Pornography

[MrFun]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


I don't know, can you really consider yourself an adult when you consistently crap your pants?

Damn people, when did this turn into John Ashsroft's Bible study group? Laugh a little, eh? I know it's Sunday and all, but c'mon.

Besides if I hadn't responded to MrFun I probably would have been accussed of ignoring him.

There are SOME people whom I never care to hear replies from.

[Jethro83]

I don't have a very high opinion of pornography at all.

Pornography trivializes nudity and sex to the extent that it loses meaning.

I do want to see a woman naked... when she is my significant other and our relationship gets to the point of such high amounts of trust. And I do want sex with her as well... as an act of undying love (I know... I'm too much of an idealist).

When the two people romantically involved trust and love each other enough to get naked together and have sex, it is a beautiful thing, as long as it is kept between the two involved.

But when its a public display, and the involved people know it is, then it is a completely repulsive sight to behold. And when someone looks at it, and other things like it continually, nudity and sex become trivial matters to them and then the values that make the more pleasurable side of human life more pleasurable are lost. And once they are lost, they are extremely hard, if not impossible to get back.

EDIT: I APOLOGIZE FOR COMMENT: "People who go off and pose nude, or have sex in front of the camera obviously don't know the meaning of trust, or love. Apart from their love of quick cash. " A LAPSE OF BRAIN ACTIVITY ON MY PART. SHAME ON ME!!! SHAME SHAME SHAME

[Provost Harrison]

Some of us don't have the luxury of having a significant other. So what else do we do?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
People who go off and pose nude, or have sex in front of the camera obviously don't know the meaning of trust, or love.

There's a difference between "trust and love" and "sex." There's a difference between "sex for emotional gratification" and "sex for physical gratification." Just because somebody engages in the latter does not preclude their ability to engage in the former (often simultaneously).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
Well I guess you've never seen the ads for women's underwear in the newpaper? You've never perused a catalog of Victoria's Secret -- how much is really left to speculate?

Please let me know when Victoria's Secret starts displaying one woman sprawled across two pages. Yes, I have seen Vicky's Secret, and while the pictures are definately titillating, they are not that similar to Playboy. In the pages of Playboy the photographs tend to be much larger and more defined. While you might be able to make out some nipples in VS, they are the purpose of Playboy.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that VS is primarily targeted at women, and is only incidentally a visual aid for men. Women in VS do not stick their posteriors up in the air, in the classic animal presentation for sex, nor do they hump various things, drip food or soap suds down their bodies, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I like Playboy. But like almost every other pleasure, it comes with a price. We shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist, just because we want to look at it.

Did the Sports Illistrated swim suit issue leave you vague clues as well?

SI's "Swimsuit Issue" is in the same catagory as Playboy. It is for men, not women. Here you're helping my argument.

What of the various Mtv videos with women in multiple stages of undress -- say, the video for that Moulin Rouge song where the perfromers wore articles of lingerie? Pick up an issue of Bazzar or Elle next time your at your local grocer and follow the trail of mysterious clues you find there.

And you think Playboy doesn't influence MTV videos and movies? Anyway, you're mixing media targetted at men and media targetted at women. The images of beauty targetted at women, IMO, are far more harmful, with almost nothing of benefit to the woman.

You know that Marylin Monroe could not get in Playboy today, don't you? Playboy doesn't accept models with natural breasts.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Some of us don't have the luxury of having a significant other. So what else do we do?

Keep looking. I still haven't found her yet either, but I'm not disheartened just yet.

[Ming]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
People who go off and pose nude, or have sex in front of the camera obviously don't know the meaning of trust, or love. Apart from their love of quick cash.

You are welcome to your opinion, but don't try to impress it on others. HOW THE HECK do you know what they think or feel.
They are people too... And the relationships they have with their lovers IS NO DIFFERENT than yours. You are against pornography... fine. I can respect that. But don't try to cram your ideas of morality on the rest of us. You don't have to buy it, or pose for it... But don't even try to paint those involved as people who don't understand the meaning of trust or love.
People just have different opinions on it then you do...

How arrogant on your part

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Ming




You are welcome to your opinion, but don't try to impress it on others. HOW THE HECK do you know what they think or feel.
They are people too... And the relationships they have with their lovers IS NO DIFFERENT than yours. You are against pornography... fine. I can respect that. But don't try to cram your ideas of morality on the rest of us. You don't have to buy it, or pose for it... But don't even try to paint those involved as people who don't understand the meaning of trust or love.
People just have different opinions on it then you do...

How arrogant on your part

Sorry about that. I was wrong. I wasn't thinking. I don't want to cram my ideas on anybody else, and I accept opinions of others. And I don't normally make assumptions, or pass judgement and I don't know how the said people feel. I could just kick my own butt for saying what has obviously made me sound so arrogant. Rest assured that it will never happen again.

Though I still don't think highly of porno, I don't want to stop anyone who wants to buy it, look at it, or even take part in it themselves. Its entirely up to them.

[MrFun]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Furthermore, I would like to point out that VS is primarily targeted at women, and is only incidentally a visual aid for men.
[QUOTE]

How much more convenient can you get for hetero men??

[Kaak]

I think excessive pornography corrupts the mind, and offer my roommate as proof.

[chequita guevara]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by MrFun
[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Furthermore, I would like to point out that VS is primarily targeted at women, and is only incidentally a visual aid for men.

How much more convenient can you get for hetero men??

Well let's see, it shows up free in the mail . . .

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Re: Pornography

Originally posted by David Floyd
Is it really a danger to children, or do right wing Christian-types blow it out of proportion?

Discuss - and I'd love to see Dr. Strangelove's opinion...

It endanger the kids by the way that it teach them a very phalocratic sex. Male complete domination, false female representation and no feeling.

But it teach whatever sex, that's very important for kids.

More clever & realistic sexual education is better than a porn through.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ming




You are welcome to your opinion, but don't try to impress it on others. HOW THE HECK do you know what they think or feel.
They are people too... And the relationships they have with their lovers IS NO DIFFERENT than yours. You are against pornography... fine. I can respect that. But don't try to cram your ideas of morality on the rest of us. You don't have to buy it, or pose for it... But don't even try to paint those involved as people who don't understand the meaning of trust or love.
People just have different opinions on it then you do...

How arrogant on your part

Well many people look at it as degrading, but I suppose it beats working in a sh*tty factory for pay and conditions. Which one is the most degrading? A lifestyle decision my friends, a lifestyle decision. I hate to say this, but I, erm, agree with Ming

[Sava]

The AMA (American Medical Association) released a study last year that showed that men between 35-60 had a lower risk of heart attack and lower blood pressure if they masturbated daily. It is also a good way to lower stress and promote sleep (women already knew this).

Think about it logically, what is life about? Reproduction! You must keep the machine in working order or else it gets rusty.

[Provost Harrison]

That's my risk of heart disease decreased