PORNOGRAPHY

[JOEBIALEK]

On this 50th anniversary of Playboy Magazine, perhaps a discussion of pornography is appropriate.  Pornography is defined as
sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.  Those who promote it believe they are exercising their right from the first amendment of the United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The delicate question before us goes beyond the legal justification for allowing anyone to speak or write about anything they choose to.  It speaks to the moral and ethical ramifications of such an enterprise.  Our society today is inundated with references to sexuality in any medium we experience.  The often quoted justification is that "sex sells" and therefore if marketing outlets can somehow equate a material purchase with sexual gratification, then some hidden unmet need will be satisfied.  This is Freudianomics at its worst.  Sex is promoted today as a means to an end and not the expression of love between consenting adults.  Pornography portrays sex as some lustful hedonism with little regard for the potential outcome of such an experience.  Still, millions of people purchase it for their own sexual stimulation.  They believe that since those being filmed are consenting adults there is no harm to anyone.  Assuming there is mutual consent among the actors, what is the difference between paying them to have sex with each other and paying a prostitute to have sex with you?  Whether you favor or oppose pornography, it is this country's obsession with sex that is the root of the problem and the unfortunate consequences it produces.   Until we as a nation can collectively mature out of this sexual pre-occupation we will be trapped in our own national adolescence.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Uh... ok.

Happy birthday Playboy!  WOOHOO!

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

On this 50th anniversary of Playboy Magazine, perhaps a discussion of pornography is appropriate.  Pornography is defined as
sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.  Those who promote it believe they are exercising their right from the first amendment of the United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The delicate question before us goes beyond the legal justification for allowing anyone to speak or write about anything they choose to.  It speaks to the moral and ethical ramifications of such an enterprise.  Our society today is inundated with references to sexuality in any medium we experience.  The often quoted justification is that "sex sells" and therefore if marketing outlets can somehow equate a material purchase with sexual gratification, then some hidden unmet need will be satisfied.  This is Freudianomics at its worst.  Sex is promoted today as a means to an end and not the expression of love between consenting adults.  Pornography portrays sex as some lustful hedonism with little regard for the potential outcome of such an experience.  Still, millions of people purchase it for their own sexual stimulation.  They believe that since those being filmed are consenting adults there is no harm to anyone.  Assuming there is mutual consent among the actors, what is the difference between paying them to have sex with each other and paying a prostitute to have sex with you?  Whether you favor or oppose pornography, it is this country's obsession with sex that is the root of the problem and the unfortunate consequences it produces.   Until we as a nation can collectively mature out of this sexual pre-occupation we will be trapped in our own national adolescence.

There are pros and cons to your argument, as with any argumentatio/persuasion issue. Are you referring to the population explosion when you speak of the "root of the problem?" You refer to Freudanomics, I and anyone can get all the porn we want off the internet for free. Not all websites cost money.  I find myself trapped in my Adolescent urges. The true root of the problem, my friend, is the existence of Evil and all its SIN that TEMPTS US. There is a DEVIL, SATAN, LUCIFER. He has two favorite things by which he likes to tempt us with: Musical Lyrics and Sex. Then, money, money, money. There are 7 Deadly Sins the Holy Bible speaks of. I have already experienced a number of them.

[Demrepdan]

What the HELL does this topic have to do with the 2004 Presidential Election? Have they found nude pictures of Howard Dean or something?

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

What the HELL does this topic have to do with the 2004 Presidential Election? Have they found nude pictures of Howard Dean or something?

Yeah, Dean and Al gettin' down in Harlem or Harum!
I agree it really belongs under General Discussion.

[jravnsbo]

So that's why he is not releasing those VT Gov Documents!!

What the HELL does this topic have to do with the 2004 Presidential Election? Have they found nude pictures of Howard Dean or something?

[© Tweed the Younger]

So that's why he is not releasing those VT Gov Documents!!

What the HELL does this topic have to do with the 2004 Presidential Election? Have they found nude pictures of Howard Dean or something?

Haha....

[migrendel]

Pornography is really an issue which continues to baffle legal analysis. The future of the First Amendment may be partially defined by the doctrine of obscenity. I suppose the best way to confront it is to view it from the perspective of the test to define something as obscene, the Brennan doctrine, as articulated in Fanny Hill v. Massachusetts. In this case, John Cleland's 1749 novel, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, a landmark of British literature, was found unfit for readership in the Commonwealth. It was contended that it was nothing more than well-written pornography. The Supreme Court refused to allow the ban to continue. It is very hard to quibble with a decision freeing an acknowledged work of literature from censorship, but the test used to free it was objectionable. The test delineated three criteria used to determine whether something was obscene. It had to (a) be utterly without redeeming social, literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (b) be patently offensive and (c) appeal to a prurient interest. This is different from the even more repressive common law obscenity doctrine in Regina v. Hicklin, but still in conflict with a free society. Utterly without value. Clearly harsh words for anyone to attach to a work of literature. But they have been considered germane to brilliant literature. For example, James Joyce's Ulysses was found obscene by several Massachusetts courts in the 1920s and 1930s. It took a judge of truly cosmopolitan outlook, James Munro Woolsey, to free it from the constraints of church and state, saying "nowhere do I detect the leer of a sensualist". Lady Chatterley's Lover, perhaps one of the seminal exploration of sexuality, class, and society in the canon, was supressed for many years. Unable to publish it in his native England, D.H. Lawrence had to publish the book in Italy. It was illegal to import into this country until 1960, when Judge Frederick Van Pelt Bryan found a claim of obscenity unsupportable. While Constance Chatterley's gamekeeper and lover, Oliver Mellors, does use a prepondrance of old Anglo-Saxon words in several parts of the book, they really are integral to the character's development and are an accurate reflection of the Derbyshire vernacular he speaks. Why I have chosen these two books, out of the many classic works of belles lettres that were once objected to by parochial minds, is that these two struck me as never needing to have been considered obscene, and every day they were kept from readers was a loss. I suppose the point of that lengthy analysis of the first prong of the Brennan Doctrine was to say that the books that are realized to be brilliant are found to be obscene under that same standard. While nothing stops those books from being sold in any bookshop today, there may be a case of a book that is truly remarkable but fails to gain the imprimatur of the state, and languishes until enlightened minds rescue it. What a shame if the Brennan Doctrine causes that. The second prong's problem is similar to that of the first. What can we call obscene without a fair degree of being arbitrary? For example, the FCC, in accordance with the Brennan Doctrine, found the adjective ing as in "This is so ing great." to not be repressible under the obscenity doctrine, because the use, in context, was not prurient, a condition that need be met. Congressman Doug Ose, citing the usual family friendly malarkey, is now pushing a resolution which will radically expand the concept of obscenity in broadcast media. His resolution will ban seven words or phrases, in all their grammatical forms, from the airwaves. (If you don't wish to read what will be illegal, or such words offend you, you may want to skip over the next few lines.) The words and phrases which will be banned per se are sh**t, piss, , cunt, asshole, mother er, and cock sucker. Now I don't tend to use those words. I'm not looking down on anyone who does, but it's just not my speaking style. I do however see the threat to liberty in banning them. Those words express ideas. Because of that, their place in the First Amendment is clear. I won't address the third prong in the Brennan Doctrine because its meaning is pretty self-explanatory. I would however, like to write about a narrower issue of obscenity, pornography. Pornography really does express an idea. It expresses in general, themes of eroticism and sensuality. An example of pornography might contain other themes (e.g. bondage, dominance, etc.). I could only see it is as a variant of speech that, while not exulted like the freedom of the press, should nonetheless be part of the discourse in a free society. The only way to protect this is to expand on the current protections and say that pornography should be legalized for public consumption, without the governance of obscenity laws, and the possession of pornography within the home should be protected under the right to privacy. I suppose such a change in the law would incite controversy, but it's the only way to live to those words in our founding document "...make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."

[Lunar]

Why is it that 95% (over 40 times) of the time I click on "Online Users" this thread shows up on the first page, being viewed by some Guest?


Are you "Guest" losers really searching on Google for "PORNOGRAPHY JOHN KERRY OHIO WEST VIRGINIA MARGINS OF ERROR" or something?  Can one of you endless guests explain this to me please? This is like the worst website to get turned on in the universe yet I've seen this thread viewed more than any other thread (including my awesome sig)

[Harry]

Playboy isn't really porn, obviously.

[Tik]

If you bother to read migrendel's giant brick of words, you'll find some key phrases that are likely to give a wide range of wank-related search results.

[Matt Damon™]

Playboy isn't really porn, obviously.

Go back to GBS/ADTRW/4chan already.

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

If you bother to read migrendel's giant brick of words, you'll find some key phrases that are likely to give a wide range of wank-related search results.

Yes, for guys who do that things on blogs or forums. Personally, when I see such bricks, I don't read. Please, be aware that when you post on a forum it's to communicate with other people, and so, get information about what are paragraphs.

Then, pornography. For teens it seems to be something fully normal. For the best things, it shows sex as a gymnastic, for the worst ones as a wild violent thing.

According to the huge thing that becomes pornography today, I really wonder on the future of sexuality...

And, yes, if Playboy is porn, it might be the lowest level of it.

[Hatman]

Why is it that 95% (over 40 times) of the time I click on "Online Users" this thread shows up on the first page, being viewed by some Guest?


Are you "Guest" losers really searching on Google for "PORNOGRAPHY JOHN KERRY OHIO WEST VIRGINIA MARGINS OF ERROR" or something?  Can one of you endless guests explain this to me please? This is like the worst website to get turned on in the universe yet I've seen this thread viewed more than any other thread (including my awesome sig)

Just for sh**s and giggles, I searched for those terms. Didn't get this page

ETA: Holy crap, this thread has over 18,000 views

[dialectical fetishist]

Why is it that 95% (over 40 times) of the time I click on "Online Users" this thread shows up on the first page, being viewed by some Guest?


Are you "Guest" losers really searching on Google for "PORNOGRAPHY JOHN KERRY OHIO WEST VIRGINIA MARGINS OF ERROR" or something?  Can one of you endless guests explain this to me please? This is like the worst website to get turned on in the universe yet I've seen this thread viewed more than any other thread (including my awesome sig)

Just for sh**s and giggles, I searched for those terms. Didn't get this page

ETA: Holy crap, this thread has over 18,000 views

Thats.... insane.

[Lunar]

Why is it that 95% (over 40 times) of the time I click on "Online Users" this thread shows up on the first page, being viewed by some Guest?


Are you "Guest" losers really searching on Google for "PORNOGRAPHY JOHN KERRY OHIO WEST VIRGINIA MARGINS OF ERROR" or something?  Can one of you endless guests explain this to me please? This is like the worst website to get turned on in the universe yet I've seen this thread viewed more than any other thread (including my awesome sig)

Just for sh**s and giggles, I searched for those terms. Didn't get this page

ETA: Holy crap, this thread has over 18,000 views

Thats.... insane.

SEE?!

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Why is it that 95% (over 40 times) of the time I click on "Online Users" this thread shows up on the first page, being viewed by some Guest?


Are you "Guest" losers really searching on Google for "PORNOGRAPHY JOHN KERRY OHIO WEST VIRGINIA MARGINS OF ERROR" or something?  Can one of you endless guests explain this to me please? This is like the worst website to get turned on in the universe yet I've seen this thread viewed more than any other thread (including my awesome sig)

     Yeah, I've always wondered why the googlebots were so perverted.

[© Tweed the Younger]

most of the guests are robots.  a good amount of robots probably look for porn.  they get caught up here.

[Nixon in '80]

I originally found uselectionatlas when I Googled:

"Pornography" "redress of grievances" "sexual gratification" "Freudianomics"

I have very specific needs...

[Lunar]

I originally found uselectionatlas when I Googled:

"Pornography" "redress of grievances" "sexual gratification" "Freudianomics"

I have very specific needs...

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMB_enUS291US304&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q="Pornography"+"redress+of+grievances"+"sexual+gratification"+"Freudianomics"


It also takes you to the forum for the Santa Cruz Sentinals and www.physicsforums.com

[Lunar]

GUESTS ARE STILL FREQUENTLY VISITING THIS THREAD

[Old Europe]

Pictures please.

[Nixon in '80]

Pictures please.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Gee... uh....pornography....

I haven't used pornography for two weeks. It feels kinda wierd...

[Earth]

...

The delicate question before us goes beyond the legal justification for allowing anyone to speak or write about anything they choose to.  It speaks to the moral and ethical ramifications of such an enterprise.

Which are?

... Sex is promoted today as a means to an end and not the expression of love between consenting adults. 

Who's to base what sex should be? Religious institutions? The government? I don't see the need to see sex as purely an "expression of love" to be the only valid one.

Pornography portrays sex as some lustful hedonism with little regard for the potential outcome of such an experience.  Still, millions of people purchase it for their own sexual stimulation.  They believe that since those being filmed are consenting adults there is no harm to anyone.

Implied in your wording is the idea there is harm due to that perception. What is it?

Assuming there is mutual consent among the actors, what is the difference between paying them to have sex with each other and paying a prostitute to have sex with you?

What does it matter?

Whether you favor or oppose pornography, it is this country's obsession with sex that is the root of the problem and the unfortunate consequences it produces.   Until we as a nation can collectively mature out of this sexual pre-occupation we will be trapped in our own national adolescence.

What problem, specifically? Nations have nothing to do with it, biology does.