Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Attitudes to Porn... Mod Warning Post 719

1…1718202223…26

Comments

  • #572
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Jakkass wrote: »
    oceanclub - Just interested, do you not usually talk to the taxi driver? I thought that was common practice?

    Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't; depends if the driver themselves is chatty, or if he starts coming out with mindnumbing right-wing cliches.

    P.


  • #573
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    A lot.

    And no issue to lots as well. It's entirely your choice which side you choose to look at things from.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I reject this understanding, and as a result I consider it wrong. People should be considered for who they are as people rather than who they are sexually.

    You can reject it all you like, it doesn't make it any less true. Who people are and their sexuality are entwined, you can't consider a person without considering their sexuality and visa versa. People are sexual, with or without someone to love or being in love.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'd rather love someone for who they are, than regard them as a sexual object. The former is also much more important in the long run.

    Why is not possible to do both?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Just because people are regarded that way, or will be regarded that way doesn't make it right. I'm merely saying that I oppose this, and I'm explaining why.

    Yes, and nowhere has anyone objected to anyone's personal opinion on pornography or what they consider a relationship - the issue comes when sweeping generalisations are made that all people should share the same ideals and morals.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm merely saying that sex is regarded too lightly within society, and the objectification of people has gone too far. That's my take. Is sex something to be regarded as the same as eating or drinking, or is it to be regarded as something personal and special? That's the main question for me.

    I tried to evoke a parallel involving food earlier and it was ignored in favour of a cry of "Strawman!"....

    I understand the question but I don't think it should be posed at anyone other than yourself. It is for each adult to decide what sex means to them and why. Conservatism is no more appealing than hedonism.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It involves other people.

    Not directly. My imagination involves other people, so does erotica...the world is full of sexy people to look at and lust over. I like it.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think all pornography is wrong, and I'm certainly entitled to that view. I think society would be better off if we didn't have anything to do with it, but I have no doubt it will continue.

    That is your view and you are certainly entitled to it. What you can't say is whether I or others would be better off without it.


  • #574
    1sittingduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭1sittingduck


    oceanclub wrote: »
    Even the churches have changed their moral stance on issues.

    From what I know from discussing it and reading about it, the RC Church has not changed its moral stance. There has been a lack of information or misinformation reaching the public and even some laity of the Church.

    But that is for another thread.


  • #575
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    1sittingduck wrote: »
    From what I know from discussing it and reading about it, the RC Church has not changed its moral stance. But that is for another thread.

    Then I guess when you eat fish on Fridays while sitting in a church menstruating, you're going straight to Limbo.

    P.


  • #576
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    1sittingduck wrote: »
    And you think you are? What exactly makes Christians who practice their faith less objective than someone (not even you, necessarily, but anyone) who doesn't adhere to any religious beliefs?

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that calling certain sexual practices a sin ensures that any person that practices that faith is not going to have a wholly objective view of said practice.... :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #577
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that calling certain sexual practices a sin ensures that any person that practices that faith is not going to have a wholly objective view of said practice.... :confused:

    Likewise you aren't going to get much out of those who argue that anything goes, and that there are really no rights and wrongs. This doesn't help a moral consideration of the situation in the slightest. Rather it hinders it.


  • #578
    1sittingduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭1sittingduck


    oceanclub wrote: »
    Then I guess when you eat fish on Fridays while sitting in a church menstruating, you're going straight to Limbo.

    P.

    He, he, there's no doctrine saying limbo exists... :rolleyes:

    (That's my cheeky wind-up done - sorry, had to get it in there! :D)


  • #579
    Benicetomonty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭Benicetomonty


    Haven't gone through the whole thread but would be surprised if the late, great Bill Hicks hasn't been quoted at some stage.
    He ridiculed the very definition of pornography ("Any act without artistic merit that causes sexual thought"), comparing its entire premise with that of television advertising ("When I'm watching those two twins on the double-mint commercial, I'm not thinking of gum..") and dispelling the notion that there is a great deal of difference between porn and art just because one is aired without an r rating or the approval (or active participation) of a celebrity. He cited the Madonna sex book in this instance; I'm sure a number of you could come up with a modern equivalent (I personally have never watched Y Tu Mama Tambien for the storyline!)

    He also attacks the idea that porn is especially degrading to women; if the fact that women earn more than their male counterparts from a porno is over-simplistic, maybe you should watch a movie sometime and ask yourself this: if the woman is degraded, what does that make the man? Is he exalted?! ('Look at that guy's face! I couldn't make a face like that if my foot was run over! She looks great, he looks like a doofus!! Whats the problem?")


  • #580
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Likewise you aren't going to get much out of those who argue that anything goes, and that there are really no rights and wrongs. This doesn't help a moral consideration of the situation in the slightest. Rather it hinders it.

    Another strawman. :rolleyes:


  • #581
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It's referring not only to you, but to other users. tbh has said there are no rights and wrongs for example.
    Ickle Magoo wrote:
    Not directly. My imagination involves other people, so does erotica...the world is full of sexy people to look at and lust over. I like it.

    Do you never think that there is more about these people apart from the notion that they are sexually attractive?


  • Advertisement
  • #582
    1sittingduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭1sittingduck


    oceanclub wrote: »
    Well for a start, because an imaginary being and/or man in a frock has not told me what opinion I should have about it.

    There's never been solid proof to disprove God's existence and, for some, there's never been solid proof to prove it. Another thread? ;)

    Discussion is always proper so that we can understand how one point can be seen as moral/right/good, and vice versa. If I didn't have a place to discuss and inquire about the hows, whats, and whys of the Church's stances on various subjects, I'd go crazy with frustration!


  • #583
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's referring not only to you, but to other users. tbh has said there are no rights and wrongs for example.

    Suggesting it is for each consenting adult to decide what is right or wrong for them is hardly endorsing hedonism, which is what you keep implying.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Do you never think that there is more about these people apart from the notion that they are sexually attractive?

    Sometimes, sometimes not. My brain dashes from one thing to another depending on circumstance and mood. I don't have to wrangle the moral rights and wrongs of every thought, I just enjoy them.


  • #584
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Suggesting it is for each consenting adult to decide what is right or wrong for them is hardly endorsing hedonism, which is what you keep implying.

    Such an understanding would seem to be very hedonistic to me. It's a mere opinion.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Sometimes, sometimes not. My brain dashes from one thing to another depending on circumstance and mood. I don't have to wrangle the moral rights and wrongs of every thought, I just enjoy them.

    We're different folk then. I believe that people have an inherent worth, and are worth far more than the subjects of sexual gratification alone. People aren't just things to be used for a few minutes than then forgotten about.

    How would you feel if one of your children were involved in pornography? (If you don't have any regard it as a hypothetical)

    I can't say I'd be anything but saddened by it.


  • #585
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is post-modernism at work. There are rights and wrongs, and more importantly, if there weren't rights and wrongs we would be living in anarchy.
    .

    No there aren't. there are actions which are accepted by society, and actions which are not accepted not society. "Right" and "wrong" are constructs, and may vary from society to society. An action that is wrong in your eyes may not be wrong in my eyes, and ultimately, each opinion is as valid as the other. Assuming, of course, that there is no God.

    If you are not willing to assume that, then you are pre-disposed to judgment about what is right and what is wrong, and in many cases, this is received wisdom on your part.


  • #586
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Do you never think that there is more about these people apart from the notion that they are sexually attractive?

    Um, yes?

    Again, you have a very ying/yang, black and white view of the world, which seems to be at the root of why you think pornography is evil.

    Alcohol: good or bad?

    P.


  • #587
    pretty-in-pink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭pretty-in-pink


    porn-whether used for the pleaseure of a single person, a person away from their OH,or by a couple (infact add any number to that,some relationships being pretty open)- has always been around.

    Its a simple fact of life. Sex is sexy. And sometimes theres nothing like viewing as just a bit of fun. Sure it can have the heavy emotional connections, andthats great too. Why should I- or anyone- not view their partner (for life, a while or the night) as a sexual object? Nobody calls out "you have a lovely personality".

    And given the physical nature of sexual attraction, then you're bound to view your partner (or playmate) as a sexual object. Objectification can be awesome. In fact most things can be. Just cause they don't work for some folks,doesn't mean they are wrong.

    If those who do like this, for the most part, do not insult or demean the opinions and preferances of those who don't, then why should those who don't get all judgemental with those who do?

    As for quoting/ using the bible etc in relation to this, It also says "Judge not lest you be judged".
    Claiming that "I'm a good christian because......" is they type of behaviour one would expect from a Whited Sepulchre.

    Maybe take the whole "to porn, or not to porn" thing as a "not for me, becasue....but hey if it works for you then great" type angle. If you don't like the"boring" tag, what makes you think anyone else would be ok with the "pervert/ cold/bad person" tag?


  • #588
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    1sittingduck wrote: »
    There's never been solid proof to disprove God's existence and, for some, there's never been solid proof to prove it. Another thread? ;)

    It's never been disproven to me that a small pink unicorn isn't flying around Saturn either. The difference being that noone is basing their arguments here on what they think this unproven SPU's opinion.

    P.


  • #589
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Benicetomonty wrote: »
    Haven't gone through the whole thread but would be surprised if the late, great Bill Hicks hasn't been quoted at some stage.
    He ridiculed the very definition of pornography ("Any act without artistic merit that causes sexual thought"), comparing its entire premise with that of television advertising ("When I'm watching those two twins on the double-mint commercial, I'm not thinking of gum..") and dispelling the notion that there is a great deal of difference between porn and art just because one is aired without an r rating or the approval (or active participation) of a celebrity. He cited the Madonna sex book in this instance; I'm sure a number of you could come up with a modern equivalent (I personally have never watched Y Tu Mama Tambien for the storyline!)

    He also attacks the idea that porn is especially degrading to women; if the fact that women earn more than their male counterparts from a porno is over-simplistic, maybe you should watch a movie sometime and ask yourself this: if the woman is degraded, what does that make the man? Is he exalted?! ('Look at that guy's face! I couldn't make a face like that if my foot was run over! She looks great, he looks like a doofus!! Whats the problem?")

    Yep, and what's degrading for you might be totally acceptable to me, and vice versa.

    Certainly if everyone involved in the porn shoot agrees to participate, and everyone watching agrees to watch, I don't really understand how anyone is being degraded.


  • #590
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    tbh wrote: »
    No there aren't. there are actions which are accepted by society, and actions which are not accepted not society. "Right" and "wrong" are constructs, and may vary from society to society. An action that is wrong in your eyes may not be wrong in my eyes, and ultimately, each opinion is as valid as the other. Assuming, of course, that there is no God.

    If you are not willing to assume that, then you are pre-disposed to judgment about what is right and what is wrong, and in many cases, this is received wisdom on your part.

    If we are that distant in our understanding of morality there isn't really much to discuss.

    I would argue that there things which are wrong and which are good, and these things are defined by an authority external to us both.

    If I am not willing to assume that there is no God, I am judgemental? Very interesting mindset. I'm not willing to make this assumption as it's hardly reasonable to make such an assumption. The best a reasonable person could do is assume that there may be a God. To argue for either no God, or a God one requires reasoning.
    AARRRGH wrote: »
    Yep, and what's degrading for you might be totally acceptable to me, and vice versa.

    This assumes that morals are relative. Whatever floats your boat, and that there are no moral absolutes.


  • #591
    1sittingduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭1sittingduck


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that calling certain sexual practices a sin ensures that any person that practices that faith is not going to have a wholly objective view of said practice.... :confused:

    Correct me if I'm wrong: the word "sin" itself isn't really a problem; instead, it's the attachments to the word which call up negative images of self-denial and obedience to the doctrines and dogmas of the Church. It probably won't make any difference getting into semantics here ("sin" = "wrongdoing" = "thought/word/act against God"). But when the word sin is used, it's not just "because God says so". There's always reason behind it.

    Some may misuse or even abuse the word "sin" out of ignorance, some for less easily forgivable reasons. I hope I'm not one of them.


  • Advertisement
  • #592
    Evolute
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Evolute


    If your bbqing alone you need a bit of lighter fluid.

    It's the people that take it too far are the problem cases not porn itself.


  • #593
    Benicetomonty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,687 ✭✭✭Benicetomonty


    AARRRGH wrote: »
    Yep, and what's degrading for you might be totally acceptable to me, and vice versa.

    Certainly if everyone involved in the porn shoot agrees to participate, and everyone watching agrees to watch, I don't really understand how anyone is being degraded.

    And to add yet another Hicksism: "What business of yours is it what I do, read, buy, see or take into my body as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?"

    "...without their consent" I suppose could be included in some contexts :)


  • #594
    Kimia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,897 ✭✭✭Kimia


    Serena, seriously, why won't you respond to all the women that have told you straight out that they like watching porn and they haven't been pressured into it by their boyfriends/husbands??

    Truthfully - you have said over and over that if someone watches porn whilst in a relationship, then there must be something wrong with that relationship and that the husband must have pressured the wife into watching the porn (plaster over bullet wound i think you called it).

    What response do you have then do the women (like sam for example) or me ! when we say, maybe we just like watching porn?


  • #595
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If we are that distant in our understanding of morality there isn't really much to discuss.

    Again, morality is a construct. If there were no humans, there would be no such thing as morality.
    I would argue that there things which are wrong and which are good, and these things are defined by an authority external to us both.
    and I would reject that, because as I said, there is nothing inherently wrong. There are only things you consider wrong. Each of us has our own reasons for coming to each conclusion, and you don't have the right to say that the decision you take is more valid - more "moral" than the decision I take.
    If I am not willing to assume that there is no God, I am judgemental? Very interesting mindset. I'm not willing to make this assumption as it's hardly reasonable to make such an assumption. The best a reasonable person could do is assume that there may be a God. To argue for either no God, or a God one requires reasoning.
    That's not what I said. I said, quite clearly I thought, that if you believe in god, you are unable to objectively consider whether something is moral or immoral. Instead, you are predisposed to try to interpret what you think would be wrong in Gods eyes. The only knowledge you have of what God thinks about the issue was written by humans. A long time ago. With agendas that are not relevant any more, perhaps.

    I'm not knocking you, by the way, I have a lot of respect for the way you back up your beliefs, even when they are unpopular. That's real faith. But I am saying that when oceanside said that you couldn't be taken as an impartial source, he was right. imo. There are a lot of issues we've never discussed, for example, that I would feel confident I'd know your exact stance on, and that leads me to doubt your ability or willingness to consider each issue free from any religious baggage.


  • #596
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I would argue that there things which are wrong and which are good, and these things are defined by an authority external to us both.

    Alcohol - good or bad? Right or wrong?

    Is your continued failure to answer this an implicit acceptance that not everything is black and white, even in your morality?

    P.


  • #597
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This assumes that morals are relative. Whatever floats your boat, and that there are no moral absolutes.

    I think there are some universal moral absolutes, such as don't kill innocent people, but the weird ones which are religion specific (e.g. sex is immoral outside of marriage, or whatever) are relative.


  • #598
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    pretty-in-pink wrote:
    As for quoting/ using the bible etc in relation to this, It also says "Judge not lest you be judged".
    Claiming that "I'm a good christian because......" is they type of behaviour one would expect from a Whited Sepulchre.

    Ever heard of the phrase "Love the sinner, hate the sin"?

    I'm not good at all. Part of being a Christian is recognising that we are not good, and that we need to be forgiven so that we can live our lives to the full, and become reunited with God.

    Rather I'm arguing for reasons why porn might be bad for us in general, bad for the way we do things, and in relationships. This is what the Daily Mail argues, and I agree with the article.

    Now, is saying that porn is a bad influence on society judging any individual? I don't think so. Just because you choose to do something doesn't mean you are not worthy of my respect. People disagree with what others do every day of the week, it does not mean that they cast judgement on ones character.
    pretty-in-pink wrote:
    porn-whether used for the pleaseure of a single person, a person away from their OH,or by a couple (infact add any number to that,some relationships being pretty open)- has always been around.

    Theft has always been around. Prostitution has always been around. Murder has always been around. Lying has always been around. Just because something has always been around doesn't mean that we have to agree with it or find it acceptable.
    pretty-in-pink wrote:
    And given the physical nature of sexual attraction, then you're bound to view your partner (or playmate) as a sexual object. Objectification can be awesome. In fact most things can be. Just cause they don't work for some folks,doesn't mean they are wrong.

    I don't know if you are both in love with someone while finding them attractive that one automatically forgets about the character of the person and focuses only on their outward appearance. Perhaps this is due to my view that there is something special about the way that this happens. I'm a bit of a hopeless romantic I guess. We lose something without this. Without this, we don't follow our hearts anymore.
    pretty-in-pink wrote:
    Maybe take the whole "to porn, or not to porn" thing as a "not for me, becasue....but hey if it works for you then great" type angle. If you don't like the"boring" tag, what makes you think anyone else would be ok with the "pervert/ cold/bad person" tag?

    I don't wish to put this tag on other people at all.

    I hope my post makes my position clearer. Again, I knew people would start regarding posts opposed to porn as being against the people who watch porn.


  • #599
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    oceanclub wrote: »
    Alcohol - good or bad? Right or wrong?

    Good in moderation, bad in excess. None for me though, at least this is my decision for the time being. Pornography is something different however.
    oceanclub wrote: »
    Is your continued failure to answer this an implicit acceptance that not everything is black and white, even in your morality?

    When have I been asked this before? I may have missed some posts, it's a long thread.

    I have no obligation to answer your posts, I'm doing this because I really want to discuss.

    Why do you respond to my posts so contemptuously?


  • #600
    MickBeth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43 ✭MickBeth


    It has gone a wee bit out of control........I once had a GF who REFUSED to have Relations with mne untill she saw some Zoophelia ........


    And I know i'm not a lady but i feel great to finaly have a place to say that in the open,,,,,,


  • Advertisement
  • #601
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Good in moderation, bad in excess. None for me though, at least this is my decision for the time being. Pornography is something different however.

    Why?
    When have I been asked this before? I may have missed some posts, it's a long thread.


    I asked you twice before.

    P.


Advertisement
Advertisement