic by nature, not even sex. To Catholics, sex is a Holy Sacriment in the name of God. If we see someone having sex, we look away. If we hear someone, sex is normal and honourary. Its how we perceive it.

Modern porn could be thought of as a play that depicts actors in the act of reproduction, ie art. But if the viewer is aroused then to them it is porn. Though unless it's educational or art, its most likely created with the intent of being viewed as porn.

I've seen some educational videos. To most people they are just that. But again not to me. Man this topic makes me realise how big my issues really are. I've watched them on YouTube with the purpose of being aroused. In my case sex-ed vids on YouTube are porn.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Pornography, Good, Bad or Ugly?

Postby Lomax on May 13th, 2019, 12:37 pm 

Lomax » May 12th, 2019, 12:55 pm wrote:I have to add that this is only a problem for those who would outlaw or censure one and not the other.

someguy1 » May 13th, 2019, 1:08 am wrote:Isn't that a bit subjective?

edy420 » May 13th, 2019, 2:46 am wrote:Can you think of anyone better, who can say what sexually arouses you?

It seems like we're agreed.

edy420 » May 13th, 2019, 2:46 am wrote:If we see someone having sex, we look away. If we hear someone, sex is normal and honourary.

Speak for yourself. Headphones at the ready.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3703
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Pornography, Good, Bad or Ugly?

Postby edy420 on May 13th, 2019, 1:43 pm 

For some reason I didn't complete the sentence,
If we hear someone then we tune out, sex is normal and honourary.


.. That doesn't make sense, probably why I left it.

Basically I agree with you. Background music works well too. As long as I don't have a cup to the wall or make the effort to tune in, I don't feel uncomfortable or aroused.

My main point is that sex is only pornographic if perceived that way.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ
Lomax liked this post


Re: Pornography, Good, Bad or Ugly?

Postby TheVat on May 13th, 2019, 8:31 pm 


I choose not to watch Game Of Thrones because I'm aroused by the sexual activity.


This comment incisively gets at why GoT is not porn. If sexual arousal is unwanted, if it's a distraction from one's engagement with the story and the characters, then you clearly don't perceive the series as truly pornographic. I have not watched the series* because that genre of fantasy isn't really my cup of tea, but I hear it's quite good if you go for that. Generally I find it distracting to develop too much of a feeling for a female character as an object of desire, not least because my ability to follow dialogue can become impaired....I don't think libido and verbal comprehension work well together for many men.





* did see one episode, and definitely experienced some arousal. Emilia Clarke is quite something.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7220
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Pornography, Good, Bad or Ugly?

Postby someguy1 on May 14th, 2019, 2:07 pm 

TheVat » May 13th, 2019, 6:31 pm wrote:I don't think libido and verbal comprehension work well together for many men.



Biological science has established that males only have sufficient blood flow to operate one head at a time.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 758
Joined: 08 Nov 2013
TheVat liked this post


Previous

Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests