posted 05-14-99 01:44 PM ET     

With the advent of the Internet it looks like anyone (any age) can get their hands on smut. Don't trust those "Cyberpatrol" programs, kids are not stupid, they know how to get around this stuff, and yes, even 5 years olds know a lot more than the parents imagine (I heard conversations between 6 year olds comparing the sexual habits of the Spice Girls).

Needless to say, here in North America is seems to be out of control. The authorities have basically given up on enforcing what gets in whose hands, and here in BC a judge recently ruled that we cannot deny anyone the constitutional right to possess kiddie porn.

posted 05-14-99 01:57 PM ET         

I think you need to define pornography first as I've yet to see a good definition.

That aside. My suspicion is not. Certainly non-violent porn just pictures normal love-making and such. So shouldn't corrupt anyone.

Other stuff is more controversial though and one wonders where a line should be drawn (if at all).

Where are you pitching this thread ? At adults looking at porn (including, or not, "kiddie porn") ? At kids getting access to porn ?

posted 05-14-99 02:10 PM ET         

However, I guess porn should be defined. I take it as "pictures of nekkid people and nekkid people doing stuff with each other". Kind of a silly definition, but I think you know what I mean.

posted 05-14-99 02:18 PM ET         

You mean doing things with a red hot pok.. err... let's not go down that road.

You figures surprise me as I was under the impression that where porn is freely available then the public are not so het up about it and the rate of sex related crimes go down. But don't ask me where I got this impression from. Do you have figures comparing, say, Holland with Britain ?

posted 05-14-99 03:51 PM ET            

There are two reasons why pornography is deplorable. For one, it is part of the exploitation of women. The women in these pictures are being treated as objects. Due to the structure of society they are being forced into these disgusting and self-humiliating proffesions, with the only purpose to sexually satisfy men. This is part of the patriarchal system- a systematic repression of a suppressed group as a show of power by the partiarchy (Picturing women as just "bitches", objects for the males to use is a calculated move to keep them down.)

posted 05-14-99 04:41 PM ET            

I prefer the term, "Moral Crusaders" . Seriously, err, "love making" should be just that, from a religous standpoint, at least. To do "it" in any other way is unnacceptable. as for porn, the pornstars are just doing it for the money, and therefore are abusing the act. By looking at porn, you are , in essence, saying that this is fine, and therefore agree with the amoralistic behavior. At least that's my take on things.

posted 05-17-99 03:39 AM ET            

No increase as far as I know, and I very much doubt that we would have a higher rate of sex-related crimes than the US...

posted 05-17-99 05:59 AM ET            

I�m not saying there aren�t "good" porn, but with the large amount of "bad" porn around, it�s hard to find the "good" stuff.

Bishop

posted 05-17-99 10:20 AM ET            

-Most pornography is degrading to women, it objectifies them and typically is only to please men who are looking at it.

-Some pornography does not fall under the above.

-Regardless of what KIND of pornography it is, looking at a PICTURE is not immoral or "sinful" (how, by the way, can looking at ANYTHING that I've been genetically wired to enjoy be sinful?) -only deplorable for the long-term effect it can have on young men as to their attitudes regarding women.

-My children will not be denied porn, they will not be made to feel shameful for looking at it. THE WORST THING YOU CAN DO to a child is to make them feel guilty for looking at or doing something that makes them feel good in regards to sex. If you catch your child masturbating, have a talk with them (maybe hint it might be better to do in a more private place), but DO NOT make them feel like guilty sinful sluts for doing it.

-However, my child will be told what is the difference between that which is real, and that which is pure derogatory fantasy.

-Having said all of the above, it is not the place of any government to regulate what we, as parents, should allow our children to do or view (so long as it does not threaten other's freedom of expression or physical well-being).

Here in the US, I am nauseated daily to the point of vomiting by so-called "christian" parents who are too ****ing busy or lazy to raise their children properly. Instead, they rely on their weak-ass contradictory "scripture" to tell them what they should already know about what is "good" and "bad," and when THAT doesn't work they bitch that the government should regulate it.

Free country MY ASS, it's only free if you're a caucasian male christian (or a caucasian woman safely married to a caucasian man) -oh yeah, and don't be too smart or you'll be "Arrogant, and Vain," and don't be too dumb or you'll be "A Retard."

What even further disgusts me, is that this is almost the peak of what we've been able to accomplish ... people, we have SO much further to go ...

posted 05-17-99 11:26 AM ET            

Valtyr
That�s true I suppose, my sister works at caf� in Oslo and among the staff norwegians is in minority (2 to 6), and they�re pretty tired of swedes, I�ll tell you

posted 05-17-99 11:45 AM ET         

My own take on this second question is that is seems to depended on the individual doing the viewing. It seems that some can not look at a naked individual, of the sex they find attractive, and relate to them as a sexual individual. Someone who is demonstrating one, very strong aspect of their being. Instead they feel the need to dehumanise the model as an object and then they project their own take onto others also. They express their feelings of revulsion that result from this viewpoint, assuming others feel the same.

Personally I am grateful that there are those with the courage/self confidence to expose their intimate body areas for us to appreciate, (even if their purpose might be influenced by monitory concerns). I remain unconvinced that they find it a necessity to do so, but that they see it as relatively easy money.

posted 05-17-99 12:55 PM ET            

One detail from the intial post: "I know in some European countires there are no "laws" against pornography of any kind."

Hardly true. Even in the most liberal countries, there are restrictions for the protection of minors.
For the rest: If adults want to view the filmed activities of consenting adults, let them. It does not imply that it is good, just like excessive smoking, drinking or MacDonalding is not good for you. But outlawing only creates a virtually uncontrolable black market; controling child pornography is difficult enough.

The few so-called hard core porns I've seen had great entertainment value. Not as intended; they are involuntarily funny. When you see two (or more) people having sex in those movies, it's looking more like they are working the night shift in a steel mill... it is less than exciting if the actors are looking so unhappy. And are so uncreative, I should add...

posted 05-17-99 01:29 PM ET            

- Anyone who considers porn degrading is probably horrible in bed or doesn't like sex.

-Sex with children is wrong. Rape is wrong. And those people should be dealt with accordingly.

posted 05-17-99 04:25 PM ET         

No time to respond to everyone, but here's a few:

Zero_gauss says: "Here in the US, I am nauseated daily to the point of vomiting by so-called "christian" parents who are too ****ing busy or lazy to raise their children properly. Instead, they rely on their weak-ass contradictory "scripture" to tell them what they should already know about what is "good" and "bad," and when THAT doesn't work they bitch that the government should regulate it."

CrayonX says: While I am a Christian, I kind of agree with you. A lot of the problems with society can be narrowed down to family problems, or to parents who think they know what they're doing (Christian or not). I think there are many so called "Christian" parents who need to look more into their own "scripture" reasonings because their knowledge of "scripture" is lacking at best (I know from knowing people through personal experience). I don't believe we should deny people the right to see porn, but recognize some of what porn represents (as stated by many others).

Roland says: "If adults want to view the filmed activities of consenting adults, let them. It does not imply that it is good, just like excessive smoking, drinking or MacDonalding is not good for you. But outlawing only creates a virtually uncontrolable black market; controling child pornography is difficult enough."

CrayonX says: Most definitely. The issue here is right and wrong (short or long term).

Keep the commentary going, epecially on the issue of "protecting our kids from porn"...

posted 05-17-99 05:03 PM ET            

The question should be, "Do you believe in or think others believe in the stereotypes created by porn?"

Let's go over basic pornography stereotypes:

1. The average white man has an 8" penis.
2. The average black man has a 10" penis.
3. The average female lives only to have sex with anyone or anything at anytime.
4. Asian women love to be tied up and have misc. items inserted into them.
5. Blond women has breast implants and nipple rings.
6. Brunettes do nothing but deep throat.
7. All women love you to cum on their face or in their mouth.
8. All women love vaginal sex, then anal sex, and then oral sex.
9. All women are bi-sexual.
10. All men make horrible faces when they're having sex.
11. All men can never get a complete erection.
12. All women love multiple penetration.
13. Sex is sex no matter what it's with.
14. Women love to have their ass slapped during intercourse.
15. Sex makes women curse.

posted 05-20-99 10:52 PM ET         

"My child will not be denied porn"

So you are saying point blank, right off, your kid will not be denied porn? No cosiderations on how mature he is? That is not very responsible parenting at all. Not only that, but it is AGAINST THE LAW. ( In the US)Allowing your kid to have porn could very well result in you having one child siezed by the government.

"(how, by the way, can looking at ANYTHING that I've been genetically wired to enjoy be sinful?)"

And if I am a cleptomaniac, does that make it ok to steal? But, we already went down this road in the homosexuality thread, and I see no need to go down it again.

"only deplorable for the long-term effect it can have on young men as to their attitudes regarding women."

So you are admiting right there that porn can be bad? As a parent, you are supposed to guide your kid into a moral and responsible adult, without such things as drug addictions or bad attitudes towards women.

"However, my child will be told what is the difference between that which is real, and that which is pure derogatory fantasy."

And what if he chooses to give into temptation and look at the porn anyway? Or do you not care about how your kid turns out?

"-Most pornography is degrading to women, it objectifies them and typically is only to
please men who are looking at it."

And what about the Woman's right not to be seen that way in society? Or do you not care about that either?

"Regardless of what KIND of pornography it is"

And by this are you advocating kiddie porn?

No, I dont think we should deny pornography to adults, however, it should be denied to children, and kiddie porn should be a felony.

posted 05-26-99 02:18 AM ET            

I live in Amsterdam which is probably the most liberal city in the world, but I don't think that there is a very high rate of sexcrimes over here. (why would you rape someone when you can go legally to a brothel?)

posted 05-26-99 10:12 AM ET            

2. The US is rather strict on pornograpy. Their crime rate concerning rape or sexual assault is 1 per 1000 inhabitants.
(see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvictgen.htm )

posted 05-26-99 10:12 AM ET            

"10. All men make horrible faces when they're having sex."

posted 05-26-99 12:15 PM ET            

Bishop

posted 05-26-99 02:03 PM ET         

In any case rape is clearly sex related in as much as it is using what would, under consenting circumstances, be sexual intercourse, as a method of confirming power over someone.

posted 05-27-99 05:35 AM ET            

"The women in these pictures are being treated as objects."

I find these kinds of statements far more suppressive to women than anything that happens in a (regular) porn movie. If a man and a woman fvck on camera, why is the woman the exploited one? To me, this kind of thinking descends from the very reactionary patriarchal idea that 'men enjoy sex, while women can just barely live with it'. So, for the couple above, the man - who by nature likes sex - is just having fun, while the woman - who by nature thinks sex is quite unbearable - is being exploited. I don't buy it. What we need to do away with is not the porn, but the sick, repressive way of seeing women as 'victims' wherever they go.

That is not to say, of course, that some porn is not discriminatory. However: 90% of everything is crud. 90% of the porn that exists may be awful, but so is 90% of all books, movies and music. That doesn't mean we should start banning books, movies and music, does it.

"And what about the Woman's right not to be seen that way in society? Or do you not care about that either?"

Why should anybody have the right to insist that their entire sex should be seen by society in a way they find pleasing? I might have reasons to object (not that I actually care, of course) against how my sex is presented to society as macho imbeciles in a wide number of Hollywood movies - do I have a 'right' to insist that from now on, there will be no more macho imbeciles? The individual has some rights as to how they should be presented; going anywhere beyond that is just moronic.