The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The woman and the octopus, or how anti porn activists sabotage their own message > Comments

The woman and the octopus, or how anti porn activists sabotage their own message : Comments

By Jennifer Wilson, published 14/9/2011

There is no reason to oppose all sexually explicit images, as if the sexually explicit in itself is dangerous and anti social.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Jennifer, I know you mean well, but I doubt that any of the disgusting individuals who produce or sell violent porn (as opposed to the usual porno sites) would agree to negotiate about anything.

I also doubt that it is that easy for children to access violent porn anyway.
Don't you need a credit card to actually see any of the real action on these sort of sites?
The apparently very active Houellebecq should be able to enlighten us on this point?
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 11:16:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
if people can't see that woman being pleasured by an Octopus or dog is not demeaning to humans then they are unlikely to face the truth when it comes to the effects of pornogrsphy on society. Anything to justify their sick little fettish.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 11:34:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suze -
I agree with you – there’s no possibility of negotiating with the producers of violent porn.

I was thinking more of attempting negotiations with people like Dines, MTR, Hamilton etc who want to ban everything they find offensive, and working out a classification and restricted access system instead of the internet filter they want so badly.

That might well be just as impossible, but when the only people engaged in the “debate” are the extremists from both sides, all we have is hysteria, and petulant demands that everything or nothing be allowed.

As to how easily violent porn is accessed, that depends who you’re talking to. Some people are certain that it’s very difficult to find, others claim that any ten year old can pull it up with one Google. The only way to really know would be to conduct some personal research, but I’m not about to spend any of my life trawling porn sites. So I opt for the middle ground and argue for safeguards.

I also think people looking for porn have a right not to be assaulted by violent images they don’t want to see. Just because you want to look at porn doesn’t mean you’ve relinquished the right to choose what kind of porn you want to look at.

Johnthecounsellor – there are many reasons why someone wants to avoid intimacy with a partner, some of them understandable, it depends on the individual context. If they can’t do this using porn, they’ll find another way. It’s too easy to blame porn for problems, when it’s an expression of a problem that already exists. Many people use work to avoid intimacy, or hobbies – are you suggesting we should all give up work and hobbies because of that?
Posted by briar rose, Thursday, 15 September 2011 7:55:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> I also think people looking for porn have a right not to be assaulted by violent images they don’t want to see. Just because you want to look at porn doesn’t mean you’ve relinquished the right to choose what kind of porn you want to look at. <<

Exactly.

Why is there such a knee(?)jerk reaction (by much the same OLO posters) whenever discussing the dark and dubious part of the porn industry?

Jennifer is not calling to ban ALL forms of porn - just the stuff which is really nasty like paedophilia, snuff films, some forms of bestiality (animals cannot give consent), clearly violent and degrading acts on people (is anyone really financially compensated sufficiently?).

It is a difficult subject and sexual imagery that doesn't bother me does concern the MTR brigade. Which is why a ratings system such as we already have for movies and books and even the .XXX domain I linked to previously would help.

I don't think we can eradicate the really degrading type of porn, but we can make attempts to restrict access to the types who enjoy seeing people sexually degraded (make it really expensive for a start which would hopefully mean the 'actors' would receive a generous payment).

As for masturbating to porn being akin to infidelity - what utter nonsense! Infidelity requires communication, relating to another person, planning, maybe even a lovely meal - entirely different to a quick wank.
Posted by Ammonite, Thursday, 15 September 2011 9:04:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“What is your problem with that?”
Firstly as you’ve expressed it, you’re going to “leave” “violent porn” to those who want to look at it, and offer some protection to those who don’t want to look at it.

But those who don’t want to look at it already have all the protection they need, without having to restrict anyone else’s liberty. Don’t look at it!

So what’s wrong with it is:
1. It restricts people’s liberty for no good reason
2. It entails state regulation of sexuality which cannot be anything but arbitrary.
3. It uses force and threats to do it – you’re not talking about a voluntary system, are you? You’re talking about a compulsory system backed up by fines and threats of imprisonment. The operative part of your scheme is no different to the operative part of banning something.

A classic example of the problem is how states have handled restriction of so-called “paedophilia”. In the USA, this is taken to mean nude pictures of anyone under the age of 18. But men’s desire to look at sexually mature young women is normal human behaviour, and now the sex Nazis have cast it in the same mould as a psychiatric criminal perversion, in the same moral category as raping four year olds!
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 15 September 2011 9:55:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Or what about the recent case in Australia, where a guy was convicted of having pictures of characters from The Simpsons having sex? We’ve reached the stage where the state is enforcing human rights for cartoon characters.

The state cannot be trusted to enforce sexual normality. The traditional wowsers have always seen sexuality as intrinsically abusive and a distortion of God's divine plan for monogamous marriage. They have now been joined by many feminists who regard all porn - ie pictures of sex - as intrinsically "violent" to women.

But rape and the abuse of children are already illegal, and there is no issue that that is as it should be. These laws are straight-out laws of sexual morality. They are inspired by the moral horror of the prurient intolerant, not by a desire to “protect” anything legitimate.

Everyone who wants to restrict others liberty for no good reason always calls their opponents “extremists”.

Since it takes political action to oppose the wowsersand busybodies either way, oppose them on principle for not having justified their desire to meddle in other people’s business just because they don’t like something! What’s to stop the state defining violent porn as meaning all pictures of sex?
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 15 September 2011 9:58:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy