Should there be more regulation of pornography? - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-26-2005, 06:51 AM   #151
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


So, we should probably make guns, drugs and all those other things we don't want people to use abundantly available?

I think we would be smart enough to regulate something and educate the public as to its dangers.


what are the dangers of pornography? this appears to be your working assumption, yet i challenge you to find something as direct and clear as the dangers presented by drugs (addiction and death), alcohol (addiction, drinking and driving), guns (sole purpose is to kill someone), and cigarettes (cancer).

can pornography be a bad thing? of course. but it cannot be directly linked to clear, understood, dire consequences like we see in other regulated vices. in fact, i'd much rather have my 14 year old son looking at porn than freebasing crack cocaine, as the two aren't even comparable.

you view pornography as something seductive and bad for relationships; fine, good for you. but you are not free to push this viewpoint onto me and onto others if you cannot prove to me how my consumption of pornography somehow hurts you. you can do this with all of the above vices mentioned, and such vices are rightly regualated, but you cannot do the same with porn. my consumption of porn (hypothetically ... i'm really not all that into porn) does not harm you in any way, just like what i do in my bedroom does not harm you in any way, so you have no right to try to regulate behavior that has no measurable, quantifiable deleterous consequences.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 07:03 AM   #152
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 01:12 PM
As to the regulation of pornography, based on financeguy's recent posts, I think it is important to regulate the "sex trade," as it were, of young, frightened women who are traded, kidnapped, and abused into sex work. That is obviously wrong.

But I do agree with Irvine's post above. There's a hell of a lot of difference between a Playboy and a hit of crack. And while I have my own personal feelings about the place of porn in a relationship, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that porn is as harmful as drugs. There's no such thing, for example, as a casual, harmless heroin habit.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 08:15 AM   #153
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
As I have said numerous times before, so long as the people use what is available to them responsibly, or so long as the product available is one that will not:

-Cause any physical harm to other people
-Endanger other people's lives
-Or force others into doing something they don't wish to do

then it should remain legal.
This becomes a matter of (i) nexus and (ii) clear measurability of the harm.

With drugs, you see the needle in the arm and you see the body dead from an overdose.

With porn, the images remain with a person and they may act on them in obvious or subtle ways. Perhaps it takes a personal experience to understand the effects. Until then, we can just hope it doesn't affect us.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 08:24 AM   #154
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl


No, I don't consider it a national obsession except for the uptight extreme right wingers who are obsessed with wanting to control it more. Make it harder for people to get it and they'll want it more. It's psychology 101.
Taking it away wouldn't make people want it more. How could people want it any more than they already do? People who want it will continue to want it, while those who don't want it will be glad it's gone. Do you think that if it became illegal, people who normally wouldn't want it will suddenly want it? If so, please explain how that works. There's no "wanting it more" involved.

It is an obsession - this country is porn-obssessed.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 08:29 AM   #155
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Taking it away wouldn't make people want it more. How could people want it any more than they already do? People who want it will continue to want it, while those who don't want it will be glad it's gone. Do you think that if it became illegal, people who normally wouldn't want it will suddenly want it? If so, please explain how that works. There's no "wanting it more" involved.

It is an obsession - this country is porn-obssessed.


prohibition.

people drink less now than they did in the 1920s.

i also think your "porn obsessed country" characterization is inaccurate. no one's asking you to like porn, but you cannot take away someone else's right to porn.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 08:31 AM   #156
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


This becomes a matter of (i) nexus and (ii) clear measurability of the harm.

With drugs, you see the needle in the arm and you see the body dead from an overdose.

With porn, the images remain with a person and they may act on them in obvious or subtle ways. Perhaps it takes a personal experience to understand the effects. Until then, we can just hope it doesn't affect us.


you're still not answering anyone's questions.

how does one individual's consumption of porn create a cleare, measured danger to both that individual and to other individuals to the extent that it requries government regulation?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 08:43 AM   #157
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


prohibition.

people drink less now than they did in the 1920s.

i also think your "porn obsessed country" characterization is inaccurate. no one's asking you to like porn, but you cannot take away someone else's right to porn.
During prohibition, people who normally wouldn't have wanted to drink didn't suddenly desire to drink just because it was illegal.

My comment about this country being "porn-obssessed" has nothing to do with the fact that I don't like pornography. The country is indeed "porn-obssessed". What else do you call it when most movies have some sexual act depicted? Or when you can't drive down a major street without seeing an adult bookstore or billboard ad for a topless bar? Or when you can't turn on the TV without seeing a commercial in which bra & panty-clad women pose seductively to try to sell underwear (Victoria's Secret)?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 08:45 AM   #158
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:12 AM
First, I've never stated that we require government regulation. Second, I think I stated that the harm may occur in subtle ways (not the clear and measured danger you require).

It certainly would be easier to give you a porn = but I don't think that is helpful.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 08:46 AM   #159
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




you're still not answering anyone's questions.

how does one individual's consumption of porn create a cleare, measured danger to both that individual and to other individuals to the extent that it requries government regulation?
Many times have I read that sexual offenders are found to have had plenty of porn. That porn may not have "caused" them to commit the crimes, but it certainly fanned the flames.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 08:49 AM   #160
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


During prohibition, people who normally wouldn't have wanted to drink didn't suddenly desire to drink just because it was illegal.

My comment about this country being "porn-obssessed" has nothing to do with the fact that I don't like pornography. The country is indeed "porn-obssessed". What else do you call it when most movies have some sexual act depicted? Or when you can't drive down a major street without seeing an adult bookstore or billboard ad for a topless bar? Or when you can't turn on the TV without seeing a commercial in which bra & panty-clad women pose seductively to try to sell underwear (Victoria's Secret)?

i think you're dead-wrong on the first comment, but i can do a bit of research and find out.

none of those things you mentioned are pornography. it's maketing. stop buying those products if it ends you -- it's not the fault of the porn industry, it's the fault of the advertising industry.

as for movies, i see absolutely nothing wrong with the mature depiction of sexuality that you often see in European films. a bare breast, buttock, vagina or penis isn't necessarily sexual, let alone pornographic, but it becomes a testiment to this country's sexual immaturity that we can't see things without people shreiking about how it's porn. there was a french film called "Romance" a few years ago that i saw that had an erect penis, and then a condom on that erect penis. and the scene was a mature, adult conversation about sex. hardly pornographic -- rather, it was adult.

as for less mature movies, these then become sellings points and cheap ways to manufacture drama. the easiest way to create drama in any film, tv show, or even book is to have either a sex scene or a muder. instant drama.

you're conflating porn with many, many different things.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 08:54 AM   #161
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




prohibition.

people drink less now than they did in the 1920s.
I just saw something on TV in the last few days about legalization of marijuana in The Netherlands and how the majority of its users there are tourists, not the locals.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 08:56 AM   #162
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


none of those things you mentioned are pornography. it's maketing. stop buying those products if it ends you -- it's not the fault of the porn industry, it's the fault of the advertising industry.
Just because they're not created by the "porn industry" doesn't mean they're not porn. They are - they are soft porn.

The definition of "pornography is "obscene pictures and literature"

The definition of obscene is "offensive to modesty, indecent, filthy".
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 09:20 AM   #163
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Just because they're not created by the "porn industry" doesn't mean they're not porn. They are - they are soft porn.

The definition of "pornography is "obscene pictures and literature"

The definition of obscene is "offensive to modesty, indecent, filthy".
So you basically equate all depictions of adult sexuality with filth? Frankly, that is too limiting and repressed for me to even comment on further.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 09:30 AM   #164
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl


So you basically equate all depictions of adult sexuality with filth? Frankly, that is too limiting and repressed for me to even comment on further.
Did you read the definition of "obscene"? Offensive to modesty. And yes, I think anything offensive to modesty is wrong. If you met me, I am sure you would consider me a "prude". But that wouldn't bother me in the least. In fact, I would be glad that you had that image of me. I wasn't always that way.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 05-26-2005, 09:34 AM   #165
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Did you read the definition of "obscene"? Offensive to modesty. And yes, I think anything offensive to modesty is wrong. If you met me, I am sure you would consider me a "prude". But that wouldn't bother me in the least. In fact, I would be glad that you had that image of me. I wasn't always that way.
Yeah, I read it, and I can't relate to it. So if it you're too modest to see women in bras and panties then by all means avoid it as much as possible but understand that our society is unlikely to revert to the levels of modesty that you personally are comfortable with.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com