[LINK] why calm, rational thought is required....

[Adam Todd]

At 10:24 AM 13/02/2007, Stewart Fist wrote:
>Craig writes:
>
> > sure they are. lots of porn viewers use the term porn or pr0n. they know
> > what they're looking at, they know what it's called.
>
>It's called 'erotica' when it is used in private or between consenting
>adults.  Porn is the label applied by those not involved in the sexual
>stimulation aspects, but experiencing the 'in-your-face' aspects.

Actually the definition of "pornography" means anything that offends a 
person.  It doesn't have to be sexual in nature.

<https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fpornography>por·nog·ra·phy 
/p r n gr fi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled 
Pronunciation[pawr-nog-ruh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having 
little or no artistic merit.

Of course the more common understanding is
pornography

noun
creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or 
artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire



So technically speaking, the house down the road with the bright pink pain 
job is pornographic because it offends me.

Except I'm tolerant, so there is a difference.

As to stimulating my sexual desires, I say GO FOR IT!

When people are sensually and sexually stimulated they tend to be nicer and 
happier people.  If people spent more time having sex than getting into 
debt, life would be so much more pleasant.


Those who don't have sex, like my father, tend to take out their 
unhappiness on the people around them.  Like in my instance, when my wife 
and I had a baby recently, he was most upset.  The mere fact that since 
2003 he has not been able to actually stop us having sex is to him 
pornographic.  Even though he doesn't watch us or have anything to do with us.

His desire is to interfere and try and break us up.

One might say his actions are pornographic in nature :)

One can certainly say they are bordering on criminal, if not.

> > unfortunately, however, some people go out of their way to find stuff
> > that offends them in order to be able to complain about it.
>
>Agreed. There are always extreme keepers-of-the-morals of the community who
>take it upon themselves to speak out. But isn't this true of all arguable
>aspects in our society.  You don't judge the mean by the extreme.

Yes we all like to argue our point of view.  But there are those who take 
it to the horses mouth and argue it with the person, and those that like to 
do it behind their back.

A proper formatted debate between intelligent adults is not only 
entertaining but educational.  I've been lucky to be part of a few good 
ones over the last two decades.

However, there are also those that troll :)

As to the extreme.  Not sure if we shouldn't judge the extreme.  Lets face 
it, if we don't judge murder and attacking foreign countries with bombs as 
extreme and therefore not common within our social behaviors, then we 
shouldn't have them as crimes or of concern.

However, those who complain about what they perceive as sexually immoral, 
tend to be those who are sexually inept.

Most people appreciate even the worst sexual photographs to some degree, 
although I think when it comes to X rated videos there is a division 
between those who can be bothered wasting their time to watch them and 
those that seem to enjoy them.

To me my limits are genuine children in sexual content, and animals.  If 
people want to beat each other up with leather straps or hang weights from 
their genitals, so be it.  I don't have to look.

What they do in their private life, and even share with others who are 
interested, is their business.

> > they lobby hard to get whatever they don't like banned so
> > that nobody can choose to look at it, even if they want to.
>
>Some do, many don't.  Religious zealots do this will all kinds of moral
>issues.  I am not religious, so that aspect doesn't worry me.  Except that I
>recognise their rights also, which includes the right to comment on the
>morals of others.  It only concerns me when they exert 'undue' power in the
>political sense, and these days I don't think they exert much -- in
>Australia, anyway.

I don't know.  Romance was banned for a while.  I eventually managed to see 
it and couldn't see what the fuss was about.  The real sex scenes were 
pretty uninteresting really.  Nowhere near as "in your face" as an X rated 
video.

I think it was the Birth Scene that upset people.  Seeing the baby's head 
crown and burst out.  Now that was great stock footage!  But I still feel 
that watching someone else's baby born is really ikky.  I love watching our 
videos, but I get a horrible feeling watching someone else's.

>But I am concerned with human rights, and so I seek a mean between those who
>would flood the society with offensive material for commercial or
>in-your-face reasons, and those who just want a quick vicarious thrill in
>the privacy of the little back room.

Well given that the PORN DVD sales in the USA Top $36 BILLION a year whilst 
mainstream Cinema block busters and Hollywood movies only top $4.6 billion 
in ticket sales and $4.8 billion in DVD sales, it's not hard to see that 
the public attitude towards porn is very different to it's consumption.


> > there's lots of things that are displayed publicly that i'd rather not
> > see (cricket, football, big brother and other sur-reality TV, etc). i
> > find these things at least as offensive as some people find pornography
>
>Craig is being disingenuous here.  When an argument becomes ridiculous, I
>opt out.

Well I do find that endless Cricket and Football on TV is offensive to me 
and my wife.  We really hate it.  But then sometimes, not often, there are 
things on the other channels.

Failing that, there is always sex!