• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What do you do with your porn?

Well, "Porn" is a subjective label that's meant to be derogatory.

I'm not sure that's the case.

It seems to me that, properly understood, pornography is an objective label. Like all labels, it can be misused, and frequently is misused: but abusus non tollit usum.

To borrow the definition from Wikipedia: "Pornography is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer." It has a particular content and a particular purpose.

This is what allows us to distinguish between Michelangelo's David, and, say, Mike and Joe Suck David's Meaty Cock.

There is nothing explicitly sexual about the former, even though it depicts a nude man. And, far from intending to sexually excite the viewer, it was intended to overawe the viewer--to embody the city of Florence, and to impress the viewer with the beauty and power and majesty of the city and its rulers.

One could argue, I suppose, that the statue is indecent--on the grounds that the genitals, for example, should always be kept hidden from view. But that wouldn't make it pornographic. If it did, every flasher would be a pornstar. Anyone who called it 'porn' would be committing a definitional fallacy.

Similarly, porn can actually fail in its intended purpose: I'm sure we've all seen bad porn at some point. And on the other hand, people are often aroused by things that were never intended to be arousing.

This is why authorial intention is so important. If we go strictly by consequences, then every woman who ever inadvertently exposed more skin than she intended would be a stripper. There's that definitional fallacy, once again.

There are many people who would define something like Nymphes et Satyr as Porn.

And they'd be wrong, for the reasons I outlined above.

As Orwell said, we must always be on guard against the abuse of language.
 
Nifty! Yet another thread in Misc devolves into the usual intolerant religious vs. the intolerant anti-religious discussion.

And I was hoping for a joke thread. :(

Don't worry, most of us are getting along just fine.
Relax. ;)

I'm not sure that's the case.

It seems to me that, properly understood, pornography is an objective label. Like all labels, it can be misused, and frequently is misused: but abusus non tollit usum.

To borrow the definition from Wikipedia: "Pornography is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexually exciting the viewer." It has a particular content and a particular purpose.

This is what allows us to distinguish between Michelangelo's David, and, say, Mike and Joe Suck David's Meaty Cock.

I think I saw that one...um, at a friend's house. He's gay and likes that kind of thing that I don't. I don't like that kind of thing. He's gay. But I don't like that kind of thing. He thought it was Star Trek VI and he was wrong. He's gay and he was wrong, because not only do I not like that kind of thing, he's gay and he does. Like that kind of thing I mean, not that I would know what he likes because he's gay and just likes that kind of thing, not that there's anything wrong with it, but I don't. :shifty:

There is nothing explicitly sexual about the former, even though it depicts a nude man. And, far from intending to sexually excite the viewer, it was intended to overawe the viewer--to embody the city of Florence, and to impress the viewer with the beauty and power and majesty of the city and its rulers.

One could argue, I suppose, that the statue is indecent--on the grounds that the genitals, for example, should always be kept hidden from view. But that wouldn't make it pornographic. If it did, every flasher would be a pornstar. Anyone who called it 'porn' would be committing a definitional fallacy.
I think it also cheapens the purpose of the art in question. If it's meant to be a beautiful rendering of power, design and aesthetic, it succeeds. If it makes a girl all sticky, then can it not also succeed in accomplishing another goal? But by calling it 'porn' we take away it's primary value, I believe.

Similarly, porn can actually fail in its intended purpose: I'm sure we've all seen bad porn at some point. And on the other hand, people are often aroused by things that were never intended to be arousing.
Locker Room Lolitas 3. Totally, totally worthless. Bushy mustaches and aviator sunglasses everywhere. Not what I anticipated.

This is why authorial intention is so important. If we go strictly by consequences, then every woman who inadvertently exposes more skin than she intends would be a stripper. There's that definitional fallacy, once again.

There are many people who would define something like Nymphes et Satyr as Porn.
And they'd be wrong, for the reasons I outlined above.

As Orwell said, we must always be on guard against the abuse of language.
Agreed.

Not that I like that kind of thing.



He's gay. :shifty:


J.
 
I think I saw that one...um, at a friend's house. He's gay and likes that kind of thing that I don't. I don't like that kind of thing. He's gay. But I don't like that kind of thing. He thought it was Star Trek VI and he was wrong. He's gay and he was wrong, because not only do I not like that kind of thing, he's gay and he does. Like that kind of thing I mean, not that I would know what he likes because he's gay and just likes that kind of thing, not that there's anything wrong with it, but I don't. :shifty:

:lol:

I remember the first time I saw gay porn: I was disappointed.

I was expecting it to be different, somehow, from straight porn. I mean, beyond the obvious differences.

That wasn't a rational expectation, I know, but I held it anyway.
 
There are many people who would define something like Nymphes et Satyr as Porn.
And they'd be wrong, for the reasons I outlined above.

As Orwell said, we must always be on guard against the abuse of language.
There's frolicking naked women and a satyr. I strongly suspect the artist intended a sexual component. :D But this is what I mean; it's great art, it's beautiful and it's sexual but calling it Porn is insulting. The term Porn is used as an insult.

I think it also cheapens the purpose of the art in question. If it's meant to be a beautiful rendering of power, design and aesthetic, it succeeds. If it makes a girl all sticky, then can it not also succeed in accomplishing another goal? But by calling it 'porn' we take away it's primary value, I believe.
This is what I mean. The term not only focuses on one aspect of the art, but establishes that one aspect as a negative.
 
This is what I mean. The term not only focuses on one aspect of the art, but establishes that one aspect as a negative.

Then let's call it smut!

Tom Lehrer said:
Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut,
If it's uncut,
and unsubt- le.

I've never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."

Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they're hard core.

(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)

Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.)

All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)

I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
thy.

Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,

Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.

Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don't let them take it away!
 
There's frolicking naked women and a satyr. I strongly suspect the artist intended a sexual component. :D

I don't know what you mean.

:shifty:

But this is what I mean; it's great art, it's beautiful and it's sexual but calling it Porn is insulting. The term Porn is used as an insult.

Certainly. I guess the difference between our two positions is this: I would say that the term porn is mis-used as an insult.

People who would call something like Nymphes et Satyr pornographic aren't just emphasizing one aspect of a work of art at the expense of its other aspects. They are actually calling an apple an orange, and pretending that the word "apple" means "orange"--like the people who compared President Bush to Hitler.

The misuse of this word is clearest in the case of movies like Hostel, which are described as "torture porn" or "gorno movies."

By calling it that, people imply that people who make and watch movies like that are degraded perverts who like to jerk off to the sight of people being tortured and killed. When personally, I found that movie anything but arousing.

In fact, to apply the term "porn" to such a movie is positively Orwellian, given the facts that:

--the movie was arguably a critique of sex tourism, in which the roles are reversed, and the objectifiers become the objectified;

--the generally puritanical tone of such movies, in which sexual promiscuity is punished with death.

Calling Hostel "torture porn" is as nonsensical as calling The Exorcist anti-Christian. William Peter Blatty was a conservative Catholic whose intention was to scare people back to church.

And to call a painting like Nymphes et Satyr pornographic would be similarly nonsensical.
 
Huh.. I never considered a sexual component to the term torture porn. I always took it as meaning "this is nothing but pandering to our base violent instincts in the same way that porn is pandering to our base sexual instincts." I never thought of it as "people are getting off on this."
 
^Really? That was the first thing that occurred to me. If it's not supposed to get you off, then why call it porn? In fact, the first time I heard that term, I felt personally insulted.

I have seen people use the term "pornography of violence" to mean what you describe. And IIRC, Andrea Dworkin tried to re-define pornography as something that was essentially violent.

But "pornography of violence," as I indicated above, abuses the word "pornography" by making it mean something it doesn't really mean. It's like using the term "cultural genocide" when you really mean "cultural assimilation."

Plus, Andrea Dworkin was nuts.
 
^^ Of course she was. :D I did always take "torture porn" to mean what Guartho says, though. Maybe I was wrong. Actually, I always thought the term was better applied to violence, because there is something twisted about enjoying violence, while there's nothing wrong with enjoying sexuality.

I see your point about it being a misused insult, though. I'm reminded of when my Mother used to refer to MTV as "a porno." :rommie:

And I do like Tom Lehrer's enthusiasm. :cool:
 
Ok, Ok

Camelopard, J. Allen and RJDiogenes quit all the smarty pants philosophical talk I'm trying to get my tug on and your killing the mood.
 
Ok, Ok

Camelopard, J. Allen and RJDiogenes quit all the smarty pants philosophical talk I'm trying to get my tug on and your killing the mood.

Hey, man--this thread was about other uses for porn.

Like philosophizing about it, for example. ;)
 
What do I do with my porn?

Why, masterbate to it, of course. What else would I do with it? And when I finally shuffle off this mortal coil, my survivors can take all of my porn, stack it high, and build a bridge pillar with it. It adds up over the years.

Forget all the artsy-shmartsy justifications posted on the last three pages. When it all comes down to it, at the end of the proverbial day, it's about masterbation. If you're watching people on-screen having an tit-sucking, cunt-fucking, cum-splattering good time, you're not thinking, "Wow, the plot really sucks.", you're thinking, "Holy Jesus Palominos, look at the jugs on THAT one!"; you're living vicariously through them for a brief shining moment of moist comraderie, then relieving the built-up tension with your hand(s) or what-have-you (don't gross me out by being specific), then have a smoke or a cookie or a nap or any combination thereof and then go on with your day.

And don't tell me that's not the way it ends for you when you watch porn, because I'll tell you (1) you're a goddamn liar, or (2, and more likely) you're not doing it right.

Now, look. Whether you're an early teenager just discovering the joys of puberty or a social wreck who hasn't spoken to a flesh-and-blood woman ever or, yes, a happily-married old fart like me, sometimes (a description with a wide range from "occasionally" to "thrice daily", depending on your stamina, privacy, and other factors) you just wanna rub one out because you got other crap to do and it feels good. For those of you who haven't yet learned, it is a paltry subsitute for the real thing; yet it has a certain appeal.

For one thing, you don't have to romance your hand (or device, or whatever). You don't have to buy it dinner, or give it a massage, or listen to it talk about its day and nod encouragingly at times and wait for it to get more receptive. You don't have to complete chores around the house to get it into a good mood, or have to wait until the kids are asleep (or, in one of the most extreme cases I've seen, your birthday or anniversary...)and hope for the best. Your hand never has a period, and is never upset with you about the way you did or did not handle something to its satisfaction, because you're not a telepath and it didn't give you specific instructions, goddamn it. It is the ultimate, the ULTIMATE, in time-management. And it never rejects you.

One of the other posters touched on something earlier, and I'd like to clarify. Porn allows you to watch your deepest, darkest desires be acted on the TV screen, or the magazine page, providing you have access to such. Things that you'd like to do, or see done to yourself and/or others, you can view in the privacy of your own home. Things that frequently violate state and federal (and sometimes even physical) laws. Things that might (and probably should) drive a flesh-and-blood woman screaming from your domicile into the night. Things that others wouldn't understand. Things they couldn't understand. Things...they shouldn't understand.

But thanks to porn, it's all good, and you can keep your perversions to yourself and enjoy them in private and have no one else be the wiser, and if you are lucky enough to one day find a woman who enjoys a good Tijuana Donkey Show, well then you can fire up the old DVD for her and thereby improve the quality of both of your lives. But until that happy day, it allows you to enjoy the more wicked and depraved things in life without running the risk of incarceration over little niggling things like sodomy laws, ages of majority, public indecency, and the like.

Also, I'd like to add a public service message here. Porn doesn't necessarily keep all pedophiles off of school-age kids, or all the creepy riff-raff out of bus terminals, but without porn to get off on there'd in all likelihood be a helluva lot more sexual sickness out in the public eye. Look at the rape rates per capita in Las Vegas, where prostitution is legal, versus the U.S. as a whole. Also, were prostitution legalized all across the United States of America, it can be taxed...thus allowing further revenue to help stabilize our poor economy. Good for us, good for America. It's all good.

And finally, to the religious folks...I believe in God. I believe you should always strive to do good and resist temptations to do bad. But above all, I believe that on the day I finally stand before The Man, as we all will at some point, he will look into my heart and soul and weigh my good and my bad, recognize that I am not perfect, and I do believe that my good does outweigh my bad. It's no sliding scale, I don't whack off to a Shannon Whirry film (take your pick, I recommend them all) then go help a little old lady across the street to counterbalance the moist deed, but if you think you can be all self-righteous (and what the hell are you doing posting in a porn-related thread in the frackin' first place, you hypocrite!) and holier-than-thou and judge us when there is but one Judge, then you're the one risking eternal damnation for usurping His holy prerogative, as many high-minded before you have been brought low and smited publically by their sins revealed, than those of us who accept the way we are and accomodate ourselves in that fashion, harming no one, NO ONE.

And, yes, I in general deplore the shameless objectification of women as receptacles of sexual desire...unless they've got really BIG tits.

So, raise your glass and drink deeply, then go over to YouPorn or your preferred site, enjoy thyself, then come back (after you clean your hands with soap and water...) and tell me I'm wrong.

That is, if I'm not banned from the BBS for life after this rant...
 
^^ That was an amusing essay. ;)

Camelopard, J. Allen and RJDiogenes quit all the smarty pants philosophical talk I'm trying to get my tug on and your killing the mood.
But the brain is the most important sex organ, after all. :cool:
 
Forget all the artsy-shmartsy justifications posted on the last three pages. When it all comes down to it, at the end of the proverbial day, it's about masterbation.

You know--you should actually read people's posts before you say things like this.

(You can read, can't you?)

If you do that, you might actually contribute something interesting to the discussion--instead of just flailing away at a straw man, and making yourself look like a fool.

It's spelled "masturbation," BTW. That's a common mistake among the poorly-educated.
 
Forget all the artsy-shmartsy justifications posted on the last three pages. When it all comes down to it, at the end of the proverbial day, it's about masterbation.

You know--you should actually read people's posts before you say things like this.

(You can read, can't you?)

If you do that, you might actually contribute something interesting to the discussion--instead of just flailing away at a straw man, and making yourself look like a fool.

It's spelled "masturbation," BTW. That's a common mistake among the poorly-educated.
Whoa, cool down there. Don't be insulting, please.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top