Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Pornography is discriminating?

2

Comments

  • #52
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    lazydaisy wrote:
    Simu- can you say what you consider arousal? Do you mean for men an erection and for women lubrication?

    If a sex act is represented with emotion than maybe it isnt porn?

    A couple filiming themselves may choose to represent just the sex act and not represent their feelings, or they may choose to represent their feelings also, or we as viewers may or may not recognise those signs of emotions and we as viewers may or may not get aroused by it. So are you saying that they way to tell whether or not something is porn is by checking your own physiological responses to it?

    I do not find MTV in the least bit arousing. I find it tedious and boring. Though I do find a lot of it demeaning to women. One could argue that the women who are in them are participating in their own degradation.

    That's an interesting post. :) But say that a couple who were emotionally attached, were in love. Would they at all be willing to sell their emotions on camera? I don't see that as very likely, but then again I'm not experienced. In pornography! (Thank God!)


  • #53
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    Shazbot wrote:
    Well Vangelis , from what I've noticed over your past few threads is that you either (a) start a topic and make your views known , and when someone crticises them you keep asking more random questions straying further from the original topic.
    or (b) Just bring up a topic and ask for other peoples opinions ( as in this thread ) without giving your own. You expect to be educated from this thread but this isnt what the humanities forum is about.

    I want to clear this up. And use the thread about pedophilia as an example of my way of thinking.

    People have misgivings about me that as I see it are caused by a lack of understanding of my real intentions. My posts in the pedophile-discussion were pervaded by questions to other posts. That was not an attack on the other posters' attacks on me and my opinions. I was trying to communicate that the debate should not be so one-sided and more broad.

    The same I do when I ask: "Why do feminists call the porn-industry discriminating?" I know some arguements, but I think they are simply too vague.

    When I ask people questions and they are puzzled and think that I disagree and attempt to drown their arguements in new questions, that is not true. Don't think that. wasn't it Aristotle who kept asking questions whenever he had a debate? Not that I ask as good questions as him, but I do ask questions. And I dig deeper and deeper, trying to pass general opinions that are perhaps not as well-founded as they seem to be.

    I'm not being sensational and people have called me that too. I'm not obsessed about... manifesting myself or justifying myself as I write this. And I don't mean to take up too much space in this thread, but I felt that this attempt at commnicating my intentions was necessary.

    Solas said that I have a tendency to think outside the box. I have done this all my life and I'm used to misunderstanding and conflicts because of that.


  • #54
    simu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,730 ✭✭✭✭simu


    Vangelis wrote:

    The same I do when I ask: "Why do feminists call the porn-industry discriminating?" I know some arguements, but I think they are simply too vague.

    You don't have to explain or defend your personality but you could explain what you mean exactly by the question above. It doesn't seem very clear to me.


  • #55
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    simu wrote:
    Oh, I'd assumed you meant degrading. Do you mean women are being discriminated against or in favour of or some such thing? Or that porn shows that there are differences between men and women???

    I meant discriminating. I've heard that word being used so often in pornography debates and thought "What is so discriminating about pornography? They choose to do it!". I suppose that feminists say pornography is discriminating against women because they are being portrayed as objects of sexual pleasure. Objectifying women sounds horrible, I think. No one is an object.

    But the women choose to be in porn movies and magazines, so how can one say they are being discriminated? If so, the women must choose to be discriminated.
    Well, what about porn made by a husband and wife for their own use then? Husbands are allowed to desire their wives, afaik.

    If somebody wants that, then it is their business. I prefer the real thing though. Sex is only sex if you are having sex. :)


  • #56
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    simu wrote:
    You don't have to explain or defend your personality but you could explain what you mean exactly by the question above. It doesn't seem very clear to me.

    Explained in post above. Again, I am not defending myself. The fact that you say I do shows that my explanation has not been successful, which is depressing. Understand it the one who can.


  • #57
    solas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭solas


    <ot>A very shy guy goes into a bar and sees a beautiful woman sitting at the bar. After an hour of gathering up his courage, he finally goes over to her and asks, tentatively, "Um, would you mind if I chatted with you for a while?"

    She responds by yelling, at the top of her lungs, "NO! I won't sleep with you tonight!" Everyone in the bar is now staring at them. Naturally, the guy is hopelessly and completely embarrassed and he slinks back to his table.

    After a few minutes, the woman walks over to him and apologizes. She smiles at him and says, "I'm sorry if I embarrassed you. You see, I'm a graduate student in psychology, and I'm studying how people respond to embarrassing situations."

    To which he responds, at the top of his lungs, "What do you mean $200?!"<ot>


  • #58
    Sangre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,179 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    Vangelis wrote:
    I meant discriminating. I've heard that word being used so often in pornography debates and thought "What is so discriminating about pornography? They choose to do it!". I suppose that feminists say pornography is discriminating against women because they are being portrayed as objects of sexual pleasure. Objectifying women sounds horrible, I think. No one is an object.

    In that context degrading is the correct word.

    I really don't know what you're asking.


  • #59
    simu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,730 ✭✭✭✭simu


    Vangelis wrote:
    I meant discriminating. I've heard that word being used so often in pornography debates and thought "What is so discriminating about pornography? They choose to do it!". I suppose that feminists say pornography is discriminating against women because they are being portrayed as objects of sexual pleasure. Objectifying women sounds horrible, I think. No one is an object.

    But the women choose to be in porn movies and magazines, so how can one say they are being discriminated? If so, the women must choose to be discriminated.

    (The verb can't be used transitively in this sense btw - look. It's confusing).

    I think anti-porn feminists might argue that women involved in porn might be being discriminted against in some way without their being aware of it. You could compare how, say, in the nineteenth century, most women didn't think they were being discriminated against by not being allowed to vote. It took a while for the idea that this was unfair to spread. (although I think exploited would be a better word in the case of porn).


    Or else, women might be forced to get involved in porn through violence or because of poverty and so on.

    No one is an object but people can be objectified, alright.

    If somebody wants that, then it is their business. I prefer the real thing though. Sex is only sex if you are having sex. :)

    But what says the Bible? Well, I guess it was less of an issue back then given the lack of recording devices in the old days!


  • #60
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    simu wrote:
    (The verb can't be used transitively in this sense btw - look. It's confusing).

    That's true. I didn't think of that. Well, I'd have to use:
    "To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies."
    This has a negative side and it is this kind of negative discrimination that I'm talking about.
    I think anti-porn feminists might argue that women involved in porn might be being discriminted against in some way without their being aware of it. You could compare how, say, in the nineteenth century, most women didn't think they were being discriminated against by not being allowed to vote. It took a while for the idea that this was unfair to spread. (although I think exploited would be a better word in the case of porn).

    Exploited, degraded, abused, belittled perhaps.
    Or else, women might be forced to get involved in porn through violence or because of poverty and so on.

    Yes, allthough this is not always the case. Rape-videos are horrible, not that I haven't seen any.
    No one is an object but people can be objectified, alright.

    But do people have a right to do this? What about the woman/man who allows for people to objectify her/him?
    But what says the Bible? Well, I guess it was less of an issue back then given the lack of recording devices in the old days!

    I'll have to do a little research. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    lazydaisy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 483 ✭✭lazydaisy


    I should have been more specific about MTV. Things like Brittany Spears school girl video, that video with all those close ups of women doing aerobics, a lot of rap videos, etc, I think these are demeaning to women but I dont find them erotic or pornographic. But they are clearly made not for me to find them arousing, but a heterosexual pair of male eyes.

    From what I understand of Feminist critiques of porn, most of it emerged in the late 60s and through to the 90s where it was thought to have encouraged rape and violence toward women. Certainly there are rape fantasies acted out in some porn, just as there are S&M fantasies [acted/played?] out on other porn, just as there are women who are actually killed in snuff films. So thats the first main objection.

    The other main objection to porn is how it represents the female body. What it tells us it should like and what it tells us it should act like. It is also seen as one of the most stark examples of how women are judged, in that it is on their sexuality and physical attributes. If you recall the fairytales we grew up with, the most beautiful in the land marries the most powerful in the land, and in all shades of grey what counts for women, is how they look and how they please the male gaze. So if you consider, that life imitates art, this has serious consequences for women.

    Then there are feminists who support the manufacturing of porn for women. They argue that it is being made with the female eye. Survellience is often pointed to as a locus of power and control. Who is watching you. [Read Foucaults essay on the panopticon] so they feel that porn is giving women back their gaze and control of the camera and the editing room.

    There is also a concept in feminism known as INTERNALISED OPPRESSION. That is when you absorb, practise and endorse the very practises which keep you down, much like the way the Irish practised catholicism. Or the way oppressed populations believe the crap that oppressors tell them ie "your black therefore your inferior and stupid." If you hear it often enough you will believe it. This is also known as internalised oppression. Anti-porn feminists would argue that the women who are performing are victims of internalized oppression.

    A couple making a film- ok lets remember that it really doesnt matter how they feel about each other. What we are judging is what is on the film, what is being represented and how we receive it. Also we said nothing about selling. This is a private matter anyhow. Perhaps not such a good example. As porn is contrived, artiface. There are shoots and retakes. There are auditions and casting calls. There is someone to refill the film and hold the boom mic. There is distrubution and marketing, editing, makeup and hair, someone to yell cut and gate, and all the other stuff that goes into film making.

    Vangelis, please do not bring the Bible into this. You will raise all sorts of distracting things with translation and interpretation issues.

    I know that your English is very good, but I just want to point out to you, that there are still subtelties and leaps within the language. I speak American english and I am constantly running into problems with people who speak hiberno or british english. This is no ones fault. Its just cultural blackholes where it feels like we cant communicate. There are different contexts which can give the same words very different meanings or resonances. I do not presume at all that because we speak the same language that we understand each other. Sometimes I think it may even make things harder. [No pun intended.]:D


  • #62
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    lazydaisy wrote:
    Vangelis, please do not bring the Bible into this. You will raise all sorts of distracting things with translation and interpretation issues.

    You just confirmed my point.
    I know that your English is very good, but I just want to point out to you, that there are still subtelties and leaps within the language. I speak American english and I am constantly running into problems with people who speak hiberno or british english. This is no ones fault. Its just cultural blackholes where it feels like we cant communicate. There are different contexts which can give the same words very different meanings or resonances. I do not presume at all that because we speak the same language that we understand each other. Sometimes I think it may even make things harder. [No pun intended.]:D

    Get it.


  • #63
    Sangre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,179 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    what?


  • #64
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Vangelis wrote:
    Originally Posted by simu
    (The verb can't be used transitively in this sense btw - look. It's confusing).

    That's true. I didn't think of that. Well, I'd have to use:
    "To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies."
    This has a negative side and it is this kind of negative discrimination that I'm talking about.
    Why are we still trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole?

    Forget "discrimination" - all we're trying to do with that word is justify its use in the original question. If men got paid more, or got a bigger changing room - now that might be discrimination.

    Degradation is the accusation from feminists that might or might not have some grounds.

    I agree with Tabatha though - it's merely a 'specialised' form of acting. Of course like every area of employment some people will be taken advantage of. From the Nikes on your feet to the tea in your mug - the workplace can be cruel.


  • #65
    Blub2k4
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭Blub2k4


    I believe that the supplied definition in the USA as in an erect male penis is discrimination, if that is the criteria used, why should it not be an engorged labia? It is certainly the most erotic thing that I can see as a hetero male.


  • #66
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    I'll share my thoughts on your post, lazydaisy!
    lazydaisy wrote:
    I should have been more specific about MTV. Things like Brittany Spears school girl video, that video with all those close ups of women doing aerobics, a lot of rap videos, etc, I think these are demeaning to women but I dont find them erotic or pornographic. But they are clearly made not for me to find them arousing, but a heterosexual pair of male eyes.

    Ok. But would you accept males in such music videos instead of women? Close-up of naked skin and such, I mean.They would be produced to appeal to women and perhaps be for sexual entertainment.
    From what I understand of Feminist critiques of porn, most of it emerged in the late 60s and through to the 90s where it was thought to have encouraged rape and violence toward women. Certainly there are rape fantasies acted out in some porn, just as there are S&M fantasies [acted/played?] out on other porn, just as there are women who are actually killed in snuff films. So thats the first main objection.

    It's very likely that hardcore and S&M inspires rapists, but I don't know if there has been any documented increase in rapes and other sexual crimes since that time. I have heard that those who rape people sometimes watch porn and that they have been inspired. But I don't suppose this goes for all porn-watchers.
    The other main objection to porn is how it represents the female body. What it tells us it should like and what it tells us it should act like. It is also seen as one of the most stark examples of how women are judged, in that it is on their sexuality and physical attributes. If you recall the fairytales we grew up with, the most beautiful in the land marries the most powerful in the land, and in all shades of grey what counts for women, is how they look and how they please the male gaze. So if you consider, that life imitates art, this has serious consequences for women.

    Agree! But does pornography "distort" the true nature of women and women's sexuality? I've heard many people say that sexual activities are far more different than in porn videos.
    Then there are feminists who support the manufacturing of porn for women. They argue that it is being made with the female eye. Survellience is often pointed to as a locus of power and control. Who is watching you. [Read Foucaults essay on the panopticon] so they feel that porn is giving women back their gaze and control of the camera and the editing room.

    Hmmm... sounds odd to me.
    There is also a concept in feminism known as INTERNALISED OPPRESSION. That is when you absorb, practise and endorse the very practises which keep you down, much like the way the Irish practised catholicism. Or the way oppressed populations believe the crap that oppressors tell them ie "your black therefore your inferior and stupid." If you hear it often enough you will believe it. This is also known as internalised oppression. Anti-porn feminists would argue that the women who are performing are victims of internalized oppression.

    But are women in pornography threatrically inferior or are they actually infused with a feeling of being inferior behind stage? What I'm asking is rather: is internalised oppression a fact or a hypothesis?
    The Atheist wrote:
    Why are we still trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole?

    Hey, my mistake. We're moving on with dagradation now.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    lazydaisy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 483 ✭✭lazydaisy


    Blub2k4 wrote:
    I believe that the supplied definition in the USA as in an erect male penis is discrimination, if that is the criteria used, why should it not be an engorged labia? It is certainly the most erotic thing that I can see as a hetero male.

    I agree with you entirely that it is discrimiination. It says a lot about whose desire they take seriously and whose arousal scares them. Centering an entire genre around an erect penis- you cant get more phallocentric than that.

    I dont understand your question about theatrical inferiority. Internalised oppression is a socio-political-psychologocal concept applied to explain why oppressed groups do things which are self destructive. I don't know what you mean by is is a fact or a hypothesis.

    Of course porn distorts woman's true nature. Thats what art does, it distorts. Thats its job. Its fiction, fantasy, make believe. Its representation.


  • #68
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    I dont understand your question about theatrical inferiority. Internalised oppression is a socio-political-psychologocal concept applied to explain why oppressed groups do things which are self destructive. I don't know what you mean by is is a fact or a hypothesis.

    Do the women feel inferior? Are they made to feel inferior? Or is it just theatrical/artifical? Hope that makes it clearer.
    Of course porn distorts woman's true nature. Thats what art does, it distorts. Thats its job. Its fiction, fantasy, make believe. Its representation.

    Okay. How does the distortion influence people? Does it damage people?
    I suppose there is too little documentation to say anything about that.


  • #69
    lazydaisy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 483 ✭✭lazydaisy


    I have no idea how they feel.

    The point feminists are making is not that it is degrading to the women who are in the films but to all womenkind.

    How do you feel when you see porn? My reaction to a lot of porn is a lot of eye rolling. I nearly think its funny. But I have a background in the arts and performance so I tend to look at things and see how they have been made. I just think about a bunch of people in a florescently lit room trying to think up lines for the script and start laughing. Or the lighting rig, or any other other aspect of its artificiality. But thats just me. It would not have to huge profits it does if everyone had the reaction that I do.

    Some people say its damaging and others say its liberating. Maybe its both.

    Maybe S&M does inspire rape, maybe it doesn't. I really dont know. I know rape is about power, whether its a man or a woman who is the victim. I know S&M is about pain,whether for those who like to receive it or those who like to give it.


  • #70
    Blub2k4
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭Blub2k4


    lazydaisy wrote:
    I have no idea how they feel.

    The point feminists are making is not that it is degrading to the women who are in the films but to all womenkind.

    How do you feel when you see porn? My reaction to a lot of porn is a lot of eye rolling. I nearly think its funny. But I have a background in the arts and performance so I tend to look at things and see how they have been made. I just think about a bunch of people in a florescently lit room trying to think up lines for the script and start laughing. Or the lighting rig, or any other other aspect of its artificiality. But thats just me. It would not have to huge profits it does if everyone had the reaction that I do.

    Some people say its damaging and others say its liberating. Maybe its both.

    Maybe S&M does inspire rape, maybe it doesn't. I really dont know. I know rape is about power, whether its a man or a woman who is the victim. I know S&M is about pain,whether for those who like to receive it or those who like to give it.


    I dont personally believe that porn is inherently degrading to women, in fact I think the complete opposite is true in the ideal situation with porn, I would define the ideal situation as being employed by a higher class studio with good pay and rights and not just some outfit set up to satisfy a few peoples cocaine habits. Although really if a woman is a drug addict I think there are a lot worse and more degrading things that they could do than enter the sex industry.
    What is degrading in a woman receiving 400 euro or so for a days work? If anything in this arena the men are discriminated against as they receive less than half what women tend to in the same industry.
    I think it is interesting that most of your arguments base themselves on the typical idea of a right-wing US religious POV and it is annoying to discuss things with people with dogma, it's hard to take it seriously as you will never be arguing your own point of view but someone elses.....actually a mans.....who is dead a long time....and who had the intention of repressing women when it was written anyway. The irony is that this discrimination is repackaged as "religion" and then the oppressed, ironically, carry the foul message, unwittingly, unquestioningly.....yeah discriminating.....


  • #71
    Seraphina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,875 ✭✭✭Seraphina


    Blub2k4 wrote:
    What is degrading in a woman receiving 400 euro or so for a days work? If anything in this arena the men are discriminated against as they receive less than half what women tend to in the same industry.

    yeah but they aren't doing the same work. i dont want to be crude but they dont take dicks up their ass, cum on their face/tits wherever etc etc.
    they have an awful lot less to do, and in terms of prep too, men dont need to be waxed, shaved etc.
    i know there are situations in which men might do these things, but in general, the women do alot more 'work' (if you can call it that) than the men do.
    their paid to be treated like objects and filmed *shrugs*.
    dunno bout you but i'd put a pretty high price on my diginity myself. for most of the men its probably more fun than anything


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Sangre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,179 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    Well it can be quite a 'hard' job for man retaining an erection for hours.


  • #73
    lazydaisy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 483 ✭✭lazydaisy


    Blub2k4 wrote:
    I think it is interesting that most of your arguments base themselves on the typical idea of a right-wing US religious POV and it is annoying to discuss things with people with dogma, it's hard to take it seriously as you will never be arguing your own point of view but someone elses.....actually a mans.....who is dead a long time....and who had the intention of repressing women when it was written anyway. The irony is that this discrimination is repackaged as "religion" and then the oppressed, ironically, carry the foul message, unwittingly, unquestioningly.....yeah discriminating.....

    My arguments? I havent been arguing one side or the other. Let alone right wing US religious POV? What is that by the way? Actually none of what Ive presented is based on anything religious. Whose the dead man you refer to? I don't understand anything you said in the remainder of your post. What has religion got to do with it? Vangelis has already brought up the Bible, but I don't know what you are talking about. Can you be more clear pelase?

    In the US the women proabable get paid more than E400 a day especially if they are unionised.

    The high salaries in porn are a crucial part of this argument so Im glad you brought it up. Some feminists point to it as an example of what it is about women that is valued and a reflection of a larger general discrimination towards women. Others point to "the power of the purse" and think, how can you call that oppression?


  • #74
    stevenmu
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    In response to the original question, I too have often heard porn described as discriminating by feminists. It comes up fairly regularly on radio chat shows, and they almost always have some kind of feminism 'expert' who claims it's disciminatory. To be completely honest it's always baffled me as to why. Maybe being male I misunderstand feminism, but I always thought it is about empowering women to make their own life-style choices. From what I understand (maybe I should do a detailed study to see if this is the case :v: ), many girls see this as a perfectly viable career choice. Perhaps they have a high sex drive or are exhibitionists and think they may aswell get payed for doing what they enjoy. I've no idea what the pay is like, but I'd guess it'd be a good way for someone to support themselves through college, thereby ultimately improving themselves.

    I realise that there is a lot of illegal activity taking place, such as sex-slavery and child pornogrophy, but it's unfair to hold the entire porn industry accountable for that, in the same way we don't hold all drivers accountable for the behaviour of drink-drivers. We don't, and should never, punish or restrict decent law-abiding people because of the behaviours of those who aren't.

    I can understand the 'degrading' argument a little better, the point generally made is that it encourages men to view women purely as sex objects. Peronally I think that most right-thinking people can tell the difference between porn and real life, in the same way that most of us can see the difference in a hollywood movie or a video game. Unfortunately, there are men who do view and treat women as objects, or even worse, but imho they'd do the same with or without porn. I can't imagine somebody respecting women, then watching a bit of porn and suddenly thinking it's ok to treat women like crap, altough I'll admit I can't understand why anyone would think it's ok to treat women like crap so I don't really know what I'm talking about here.

    So basically, I think porn is fine, there is discrimination and degredation of women going on in the world, but I think that's down to some people being complete *********'s and nothing to do with porn.


  • #75
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    lazydaisy wrote:
    I have no idea how they feel.

    I'm happy for you. :) Stay that way.
    The point feminists are making is not that it is degrading to the women who are in the films but to all womenkind.

    Okay...
    How do you feel when you see porn? My reaction to a lot of porn is a lot of eye rolling. I nearly think its funny. But I have a background in the arts and performance so I tend to look at things and see how they have been made. I just think about a bunch of people in a florescently lit room trying to think up lines for the script and start laughing. Or the lighting rig, or any other other aspect of its artificiality. But thats just me. It would not have to huge profits it does if everyone had the reaction that I do.

    I react with repulsion and embarrassment, but sometimes, even though I've seen very little mind you, it's hilarious. The reason I react with repulsion is because it's unnatural to me. And it will stay that way. I see people who watch sex scenes on tv who have no facial expression at all. They're so used to it that it's nothing. And the fact that people get accustomed to it is scary. Nothing is special anymore. We're all so liberal and exhibitive that Yahoo! we would sell our souls and bodies for nothing. Go democracy, go freedom of speech! Or should I say... freedom of exhibition.
    Some people say its damaging and others say its liberating. Maybe its both.

    In that case I see damage because of liberation.
    Maybe S&M does inspire rape, maybe it doesn't. I really dont know. I know rape is about power, whether its a man or a woman who is the victim. I know S&M is about pain, whether for those who like to receive it or those who like to give it.

    I looked up some information on rape at Wikipedia. It says something about inspiration from porn. Go check it out, just type 'rape' and you'll find an article.

    I've heard that those who lick painful sex/S&M(giving or receiving) usually have had some painful/traumatic experience earlier in life. I read somewhere that a girl who liked receiving pain had been raped before and that to her the pain was a way of punishing herself. Because she felt guilty and shameful for the rape. But who knows...


  • #76
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Vangelis wrote:
    I react with repulsion and embarrassment, but sometimes, even though I've seen very little mind you, it's hilarious. The reason I react with repulsion is because it's unnatural to me.

    Sex is unnatural? Ok .....
    To be honest, that quote says far more about your own insecurities and hang-ups than anything else.
    In that case I see damage because of liberation.

    As opposed to being oppressed? :rolleyes:
    Interesting slant on things you have there.

    I looked up some information on rape at Wikipedia. It says something about inspiration from porn. Go check it out, just type 'rape' and you'll find an article.

    You do know that wikipedia is not an authoritave text on, well, anything since it's filled in by joe bloggs and there is no way to control the quality of its content. As has been admitted by the adminstrators of the site. Right? But you knew that already didn't you?
    I've heard that those who lick painful sex/S&M(giving or receiving) usually have had some painful/traumatic experience earlier in life. I read somewhere that a girl who liked receiving pain had been raped before and that to her the pain was a way of punishing herself. Because she felt guilty and shameful for the rape. But who knows...

    I'm sorry, but you haven't the first f*cking clue of what you speak. You really don't. And I have to say that lazydaisy, you have a poor understanding of S&M and the motivations behind it as well if you believe it's about pain.


  • #77
    stevenmu
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    lazydaisy wrote:
    How do you feel when you see porn? My reaction to a lot of porn is a lot of eye rolling. I nearly think its funny. But I have a background in the arts and performance so I tend to look at things and see how they have been made. I just think about a bunch of people in a florescently lit room trying to think up lines for the script and start laughing. Or the lighting rig, or any other other aspect of its artificiality. But thats just me. It would not have to huge profits it does if everyone had the reaction that I do.
    You know, sometimes I think people read way to much into what porn is, and I don't just mean you, pornographers themselves, critics, porn watchers etc all read too much into it. As far as I'm concerned porn is about looking at naked people, I don't have a clue why they attempt to put stories or artistic styled shooting into it because, as far as I know anyway, all anyone cares about is the porn.
    Lemming wrote:
    Sex is unnatural? Ok .....
    To be honest, that quote says far more about your own insecurities and hang-ups than anything else.
    Tbh, I agree with Vangelis here (listening to 1492-Conquest of paradise right now btw, love that album), I'm not a big fan of porn myself, and I think that's in part* because of it's fakeness. I've nothing against looking at naked women, but any porn I've seen has mainly had bleached blond 40 year olds, pretending to be 19, with 6 inches of makeup and perfectly spherical breasts which are obviously composed of 90% silicone. Couple that with the dodgy moaning dubbed over the tape, and it just becomes so fake that it's ridiculous. Also the whole story lines and way they actually go about about having sex is completely artificial, I have never had sex which in any way resembled any porn movie I've seen. Altough in the interests of research and open-mindedness, I am willing to expand my horizons on both fronts :v:





    * the rest of the reason being that I think the touches, tastes and smells involved in sex are much more important than the 'seeing', but that's a whole different topic


  • #78
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Porn can lead to young guys getting a wrong idea about how real women look, behave and want in bed, and put pressure on women to be those things.
    Vangelis wrote:
    I've heard that those who lick painful sex/S&M(giving or receiving) usually have had some painful/traumatic experience earlier in life. I read somewhere that a girl who liked receiving pain had been raped before and that to her the pain was a way of punishing herself. Because she felt guilty and shameful for the rape. But who knows...

    I know and that is not the norm. Reall do some more research or don't make
    such assumptions.


  • #79
    lazydaisy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 483 ✭✭lazydaisy


    Lemming- I didnt talk about the motivations behind s&M. Maybe you should enlighten us. S&M involves pain. D&S is dominance and submission. Yes?

    Sex is natural - pornography is artifice. Vangelis was saying porn is unnatural not sex. Porn is something we create, it is art, not of nature.

    Vangelis - the porn that is made for women is reputed to include many of the delicious qualities that stevenmu listed in his postscript. Maybe you should try womens porn out. You may like it. Dont worry your not breaking any commandments. Your not married and the law is thou shall not covet they neighbors wife, it says nothing about coveting husbands and who knows if these guys are married or not so go ahead... covet away.

    The connection between S&M and trauma maybe true but tenuous. CEOs and Judges who feel guilty about firing 300 people or sending someone to the chair may also need a hiding in order to climax. Go on Lemming, smack me again for being wrong... you know I love it....

    I recall in college, some guys had a picture they took out of hustler magazine. You can imagine. A woman whose hairless crotch was spread wide open - and they pinned it up to a dart board, and guess what was the bullseye. I found that really offensive and took it personally in a way. And years later I noticed the Sile Na Gig figure, and it reminded me of that picture and thought it was strange that Irish feminists held it up as an image of Woman, when to me it seems like its an expression of fear of the feminine.

    Porn is not just about looking at images of naked people, you can go to a museum or a naturist beach for that. Its about getting off. All the artifice is constructed in order to fascilitate this. Art is not about realism, its not still life painting, or it would be snooooze....... obviously men like these cartoon women or the profits wouldnt be so astronomical. [Angelina Jolie & Pamela Anderson - tell me they dont have traits that are held up as aspirational by the porn industry]. The popularity of brazillian waxes, bj mouths, and implants, are these not all the shadow cast by the porn industry? Is this women doing it to themselves or is it that mens expecations have been altered by the pervasiveness of pornography?

    I think we need new emoticons for this thread.


  • #80
    stevenmu
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    Thaedydal wrote:
    and put pressure on women to be those things.
    (I swear I'm not trying to disagree with you on purpose :) ) I think that in general it's actually women putting these pressures on themselves or each other. Most guys don't want girls with 32-quadrouple-D breasts, or whatever the current 'ideal' is. Numurous and in-depth studies (on AH :v: ) have proven this. What's more important is that everything is within reasonable proportion bounds (according to almost every guy), and even more important than that (according to most of us) is the feel-and-taste factor. In fairness I might be over-emphasising the taste-factor, but I've been to a few corporate functions where they've hired the current model-of-the-hour to prance around a bit, and in fairness in real life they look like most Irish girls apart from having 7" of makeup instead of the average 6". Tbh from what I've seen of the whole female preperation rituals thing (and some of my best friends have been female so I've seen a few), they're (ye're) more interested in out-doing each other than really trying to live up to some male 'ideal'.


  • #81
    simu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,730 ✭✭✭✭simu


    lazydaisy wrote:
    And years later I noticed the Sile Na Gig figure, and it reminded me of that picture and thought it was strange that Irish feminists held it up as an image of Woman, when to me it seems like its an expression of fear of the feminine.

    Sile na Gig are supposed to be symbols of fertility afaik - don't read misogyny into everything.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    lazydaisy wrote:
    Lemming- I didnt talk about the motivations behind s&M. Maybe you should enlighten us. S&M involves pain. D&S is dominance and submission. Yes?

    Ah,. but you did talk about the motivations behind S&M in your previous post. You said it was about pain. It's not. Having said that, there will always be someone somewhere who is motivated that way. Like with anything. But to say it is about pain is a brutally over-simplified statement to make. It's like saying football is about money. Yes, it's about money. But is it the motivation for people to play it? I think you'll find the answer is 99% of the time "no".

    To answer your question on the distinction between S&M & D/s, you are technically correct in the literal sense of the wording. The reality however is much different, and far less black & white. More a thousand shades of grey in-between. And to go into it here is beyond the scope of this thread and would drag it wildly off-tangent.
    Sex is natural - pornography is artifice. Vangelis was saying porn is unnatural not sex. Porn is something we create, it is art, not of nature.

    What kind of porn is Vangelis talking about? Because to be honest, any portrayal of sex can be classed as porn given that it is an artificial representation.

    How about TV ads using innuendo? Sounds ludicrous right? But think about it. Is it any different in its intended suggestion?

    To paraphrase a comment by the late, great Mr.Hicks:
    Bill Hicks wrote:
    The supreme court of the United States says that pornography is any acgt that has no artistic merit and causes sexual thought. No artistic merit, causes sexual thought.

    Sounds like almost every commercial on television doesn't it?

    Y'know, when I see those two twins in that Doublemint commercial, I'm not thinking of gum ....

    Doesn't every commercial blatantly use sex to sell the product? I believe most of them do. Here is the commercial they'd like to do. And I guaruantee we're going to see this some day because this is the ultimate television commercial;

    Here's the woman's face. Beautiful. The camera pulls back. Naked breasts. Camera pulls back, she's totally naked,legs apart with two finger right ... here. And it just says is "Drink Coke".

    Now I don't know the connection here ... but coke is on my shopping list this week.

    ...

    But once again the questions that I wanted to hear asked were not asked. And once again the issue is forgotten. Pornography ... causes sexual thought. No-one asked these four questions; Yeah? And? So? What?

    When did sex become a bad thing?
    The connection between S&M and trauma maybe true but tenuous. CEOs and Judges who feel guilty about firing 300 people or sending someone to the chair may also need a hiding in order to climax. Go on Lemming, smack me again for being wrong... you know I love it....

    Again I'm going to point to the fact that the lines blur between S&M and D/s and you've managed to flawlessly intermix the two without even trying. The behaviour that you are referring to is actually one of yielding the power one wields during the day to another. To submit to someone else. That is not about pain (at least not exclusively). What happens after yieldign that power is as varied as life itself. Hopefully you'll start to see that that the topic is being grossly over-simplified into the realms of the idiotic to try and fit another, unrelated, argument (rather badly I might add).
    I recall in college, some guys had a picture they took out of hustler magazine. You can imagine. A woman whose hairless crotch was spread wide open - and they pinned it up to a dart board, and guess what was the bullseye. I found that really offensive and took it personally in a way. And years later I noticed the Sile Na Gig figure, and it reminded me of that picture and thought it was strange that Irish feminists held it up as an image of Woman, when to me it seems like its an expression of fear of the feminine.

    To be honest,that's the negative aspect of male perception rearing its head. But to be honest I know girls (who've admitted) who carry measuring bands to "measure" guys in clubs before deciding if they want to take them home/to car/etc. And you want to complain about guys objectifying women? it cuts both ways. I'm not defending the dart-board incident. It's quite a mysoginistic thing to do and I'd have issues with it myself. But that has not much to do with pornography and more to do with attitudes towards the opposite sex in general.

    As for the Sile Na Gig figures - Simu said it best.


  • #83
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    Lemming wrote:
    Sex is unnatural? Ok .....
    To be honest, that quote says far more about your own insecurities and hang-ups than anything else.

    You interpret me. And that is wrong. Did I say that sex is unnatural? NO. I am not insecure about sexuality. I know where I stand. I am disgusted by the way sex is commercialised and loses its beauty by making is so "common", like they do on tv. Like something that is not special or should be kept private.
    You do know that wikipedia is not an authoritave text on, well, anything since it's filled in by joe bloggs and there is no way to control the quality of its content. As has been admitted by the adminstrators of the site. Right? But you knew that already didn't you?

    I do know that Wikipedia has been tested by a team of scientists and other academics who have affirmed its accuracy.
    I'm sorry, but you haven't the first f*cking clue of what you speak. You really don't. And I have to say that lazydaisy, you have a poor understanding of S&M and the motivations behind it as well if you believe it's about pain.

    S&M is often used by people who like to inflict pain or receive pain.


  • #84
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    lazydaisy wrote:
    Vangelis - the porn that is made for women is reputed to include many of the delicious qualities that stevenmu listed in his postscript. Maybe you should try womens porn out. You may like it. Dont worry your not breaking any commandments. Your not married and the law is thou shall not covet they neighbors wife, it says nothing about coveting husbands and who knows if these guys are married or not so go ahead... covet away.

    No need to encourage me. I have a healthy sexuality and don't feel the need to have it distorted by women's porn or whatever it should be.
    The connection between S&M and trauma maybe true but tenuous. CEOs and Judges who feel guilty about firing 300 people or sending someone to the chair may also need a hiding in order to climax. Go on Lemming, smack me again for being wrong... you know I love it....

    The example I mentioned was just an example. Just an example. There are probably other motivations for engaging in S&M.
    Porn is not just about looking at images of naked people, you can go to a museum or a naturist beach for that. Its about getting off. All the artifice is constructed in order to fascilitate this. Art is not about realism, its not still life painting, or it would be snooooze....... obviously men like these cartoon women or the profits wouldnt be so astronomical. [Angelina Jolie & Pamela Anderson - tell me they dont have traits that are held up as aspirational by the porn industry]. The popularity of brazillian waxes, bj mouths, and implants, are these not all the shadow cast by the porn industry? Is this women doing it to themselves or is it that mens expecations have been altered by the pervasiveness of pornography?

    Gosh, I don't even know what those brazilian gadgets are or the bj mouths.

    I don't really think men expect this of women. Women believe they expect it and adjust themselves to these illusions. No?


  • #85
    Crucifix
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,437 ✭✭✭Crucifix


    Vangelis wrote:
    I do know that Wikipedia has been tested by a team of scientists and other academics who have affirmed its accuracy.
    What? Really?


  • #86
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Vangelis wrote:
    I do know that Wikipedia has been tested by a team of scientists and other academics who have affirmed its accuracy.

    Ermm excuse me, but that a load of rubbish.

    Wiki is well known for its errors and ommissions. Educational bodies in Ireland warn students against referencing unverified internet sources and Wiki is one of their examples.


  • #87
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Vangelis wrote:
    You interpret me. And that is wrong. Did I say that sex is unnatural? NO. I am not insecure about sexuality. I know where I stand. I am disgusted by the way sex is commercialised and loses its beauty by making is so "common", like they do on tv. Like something that is not special or should be kept private.

    The problem here, I think vangelis, is that because we (as in the Irish) have been so repressed sexually for so long, that we've swung to the far extreme in indulging our curiosities. Thus we aren't seeing the expression of sexuality as more a rather graphic "how-to" on the subject. So there is a much deeper underlying issue about your (and everybody elses') own insecurities than anything else than simply pornography itself. Pornography (as we understand it) has been around since the victorian era. Society hasn't imploded as a result of whether or not pornography is available.
    I do know that Wikipedia has been tested by a team of scientists and other academics who have affirmed its accuracy.

    E-heh ..... are you reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllly sure about that statement? You might want to backpedal and oh, I don't know? ... say perhaps delete that entire sentence ......
    S&M is often used by people who like to inflict pain or receive pain.

    And people don't like inflicting pain in any oither way perhaps? Step outside a pub every weekend night. Ask the CIA. Ask the repugnant coward who beats his wife. As the b*tch who beats her husband. Ask little johnny down in the school yard. Etc, etc, etc.

    You really need to stop with the generalisations and actually perhaps educate yourself on matters which you claim to make such sweepign statements. Because you're digging a hole for yourself.


  • #88
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Vangelis wrote:
    The example I mentioned was just an example. Just an example. There are probably other motivations for engaging in S&M.

    No, I don't think so Vangelis. The example you chose to portray was the most in-extremis example that is bordering on the near-hypothetical in its occurrence in society. You did that for a reason. Namely that you claim to be speaking with absolute conviction and authority on something which you clearly know nothing of. Similarly with Wiki. I don't claim to be an expert on the subjects at hand, but I'm versed enough to tell you what they are not. Namely what you are claiming they are.

    Your choice of language was very deliberate. It was meant as more than "just one example". "Innuendo" I believe would be the appropriate term, quite ironically for somebody ranting about the ills of pornography.
    I don't really think men expect this of women. Women believe they expect it and adjust themselves to these illusions. No?

    And men don't have any adjusted ideas of what women expect from them, courtesy of media-interest "insert named reference of choice" ? It swings both ways Vangelis. You're not saying anything that does not occur either elsewhere for either sex.


  • #89
    lazydaisy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 483 ✭✭lazydaisy


    Lemming,

    Yes. I agree with most of what you said. That porn is representation/artifice was something that I thought and think we should always remember, in that its responsibiities do not include accurate or realistic depictions, that's all. Its entertainment ultimately. Bill Hicks is quite right, I think, despite my own personal preferences about what I like to see on a screen, the whole notion of rating something based on "artistic merit" is just silly and also impractical. THere are incredibly beautiful films which are arguibly degrading to women, and not nearly classed as porn. But isn't the main difference between these films and porn defined by its interactivity, if you will.

    Obviously, my two ot three sentences on D&S and S&M, are reductive, and I did not devote more to the subject for precisely the reason you cite, it is a digression from the topic at hand. But my admittedly little knowlege and understanding of it is that there is a scale, and that D&S can evolve into S&M but the demarcation of when that happens is when intentional physical pain is applied. I will emphasise again: I am not arguing either side. S&M was only brought up incidentally as one particular and specialised sub genre of porn. So, you said its not about pain, what is it about? The over simplification was important enough that you called it idiotic so you should explain rather than name call.

    Very early on in this thread, I have been trying secure some agreement on what porn is. Because it is an elusive definition and I would wager that each of us has a different scenario in our imaginations or our experiences. I have also been emphasising that porn is being made for women so the argument is shifting. If you read the thread from the beginning you will see that.

    As for Sile Na Gig and symbolism. Symbolism changes. Meaning changes. To point to rather stark example, the swastika which has several different meanings throughout time but we all know which one supercedes them all. "Supposed to" - supposed to has nothing to do with how meaning is received or even intended. I did not bring up the word misogyny. I only pointed out that one image echoes another. That is all. Please refrain from telling me what to think or how to read images. Im supposed to look at at this image [Sile Na Gig] and think of someone who can make babies? why am I supposed to think that? because you said so? Well, it doesnt work that way. I will look at the Venus of Willendorf, with wide hips and huge breasts and think that but the Sile Na Gig, I just dont see it, I see an image that is striking to the Vagina Denta. Simu didnt say it best, in fact, she/he just regurguitated the accepted received notion of it school principal style.

    As for complaining about men objectifying women. Who's complaining? I think there is a striking distance between looking at women in a nightclub or across the room and men throwing darts at a centerfold picture of a women with her legs open and her bald vagina wide open ala Sile Na Gig.

    No one said women dont objectify men or look at men. But porn has for decades, arguible centuries, if you include what has been printed and etched, been manufactured by men and for men. But I will emphasis again, this is changing and will continue to change.

    Vangelis, A brazillian wax is hair removal of the entire bikini area. All of it. Do you get me? A bj mouth - Im not sure if I can explain it here, but if you want to know, pm me.


  • #90
    lazydaisy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 483 ✭✭lazydaisy


    Lemming wrote:



    And people don't like inflicting pain in any oither way perhaps? Step outside a pub every weekend night. Ask the CIA. Ask the repugnant coward who beats his wife. As the b*tch who beats her husband. Ask little johnny down in the school yard. Etc, etc, etc.

    You really need to stop with the generalisations and actually perhaps educate yourself on matters which you claim to make such sweepign statements. Because you're digging a hole for yourself.


    But Lemming - people of course inflict pain on each other. We do it everyday in the most imaginitive of ways from subtle to obvious and often to people we love, while are super nice to strangers. But since your the expert here, isnt the difference that S&M is an erotic experience which involves/requires pain? In the examples you give orgasm is not part of the picture, but with S&M practises orgasm is very much involved? No? Is that wrong?

    [/QUOTE]
    And men don't have any adjusted ideas of what women expect from them, courtesy of media-interest "insert named reference of choice" ? It swings both ways Vangelis. You're not saying anything that does not occur either elsewhere for either sex.[/QUOTE]

    Your reaction to what Vangelis said is a little weird. And also a little defensive. Shes saying that women have adjusted their habits according to what they perceive men expect, which may have little, a lot, or nothing to do what in reality they do expect. In other words, it may be all in womens heads, that men want 34 DD breasts, a 21 inch waist and a mouth like Angelina Jolies and a pudenda like a 12 year olds. They may not expect that at all, and women have just chosen to believe that.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    peckerhead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,383 ✭✭✭peckerhead


    Vangelis, I have to hand it to you, I'm amazed at how you can so successfully troll otherwise 'discriminating' boardsters...:rolleyes: (I believe the word you all want here is 'discriminatory' — and even then, it's not really the word you want....)

    I'm not just saying this 'cause you successfully caught me off-guard — along with a few others — on that 'paedophile man' thread. I mean WTF, Vangelis, you throw out some 'provocative' topic, pirouette vaguely around it, speak in riddles, misquote the Bible, retreat coyly behind the 'English-is-not-my-first-language' screen when it suits you, then come back and completely belie that by your thoroughly manipulative and selective quoting/dissection of what others have posted, then throw in further (undeniable) garbage like 'Wikipedia has been tested by a team of scientists and other academics who have affirmed its accuracy', mystificate and throw up further diversionary smokescreens when you're queried — and yet still expect people to take your assertions seriously...? :confused:

    I apologise for losing the cool the way I did on that 'paedophile man' thread — you just touched a sore point with me, as a father of young kids, and yes, I was a bit jarred at the time :o — but, to paraphrase Zenith's 'closing' remarks, I really can't figure what you're hoping to achieve, throwing something controversial up for debate and then going into this 'smoke-and-mirrors' BS mode...

    To get back on-topic — my main objection to porn would be that it commodifies and dehumanises the sex act in a particularly crass way, and makes fools of its consumers. In that respect alone, it 'discriminates' against men because far more of them tend to choose to consume it. I find much male-oriented porn is degrading to women, but maybe that's just my view...

    Anyway, it all makes Baby Jesus cry...


  • #92
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    lazydaisy wrote:
    That porn is representation/artifice was something that I thought and think we should always remember, in that its responsibiities do not include accurate or realistic depictions, that's all. Its entertainment ultimately.

    "entertainment" is probably the best possible phrase that anyone has used so far to describe it. But like all forms of entertainment once somebody starts indulging excessively in it there is a problem. And that problem will manifest itself in other ways too - attitudes, actions, etc.

    So somebody's inability to distinguish between the reality and the fantasy has greater issues to deal with, rather than whether or not porn should be available.
    Obviously, my two ot three sentences on D&S and S&M, are reductive, and I did not devote more to the subject for precisely the reason you cite, it is a digression from the topic at hand. But my admittedly little knowlege and understanding of it is that there is a scale, and that D&S can evolve into S&M but the demarcation of when that happens is when intentional physical pain is applied.

    There isn't really a scale lazydaisy. Some people will, others will not. It's literally a case of "whatever floats your boat". D/s and S&M can co-exist or exist completely seperate. They can be part mixed, unevenly mixed, etc. and it really will depend on the individual.
    I will emphasise again: I am not arguing either side. S&M was only brought up incidentally as one particular and specialised sub genre of porn. So, you said its not about pain, what is it about? The over simplification was important enough that you called it idiotic so you should explain rather than name call.

    I wasn't making a name call. I was pointing out that the use of that particular argument was a very poor one to make. It's the proverbial "square peg in round hole" situation. I felt the over simplification was important enough to warrant pointing out because the manner in which the subject was brought up by vangelis was extremely misleading, not to mention deliberately false and laden with innuendo.
    Very early on in this thread, I have been trying secure some agreement on what porn is. Because it is an elusive definition and I would wager that each of us has a different scenario in our imaginations or our experiences. I have also been emphasising that porn is being made for women so the argument is shifting. If you read the thread from the beginning you will see that.

    I also asked for a clarification on what kind of porn Vangelis was referring to. What constitutes porn? I mean, when you get down to it, anything with innuendo in it can fall under the categorisation. Is an erotic story porn? Is page 3 of the sun porn? Is a tv ad porn? Are we referring to "erotic" films? Are we referring to "Gang Bang Girls #25" or some equally absurd title for a film? Are we referring to "Donk3h pr0n: the movie"? What is considered porn in this argument?
    As for Sile Na Gig and symbolism. Symbolism changes. Meaning changes. To point to rather stark example, the swastika which has several different meanings throughout time but we all know which one supercedes them all. "Supposed to" - supposed to has nothing to do with how meaning is received or even intended. I did not bring up the word misogyny. I only pointed out that one image echoes another. That is all. Please refrain from telling me what to think or how to read images. Im supposed to look at at this image [Sile Na Gig] and think of someone who can make babies? why am I supposed to think that? because you said so? Well, it doesnt work that way. I will look at the Venus of Willendorf, with wide hips and huge breasts and think that but the Sile Na Gig, I just dont see it, I see an image that is striking to the Vagina Denta. Simu didnt say it best, in fact, she/he just regurguitated the accepted received notion of it school principal style.

    To be honest lazydaisy, the Sile Na Gig has never been associated with anything else other than its intended reference. Using the swastika argument is poor because it was the deliberate perversion of a symbol, although technically the swastika is a symbol on its own, since the original symbol it perverted is actually different (the swastika is inverted). The only thing that I can read into your takeo n teh Sile Na Gig is what you take with you. What is inside your own mind. Your own prejudices and innuendos, rightly or wrongly nobody else can say.


  • #93
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    lazydaisy wrote:
    But Lemming - people of course inflict pain on each other. We do it everyday in the most imaginitive of ways from subtle to obvious and often to people we love, while are super nice to strangers. But since your the expert here, isnt the difference that S&M is an erotic experience which involves/requires pain? In the examples you give orgasm is not part of the picture, but with S&M practises orgasm is very much involved? No? Is that wrong?

    You're quite right in that it tends to focus on the erotic. Although, again it will vary in degrees with the individual. Like I said before, it's a case of "whatever floats your boat".

    I never claimed I was an expert lazydaisy. But I am versed enough to spot misconceptions, or in vangelis case deliberate misrepresentation of the subject.

    As for enjoying the act (assuming it is of course safe, sane, & consensual) and/or achieving orgasm? Nothing wrong with it. Ye olde Catholic guilt syndrome is starting to come into play me thinks.
    Your reaction to what Vangelis said is a little weird. And also a little defensive. Shes saying that women have adjusted their habits according to what they perceive men expect, which may have little, a lot, or nothing to do what in reality they do expect. In other words, it may be all in womens heads, that men want 34 DD breasts, a 21 inch waist and a mouth like Angelina Jolies and a pudenda like a 12 year olds. They may not expect that at all, and women have just chosen to believe that.

    No, there's nothing wierd in my reaction. My reaction was more in response to her entire argument to date, which has been deliberately false and misleading either through sheer ignorance of the subject(s) or trolling I can't tell which.


  • #94
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    http://www.pantheon.org/areas/gallery/mythology/europe/celtic/sheila-na-gig.html
    sheila-na-gig.jpg
    The goddess of fertility in British-Celtic mythology.

    The sheila-na-gig is both creater and destroyer.
    She repasents the mother's womb form which all life comes and the mother's womb the earth into which all life goes to be destroyed so the cycle continues.

    Why is that shape so offensive ?
    Why do you find female gentials so offensive ?
    Do you find your own genitails offensive?
    Have you ever taken a good look at them ?
    Honestly the idea that there is something wrong with the female gentials goes back to victorian times and the male opression of female sexualtiy for generations has been more damaging and troubling then the minor impact porn has had in comparision.

    http://www.yoniversum.nl/yoni/index.html


  • #95
    Talliesin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,314 ✭✭✭Talliesin


    Silé Na Gigs are partly about fear. The reproductive forces that govern our existence are to be feared as well as honoured; when the power is withheld there's no crops, no meat and you starve to death, and there's nothing men can do to control it.

    It's the step from having a degree of fear of something to labelling it dirty, as you have done, that makes something pornographic rather than erotic.

    Pornographers are essentially prudes, they agree with the prudes that sex generally and often women's bodies in particular are dirty but they roll around in the perceivied dirt rather than abhoring it (or quite often flip from one response to the other).

    One can quite easily pornographify just about any representation of either humanity or sexuality, as you have demonstrated with your Silé Na Gig porn above.

    This is quite different to S&M and miles away from D/s though there is of course an intersection, just as there is an intersection between sex generally and pornography generally but neither entirely contains the other. It is quite directly related to why the vast majority of attempts to capture BDSM on film or in print is so lacking in the matters of trust and psychological state that are so much part of it in real life (even in most of the minority of cases where there is even an attempt to capture that trust or the deliberate movement into different states of mind). The little material that does manage it tends not to be found in the BDSM section of porn and erotica collections, but in the fiction sections of BDSM collections.


  • #96
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Well it should be a case of being loved, respected and honoured.
    First step to making some one hate something is to teach them to fear it and
    then the taboo is established and porn is about taboos.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    hepcat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 288 ✭✭hepcat


    "is porn degrading to women?"

    If we leave out the "internalised oppression" argument mentioned by lazydaisy and assume that we are not talking about snuff / rape porn, but male oriented porn which is portrayed by adult men and women who are willing participants, then it really becomes a matter of an individuals preception of what is degrading. If women choose to profit from making porn aimed at male consumers, are they being degraded? Lets assume they could earn money in other ways like working in a shop, but might earn far less, but they instead choose the far higher earnings that go with making porn - is this necessarily degrading to them or can it not been seen as a choice based on financial motivation? Sex sells. We all know that by now, and money / wealth seems to have far greater importance in peoples lives nowadays.

    Is such porn degrading women in general? Depends on your attitudes to sex, imo. I don't believe that it always has to be seen as such.

    On Sile na Gigs, was always aware that these are ancient fertility depictions, and did not think this was open to interpretation because one is offended by the depiction of female genitalia (or ignorant as to their true meaning??).


  • #98
    the_jocky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 203 ✭✭the_jocky


    ive a mass of dvds ivecollected and i knw a few women interested in it. my brother works in a sexshop in the city . he sees all types of people youd never think would enter such a place.
    i did feel a bit of a shove pig at one stage but hey if you like somthing why bother what other people say.
    theres always gonna be sombody to knock you off your stool and judge ya.
    and there are actualy women directing and producing dvd movies not only staring in them

    ps down the hatch dvd series
    by mike john prouctions .....recomended completly .
    looking for vol 14 bye the way


  • #99
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    My last contribution is just an article on the quality of Wikipedia, not that it matters much. I refuse to say anything more as it appears that I will never be understood by anyone. This debate is better off without me.

    http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html?tag=nefd.top


  • #100
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Hmmm, no denials or refuttings. Interesting....

    Bye bye now.


  • #101
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Vangelis wrote:
    My last contribution is just an article on the quality of Wikipedia, not that it matters much. I refuse to say anything more as it appears that I will never be understood by anyone. This debate is better off without me.

    http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html?tag=nefd.top

    Interesting article.

    Few points on it:

    1: You said
    Vangelis wrote:
    I do know that Wikipedia has been tested by a team of scientists and other academics who have affirmed its accuracy.

    They did no such thing. They said it was one third less accuate that Encyclopedia Britannica. That is a very different thing than "afirming its accuracy".

    3.86 inaccuracies per article is not something I'd call accurate.

    2. They never stated the nature of the inaccuracy. Getting someones name wrong or a date wrong (its quite common in many reports for US/EU date mix ups ie. 2nd Sept instead of 9th Feb) is alot different to completely missing a concept in its review of something. As such, its not a fair report comparison.

    3. By and large if you WANT to use statistic from articles like this, Wiki is 30% less accurate than EB. Now we both know that that statistic is (A) misleading and (B) meaningless, but it is still true. This sort of comment is rife in sources like wiki and general journalism but is almost always excluded from peer reviewing in proper research/review literature (be it history, art, science or whatever).


    So in summary, Wiki is still not a reliable source.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement