[PLUG-TALK] Porn on the Net...

Aaron ke7ezt at gmail.com
Wed Oct 28 02:50:17 UTC 2009


Hey Jeme you on facebook?  I wanna be your friend (and in real life). This
thread is so awesome for some many reasons.  I'm finally meeting like minded
people. Thanks Michael!

aaron at kalosaurusrex:~$
Discere docendo - To learn through teaching.
Libera Te Tutemet - You, free yourself.




On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 19:46, Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> wrote:

>
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Michael Robinson wrote:
> > Consenting adults?  Pornography has nothing to do with "consenting"
> > adults.
>
> By your definition of pornography, it certainly does.
>
> (By the way, your crusade against free porn, you realize, would only make
> pay porn more popular, put more money into the hands of pornographers, and
> increase the degree to which the choice to distribute or participate in
> its production is dictated by financial desperation or avarice rather than
> the sheer love of the work thus creating a more coercive atmosphere.  I
> think it undermines your principles, is what I'm sayin'.)
>
> > With Net pornography, one is never talking about just 2 people in a
> > private encounter.
>
> Yeah, your idea that sex is this limited is part of your problem, not the
> greater society's.  Your narrow belief system is part of what makes you so
> susceptible to porn and see only the few abuses.
>
> Your comments about the enslaved and coerced performers makes me think of
> all those drivers that think every cyclist is a wreckless scofflaw or
> those cyclists that think every driver is an inattentive egomaniac.  We
> see the behavior that fits with your beliefs and ignore even a majority of
> evidence that contradicts them.
>
> > If someone manipulating your base desires so that you want something you
> > wouldn't otherwise want is consent, then consent doesn't mean much.
>
> So it doesn't mean much if I eat a cupcake right after lunch if my
> office-mate brought them in and made them look so cute and tasty?  I don't
> have any role in that decision?  I can blame the coworker entirely?  Man,
> that's an easy, guilt-free life you must live.
>
> (I live an easy, guilt-free life, too, but for almost the opposite
> reason.)
>
> > As far as the Sarah Palin comment Jeme, that was a stupid response.
>
> Yes, it was.  It was an absurdity intended to inspire chuckles.
>
> > Selling of children in Alaska to the porn industry does happen, but
> > Sarah Palin is obviously not one of the people selling. That is right up
> > there with me saying that Obama is a terrorist.
>
> Did you say that?  Did anybody laugh?  I think it's maybe not quite as
> funny because, sadly, there are people that do think he is and so the joke
> maybe perpetuates destructive notions.  But saying that the Palins are
> part of sex-slavery ring is hilarious precisely because it's so far from
> what anyone actually thinks.
>
> I mean, running a sex-slavery ring requires planning, secrecy, and
> accounting skills.  Nobody would ever accuse Ms. Palin of having those.
>
> > If they don't get it for a decent length of time, that weakens the
> > addiction.  This is why alcoholics shouldn't drink and pot heads
> > shouldn't smoke.  People addicted to Internet porn shouldn't look at any
> > for as long as possible.
>
> I'm not sure if that's the best thinking available on this subject.
> Personally, I think the healthy life is, as Benjamin Franklin put it, "all
> things in moderation".  Cold turkey might be an effective way to break the
> cycle of addiction, but it is not a long-term solution for health.
> Obsession with not doing a thing is sometimes as psychologically
> destructive as doing a thing.  An alcoholic, in my opinion, is truly cured
> when she can drink casually and socially as her lifestyle allows and
> her social norms constrain.  (Understand that I'm writing this as a
> lifelong teetotaller and my notion of the acceptable place of alcohol in
> culture is very different from most folks.)
>
> In short, an alcoholic should be able to have his red wine with dinner for
> his heart-health; a pot-head should be able to go back to a bi-monthly
> toke; and a porn addict should be able to check out the net-porn for a few
> minutes during normal masturbation times... y'know, like twice a day and
> never on the clock.
>
> > As far as the you are healthy if you don't want to look at Internet porn
> > comment, that is ridiculous.
>
> I agree!  A healthy person should want to look at internet porn a healthy
> amount.  See above.
>
> > Porn on the Net is designed to be desirable in a highly addictive way.
>
> Oh, I don't know about that.  I know some internet pornographers and
> they're just not really smart enough to properly design anything, let
> alone optimize something.
>
> > It isn't healthy to be into porn because it impairs ones ability to form
> > quality relationships and it robs sexuality of it's beauty.
>
> That is just absurd.  I mean, I know you and I have very different notions
> of "quality relationships", but I have strong, healthy, honest, open,
> lasting relationships with my friends and lovers and porn has never
> impeded or impinged upon any part of that.  And the beauty of sexuality is
> that porn isn't even comparable to sex.  To say that porn ruins the beauty
> of sexuality is like saying Andy Warhol ruins the taste of tomato soup.
> (That's ridiculous, of course.  When I make tomato soup, I always add a
> dash of Warhol essence to the terrine just before serving.  C'est
> magnifique!)
>
> > It is easy to do though if you feel alone, depressed, or you have been
> > sexually abused by someone.
>
> It's easy for other people, too.
>
> I guess the difficult part for some people to separating those feelings
> from feelings about real people.  I think we have a genuine problem in our
> culture of folks not being able to tell the difference between their
> real-life experiences and those mediated through, well, media.  The gunmen
> in those awful shooting cases all over-identified with action heroes and
> miserable people all over cry themselves to sleep clutching Twilight
> novels and the like forelorn that they have not found their Edward --
> after all, romance novels have convinced them that everyone has a pure,
> true love waiting out there in the world and so why should they accept the
> difficulty of an actual, flawed human being in their life who belches and
> shits?  Reality is not an idealized form of anything.  Porn is an
> idealized form of sex for pleasure (or domination, submission, or other
> aspect of sexuality) while real sex is always going to have aspects of all
> of those things in addition to intimacy, respect, fear, and a million
> other things that are real, human, and perfect as they are, but not
> idealized.
>
> > In the war on drugs, there is a lot of emphasis on teaching people to
> > leave drugs alone.
>
> Abstinence education is the worst possible approach to teen pregnancy and
> STIs.  And the "war on drugs" is an absurd thing on its face.  What we
> need is responsibility.  We don't need to teach people to "leave drugs
> alone", but to respect the drug and its effects and, if they deem it
> necessary or worthwhile, to use it with responsibility and care be those
> drugs recreational or medicinal in nature of usage.
>
> > I'm shocked that people don't bother to respond to the initial post
> > for literally days and then respond poorly.
>
> Oh, I was just procrastinating, so I stirred the pot.  Sorry, everyone.
>
> > A just say no campaign in regards to porn is advisable, but if the war
> > on drugs has taught us anything it's that a just say no campaign isn't
> > nearly enough.
>
> On what grounds is it advisable?  We learned that the campaign was not
> merely "not enough", but counter-productive, naive, and insulting.
>
> > Curiosity is a powerful thing and porn is very addictive.  Even if
> > you are looking at porn for say 20 minutes instead of an hour or
> > longer, you are still there for 20 minutes.
>
> Right.  20 minutes I would have spent imagining ridiculous sex scenarios
> and masturbating instead of watching or reading ridiculous sex scenarios
> and masturbating.  Big diff.
>
> > It's easy to say that porn is harmless if you don't pay for it, but
> > that's not true. Someone is abusing their sexuality for you to have a
> > picture to look at.
>
> One man's use is another man's abuse.
>
> > If nobody wanted to look at the picture, it's less likely that the
> > person would be involved in producing it.
>
> I think that's only true for the folks who get paid to do it and only
> somewhat, even then.  You obviously don't know any exhibitionists.
>
> > I'm not pushing for an outright ban on Internet pornography. I'm pushing
> > for a ban on free Internet pornography.
>
> Again, I think that makes the bad parts worse and takes the good parts
> away.
>
> > To say that a just say no campaign is sufficient is ludicrous.
>
> To say that a just say no campaign is ludicrous is sufficient.
>
> J.
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG-talk mailing list
> PLUG-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20091027/e647f203/attachment.html>


More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list