The SCOTUS hands Pr0n lovers a huge victory

[Captain X]

^and even that question depends on who you're asking it about.

 

[Rii]

For what it's worth, SCOTUS previously upheld a judgment from the 7th Circuit in which the argument that pornography objectifies women and contributes to continued discrimination against them in wider society went not only unchallenged, but acknowledged:

Wrong

I wasn't aware that Nina Hartley was a judge for the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

And that's coming from a radical feminist. If you look, you can find plenty of female porn stars talk about how they like (or liked the business if they retired), how they felt anything but objectified, and enough reasons for why they got into it to fill a book. Some like the sex (imagine that, women enjoying sex ) and/or the money, and some of the older ones will even comment on the friendship they had with their fellow stars. Not everyone is going to have the same outlook on sex and sexuality, so while some may find it objectifying, others, including those who are in it, do not.

Never claimed otherwise. My point was that Augustus' arguments here aren't the sole purview of religious nutjobs as has been the implication from many in this thread.

 

[Pingfah]

^and even that question depends on who you're asking it about.

Absolutely yes, i'm no fan of the porn industry as a whole actually, nor a great deal of the material it produces, but porn doesn't have to be exploitatively produced, nor does it have to depict subordination of any kind.

Such suggestions betray a lack of understanding of the nature of what pornography is.

 

[Rii]

Whether the porn industry is exploitative and produces exploitative material is an entirely different question as whether pornography is morally wrong.

Agreed, not sure what that has to do with what I posted though. These aren't my views, merely putting them on the table. For those interested in feminist arguments against pornography, Andrea Dworkin and the anti-pornography ordinance she co-authored are good places to start.

 

[msbae]

Um, there's really no way this could be enforced even if it *did* pass without unacceptably draconian measures.....

That's probably why the SCOTUS shot it down.

 

[msbae]

Yeah, it's kind of one of our basic American Values.

haha, doing what you want as long as no one else gets hurt certainly not one of those basic American values...

Being free to do with my life as I please (as long as no one else's rights are infringed and the laws aren't broken) is the very cornerstone of American Civilization.

 

[The Borg Queen]

If you're concerned that pornography objectifies women, I suggest you stick with gay porn. No women there!

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Exactly.

For those interested in feminist arguments against pornography, Andrea Dworkin and the anti-pornography ordinance she co-authored are good places to start.

She's not the only person who calls herself a "feminist." Throughout history, women have fought for the Right to free love, nudity, pornography, et cetera; in fact, for those too young to remember, the Women's Lib movement of the 60s was part of the Sexual Revolution and supported all these Rights.

 

[msbae]

Unlikely, the truth still stands that many of you are not even willing to admit the damage it does to your selves. All that pornography does is put the body and its passions at the forefront and makes you subject to those desires. I still say what I said before. Your refusal to quit it even for a time is proof enough that is thing to be avoided.

I hope that someday this will not be the case.

By the way, I feel like I should repeat something I said in a previous thread. I do not mean to sound like I think I am perfect, everyone has problems and weaknesses. Everyone struggles with something.

While I dislike Porn now, that hasn't always been the case. I have given the idea of watching Hardcore Porn the ol' College try. It didn't damage me.

My only reaction was these particular thoughts:

'There's no way that girl can really be enjoying what she's doing here. That guy is cramming his unnaturally large phallus up her ass! That has to hurt! How desperate for money could she have possibly been to start doing this stuff for a career?!'

You can laugh at that if you want, even if it wasn't meant to be funny. Porn brings with it many dangers but, I don't want the Feds getting involved. Like virtually every other time they interfered in something, they will almost certainly make things worse.

 

[msbae]

Unlikely, the truth still stands that many of you are not even willing to admit the damage it does to your selves. All that pornography does is put the body and its passions at the forefront and makes you subject to those desires. I still say what I said before. Your refusal to quit it even for a time is proof enough that is thing to be avoided.

I hope that someday this will not be the case.

By the way, I feel like I should repeat something I said in a previous thread. I do not mean to sound like I think I am perfect, everyone has problems and weaknesses. Everyone struggles with something.

Based on your posts, you're the typical religious zealot who is too wrapped up in telling everyone else what they're doing wrong, rather than worrying about your own life. I enjoy drinking alcohol and laugh at those who turn their noses up at me for doing so. I also like to drive fast on the Interstate and eat "bad foods". Checking out naked chicks is also enjoyable. Now, unlike what you think, I don't drive drunk, I'm not a sex offender, and I treat my fellow man with kindness that you and your religious ilk most likely do not. Rather than pointing out the speck in my eye, worry about the log in yours

AMEN!

 

[msbae]

the married couple themselves? That is a little odd. but saying that is wrong would be kind of like saying that seeing yourself in the mirror naked is wrong.

All of you will hate what I am about to say, but here it is.

I think I should explain where I am coming from on this topic. I am very active in my church. A part of worthiness to participate in ordinances and such is to be moral, part of which is to be free from viewing pornography.

Much of my understanding of the subject comes from these teachings and from personal experiences. The teachings state that personal purity comes from saving sexual relationships for marriage and even then marriage is not a pass to do whatever a perverted mind can imagine. So while pornography shouldn't be illegal, it does not help anyone find happiness because it is not based on correct principles. And you are all thinking "correct principles according to me". But think for a moment on what you can and cannot build a society on. If we all were to start over from scratch somewhere far far away from earth with little resources, I think we would agree that selfishness, self-centeredness, and lack of discipline would be things that we would not want to build our society on. But these are the kinds of feelings pornography fosters. It doesn't do anything for anyone but yourself. It satisfies YOUR lusts, YOUR desires as if those were the most important. As I said in another thread, in the end, doing the right thing often comes down to not doing what we want to do, and not following our first impulse, which is exactly the opposite of what pornography teaches.

I have seen a few of my friends get involved in pornography, one of my brothers has a very strong addiction that is ruining his marriage. One of my non-religious friends from high school who used to look at pornography all the time, said that he had a hard time looking at a woman as anything other than a vehicle for his sexual appetites. Another friend broke up with his girlfriend because she wouldn't act out what he had seen on some pornographic movie. I could relate other experiences. These are not extreme circumstances, they are pretty common, which is why I said earlier that I was curious if any of you that viewed pornography would be willing to "quit" for awhile to prove me wrong. I have no takers yet.

So while you may have the situation above where a married couple uses pornography together and both enjoy it, the truth is, pornography is not a happy uniting thing that brings couples and people together and helps them have a healthy sexual relationship. How can it be? How is looking at other naked women going to help my love my wife? How is viewing porno going to help me to treat the women around me with respect and dignity in action and thought? Sure, there are isolated incidents where people will say that pornography does no harm and their spouse is fine with it.

But that is the exception and not the unfortunate rule. The truth is it is a perversion. Not punishable by law, unless children are involved. And I think we would all agree that child pornography is most distasteful and should be punishable in most circumstances. Nevertheless a perversion, which if we are honest in a desire to do what it right and respect others, one that we would avoid.

I've known people who ended up in Porn and are on some kind of drugs too. I still don't want the Government involved. Also, are you Catholic or some kind of Calvinistic Protestant? I'm not being critical, just curious.

 

[Augustus]

Well I am not sure why people are saying I want to government involved as I have said repeatedly that I don't see how this could be enforced and making it illegal would probably only fill jails with a bunch of people who don't belong there.
Maybe government making it harder to access but that is it from the government.

As to my religious beliefs, I belong to the LDS church.

I seem to have also been called a "fundamentalist". Maybe I am compared to most on this board. But I always thought of a fundamentalist was someone who took extreme measures to enforce their views. The only measures I have taken are posting on this board and express my opinion.

 

[Sephiroth]

*clears throat*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6fjAxj3zek&feature=related

 

[msbae]

Maybe government making it harder to access but that is it from the government.

Yeah, right. Some idiotic bureaucrat in Washington is going to keep a Computer Nerd such as myself from accessing something online...

As to my religious beliefs, I belong to the LDS church.

Well, that explains the whole 'Sex is for marriage' point of view. Although, I would've sworn Mormons were kinky deep down inside. Why else would Joseph Smith want to have 2 wives, besides the additional help with household duties? Frankly, having more than one wife is a BAD idea and I'm glad LDS doesn't condone that anymore. Dealing with one woman is difficult enough.

 

[Amaris]

As to my religious beliefs, I belong to the LDS church.

Ah HA! That explains your crazy, crazy views about sex and nudaditity!

(I kid, I kid. I have great respect for Mormons and the LDS church).


J.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ "Back in the sixties he was part of a free speech movement at Berkeley. I think he did a little too much LDS."

 

[Rii]

She's not the only person who calls herself a "feminist." Throughout history, women have fought for the Right to free love, nudity, pornography, et cetera; in fact, for those too young to remember, the Women's Lib movement of the 60s was part of the Sexual Revolution and supported all these Rights.

Oh for God's sake, is there something in the water today? I didn't imply that all (or even a significant proportion of) feminists held this view of pornography, merely that some do and indeed pursued this angle, with some degree of success, through the courts.

 

[Augustus]

As to my religious beliefs, I belong to the LDS church.

Ah HA! That explains your crazy, crazy views about sex and nudaditity!

(I kid, I kid. I have great respect for Mormons and the LDS church).

Why thank you


J.

^ "Back in the sixties he was part of a free speech movement at Berkeley. I think he did a little too much LDS."

I always enjoy that line

 

[Captain X]

I wasn't aware that Nina Hartley was a judge for the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Yes, and I'm really sure those judges would know all about the porn business and how it degrades women, from their vast experience being in it.

Never claimed otherwise. My point was that Augustus' arguments here aren't the sole purview of religious nutjobs as has been the implication from many in this thread.

You're saying the judge can't be a religious nutjob or at least, you know, wrong? Seems to have an axe to grind to me.

Agreed, not sure what that has to do with what I posted though. These aren't my views, merely putting them on the table. For those interested in feminist arguments against pornography, Andrea Dworkin and the anti-pornography ordinance she co-authored are good places to start.

Feminists think all sex is rape, and that blowjobs in particular are bad because the represent a man being dominant over a woman, ignoring completely that any man in such a position is at his most vulnerable, what with his pecker in someone's mouth, which presumably has teeth in it. But them feminists are bogged down by their own dogma and don't seem to have much use for logic and reason either. Though really those people are more fem-nazis than feminists. I'm a feminist – I support equal rights for women, as well as equal responsibilities (as in registering for the draft, going to war, etc). I'm loath of double standards...

'There's no way that girl can really be enjoying what she's doing here. That guy is cramming his unnaturally large phallus up her ass! That has to hurt! How desperate for money could she have possibly been to start doing this stuff for a career?!'

Things stretch. And different people have different reasons for getting into the business. Ironically, Ovidie got into it by being against it and doing research to find something to destroy it with. Instead she found it had elements of feminism she could get into and wanted to be part of.

As for whether the people involved are enjoying themselves, the only kind of porn that interests me is when the people involved are enjoying themselves. If they aren't it kind of spoils the mood.

Well I am not sure why people are saying I want to government involved as I have said repeatedly that I don't see how this could be enforced and making it illegal would probably only fill jails with a bunch of people who don't belong there.
Maybe government making it harder to access but that is it from the government.

We think that because you're bemoaning the SCOTUS's ruling and the fact porn is so accessible, and keep going on about how horrible porn is and how no one should look at it, etc.

I seem to have also been called a "fundamentalist". Maybe I am compared to most on this board. But I always thought of a fundamentalist was someone who took extreme measures to enforce their views. The only measures I have taken are posting on this board and express my opinion.

fun⋅da⋅men⋅tal⋅ism [fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uh m]
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

fun•da•men•tal•ism (fŭn'də-měn'tl-ĭz'əm)
n.

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism

Close enough.

 

[Augustus]

Well then if I believe in fundamental principles and choose to try to live by them, then I guess I am a fundamentalist. In that first part of your definition it talks about the infallibility of the Bible, which is not what I believe.