 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
He reveals his addiction to hard-core pornography and how it fueled the terrible crimes he committed. |
Addiction? You mean Bundy never had lustful thoughts before seeing a picture of a naked woman and became "addicted" the moment he caught a glimpse of skin? The guy was full of it and so are these religious folks and feminists who jumped on his "porn made me do it" bandwagon. But what should we expect from "the devil made me do it" crowd? Btw, 2 people having sex inspired Bundy to murder women? Isn't that the "violence in movies and games made me a murderer" argument?
quote:
It doesn't, it just offer a visual context of/for your fantasies. |
BINGO!!!!! 
People fantasize with or without external images. Pedophiles see a picture of a kid and that external image becomes part of their already existing fantasy while non-pedophiles just see a kid (and maybe they think of parenthood).
On the other hand, external images can and have been used to induce bad behavior, even unintentionally. For example, after watching the movie "Mississippi Burning", two young black kids became so angry at the images of injustice they left the theater and beat the hell out of a younger white kid nearly killing him.
But do images of porn translate into the Ted Bundy's of the world? The fact the world saw mass murderers before porn (the Venus de Milo made me do it?) shows that there will always be a segment of humanity who engage in such crimes. Virtually everyone would be outraged at images of injustice, virtually no one (if anyone) sees two people having sex and decides to murder women. And that throws a monkey wrench into the "porn made me do it" argument, if porn made only you and a relative few people out of billions commit such crimes then logic dictates that porn was not the catalyst.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
the original subject:
i can buy that he was forgiven by god.
i can buy that pr0n, in many ways as it is today, can be harmful.
i cannot buy, however, that ted bundy had an "addiction" to porn, and that's what led him to murder.
i cannot buy that somehow, bundy, a psychopath, might not have murdered those females if he'd never seen porn... particularly since he himself doesn't exactly come out and say it, but rather only hints at it in a vague fashion.
then again, the fire-and-brimstone crowd will always grasp at wisps and present them as facts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
 |
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
pornography reinforces negative attitudes towards women |
You guys are talking as if porn is mostly pictures of men killing raping and torturing women. While material like that is certainly out there (and featuring men, boys, animals as well) most porn is [essentially] just pictures of naked women and their genitalia.
When you talk about negative images of women in relation to porn, what you really mean is that male hetero-sexuality is an inherently bad and evil thing and should not be entertained.
In my opinion there's no reason to believe that someone who is sexualy interesting to someone else is therefore demeaned by that interest, niether do I believe that male sexuality (especially heterosexuality) is somehow inherently hateful, exploitative and wrong.
Psycho's using porn as an excuse for their crimes (not that I could be bothered to read the sick f*cks thoughts) are so far removed from normal human emotions, that they can't see sexuality as anything other then hatred and contempt. Their not comfortable with their own feelings, their like that gay serial killer who hated his sexuality so much, he'd pick up and kill gay men and tell them as they were dying
"You made me do that".
It's all just sooo Catholic.
Mind you, this attitude exists in most Religious societies and America anyway.
Last edited by problem_child on 22-08-2004 at 15:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
|
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
@pc: The usual argument, where I come from at least, is that even "nice" porn usually depict women as passive sex objects, reinforcing traditonal patterns of male dominance. |
Well, I see that, but doesn't that have more to do with the producers of porn and the industry itself and the nature of capitalism in how it converts nature into commodity... If I take nude pictures of my girlfriend, that's porn. Considering that means lots of pictures of her standing over me and looking like a super-hot foxy executive bossing me around like I'm some sort of life-support system for a living dildo... I'd say it's entirely subjective how porn portrays women, as opposed to how Hustler for instance portrays women.
What is porn, what is sexuality, what is portrayal... it all gets too muddled and 'social sciency' to be able to make hard assertions like 'porn degrades women', it's like... what is Art, what does it Mean? Is some Art also Porn?
The Black & White Minstrel show thing... I'm not sure about that, I wouldn't even know where to begin being offended by something like that.
Last edited by problem_child on 22-08-2004 at 16:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
|
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
As far as I know, no-one is claiming that porn necessarily depicts women as passive, only that most porn out there today, in fact, does.
As for what you describe, I can think of other reasons to object to it ... dominatrices too are not PC ... |
PC! Pah! Who cares about PC? If PC is where one gets ones moral guidance, then one is surely lost. I just like dominant women, I'm not into 'dominatrixes', actually it annoys me, that whole dominatrix thing, it campifies the sexual power that women have over men. Men can be the powerful one in sex, women can be the powerful one in sex, depends on the relationship... do you like surrendering to the hold a goddess has over your very soul... or do you like it when she surrenders to your musky manly potency, it works either way. That whole 'dominatrix' thing just takes one of these two equally reasonable points of view, and for no reason whatsoever makes it into a cartoon, it's ridiculous.
Dominatrixes represent proof that female sexuality is not taken seriously, and that anything other then male dominance is demeaned in our culture. So yeah, porn from our society does tend to demean women... but not because it's pornopraghy, but because of our culture.
At least, that's what I think anyway.
Last edited by problem_child on 22-08-2004 at 16:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
|
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
Well, the costume of it, it's like pantomime... whips and leather and chains... a costume, a show. Anything campified like a sexualy dominant female is campified into some kind of well-known cartoon architype, can't possibly be something taken seriously in real life. We don't accept sexual power of women in real life, so we make this unreality-zone of costume and role where women are 'allowed' to be the powerful one... especially if it's some High Court Judge paying the lady to do so for his own enjoyment.
Typically though, a man being quite dominant with a woman doesn't need a costume, or a label like 'Dominatrix' (Doiminator?) to legitimise his role... no need to make a cartoon character and have costumes etc for a man who likes to say 'Down on yer knees...' to a woman.
Male sexual dominance is always seen as natural, female sexual dominance is always seen as a slightly humorous characature, throw in some costume, "here, hold this whip for me, that's it... yeah babe..."
Maybe I'm wrong but, that's what the 'dominatrix' thing represents to me, a need to sanitise something by making it utterly fantasized and cartoon...ized. Essentially to distance it from reality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
|
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
If you have a clue what you're talking about because you've had a relationship with a dominatrix, then enlighten me, why close down the discussion with needless attitude? What's wrong with forums that people can't just talk about stuff and knock opinion back an forth anymore... everytthing has to be "I don't like what you're saying so fock off and die you full of sh!t bastard!!!!" 
Like I said, maybe I am wrong, but that is the impression I get from the whole Dominatrix thing. Why does a woman who likes to be boss in bed have to be called Dominatrix anyway, why the label... when men who like to be the boss don't have to carry a label... it's double standard, that's whatn I'm saying, I don't think it's an opinion that deserves to be blown out of the discussion with a bunch of aggitude. You think I'm wrong, tell me so, tell me why, challenge what I say fer chrissakes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
If you have a clue what you're talking about because you've had a relationship with a dominatrix, then enlighten me, why close down the discussion with needless attitude? What's wrong with forums that people can't just talk about stuff and knock opinion back an forth anymore...
|
Because people are far too quick to shoot of with their own simplistic view of things with little or no understanding of it, they just want to give their two cents even though they're completely worthless.
quote:
Why does a woman who likes to be boss in bed have to be called Dominatrix anyway, why the label... when men who like to be the boss don't have to carry a label... it's double standard,
|
You say it's about women who like to be the boss, again proof of your superficial understanding of the situation. It runs far deeper, it's a tapestry of power complexes yes, but about the pain/pleasure boundary and anticipation. There are two opposing sides at work here. The tantric idea of eliminating anticipation and living in "the moment", and the S&M (sic) staple of anticipation... hence teasing, torture, pain and building up.
As for your argument, a man is almost by default "the one in power" in many womens minds and in many men as well and it would be frivolous to call attention to that again unless the woman actively wanted to be submissive, whereas with someone for whom that is not the assumed state, it needs to be reaffirmed.
quote:
"I don't like what you're saying so fock off and die you full of sh!t bastard!!!!"
|
It's not that I don't like what you're saying, its just painfully obvious that you've spent about half an hour at most thinking about this with nothing but a porn magazine and a copy of the communist manifesto as your basis. Have you spoken to any doms? Have you tried to work out what makes them tick? The fact that you haven't sticks out like a sore thumb and that's a pet hate of mine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
|
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
Whaleboy
quote:
Because people are far too quick to shoot of with their own simplistic view of things with little or no understanding of it, they just want to give their two cents even though they're completely worthless. |
anyone can say that of somebody elses opinions,
'I don't like what you think so your opinions are totally simplistic and completely worthless'. *shrug*
quote:
It runs far deeper, it's a tapestry of power complexes yes, but about the pain/pleasure boundary and anticipation. There are two opposing sides at work here. The tantric idea of eliminating anticipation and living in "the moment", and the S&M (sic) staple of anticipation... hence teasing, torture, pain and building up.
As for your argument, a man is almost by default "the one in power" in many womens minds and in many men as well and it would be frivolous to call attention to that again unless the woman actively wanted to be submissive, whereas with someone for whom that is not the assumed state, it needs to be reaffirmed. |
why didn't you just counter with this in the first place, a statement that may enlighten my obviously backward and simplistic understanding of things I obviously have no right to have an opinion about, not being your esteemed self
quote:
It's not that I don't like what you're saying, its just painfully obvious that you've spent about half an hour at most thinking about this with nothing but a porn magazine and a copy of the communist manifesto as your basis. Have you spoken to any doms? Have you tried to work out what makes them tick? The fact that you haven't sticks out like a sore thumb and that's a pet hate of mine. |
I qualified everything I said with the caveat "In my opinion", I did not say I was a sex-doctor, or that I had studied these things at length, or anything of the sort. I was under the impression that I am allowed to express an opinion on things, this being a discussion forum afterall... I would like to meet someone who describes herself as a 'Dominatrix', but I have not had that honor. However I do live in a culture where the dominatrix-image or thing is commonly used and represented, I think I have a right to form opinions about things that are common to my cultural environment. I'm also not a rocket scientist, or xeno-biologist or President, but I have opinions about space-exploration and the existance of alien-life and the foreign policies of various governments.
Come The Day, I'm suyre I may be lined up along with other insolent upstarts and shot, untill then this ignorant peasant intends to continue to share his opinions with those who are interested in opinions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Why don't people take responsibility for their own actions?
Don't ever say, 'yes, I knew that battering a woman to death whilst raping her was wrong, but gee, 'Hustler' made me do it' because it sounds so lame. |
Try reading what Bundy said.
quote:
Some abused children grow up to be abusers, and some men and women who mistreat others use porn.
But they also drink alcohol, watch television, read the Bible, eat sugary snacks and fatty foods, and wear stretch polyester. |
Sugar or fat or stretch polyester don't induce or inculcate thoughts of sexual or violent nature. Even alcohol doesn't. The Bible doesn't deal with sexuality in explicit or non-euphemistic language.
Porn does. That's its purpose. I doubt you have an honest interview with Sutcliffe or Nilson to support your point, but even if you did no one is claiming that only porn stimulates the serial killer's appetites.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
anyone can say that of somebody elses opinions,
'I don't like what you think so your opinions are totally simplistic and completely worthless'. *shrug*
|
Thats a complete misrepresentation. I don't like your opinions BECAUSE they are simplistic, not thought out and thus completely worthless, not "SO they are".
quote:
why didn't you just counter with this in the first place, a statement that may enlighten my obviously backward and simplistic understanding of things I obviously have no right to have an opinion about, not being your esteemed self
|
Because frankly a simple refutation would not suffice to show you the erroneous nature of your views. If someone came up to me and said "the world is flat", would I resort to laughing in his face or lengthy, ponderous cogitations to prove that 2500 years of science are correct? And don't play the "OMG he's questioning my right to air an opinion" crap with me. I've studied that right more than you've studied "Senor Manana's: Reasoning for the illiterate revolutionary" so don't pull that crap here and read what I wrote.
quote:
I qualified everything I said with the caveat "In my opinion", I did not say I was a sex-doctor, or that I had studied these things at length, or anything of the sort.
|
And yet you present it as the truth. If you include that caveat, be descriptive, not prescriptive.
quote:
However I do live in a culture where the dominatrix-image or thing is commonly used and represented, I think I have a right to form opinions about things that are common to my cultural environment.
|
Then consider this your 101. When studying something cultural or sociological do not interpret on face value, the key is in the premise... it is more of an investigation than a truism.
quote:
I'm also not a rocket scientist, or xeno-biologist or President, but I have opinions about space-exploration and the existance of alien-life and the foreign policies of various governments.
|
None of which can be taken seriously if they are woefully flawed as the one you have displayed here, for which your lack of experience is clearly a cause, no offense to yoru ability to form opinions but garbage in, garbage out.
quote:
Come The Day, I'm suyre I may be lined up along with other insolent upstarts and shot, untill then this ignorant peasant intends to continue to share his opinions with those who are interested in opinions.
|
Don't pull the "i'm being oppressed line" out here. I am irritated that you make such statements with no basis or experience, and woeful critical flaws therein, and then proclaim them as your opinion when in essense you state them as fact. A caveat doesn't cut it when their argument contradicts it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
|
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
Is it only me, or does Whaleboy seem to be taking this rather personally? |
To be honest, I don't see what the guys problem is.
Anyhoo
I stand by my opinion. S&M is one thing, not everyone who is into S&M necessarily goes for the whole cat-suit wearing, whip brandishing Dominatrix thing, but the Dominatrix thing itself, the costumes and the Madame Whats'hername stuff... I seriously don't think that whole image is a true representation of female sexual power, I see it as cartoon-like. Just another caricature along with the Village-Peoples YMCA boys and the French Maid outfit.
Pornography featuring a woman in an empowered role does not necessarily mean a Dominatrix.
Therefore porn doesn't need to feature women as sex-objects or as Dominatrixes, and isn't always just 'one more mucky male fantasy that demeans and objectifies women'.
(Of course some women want to be a sex-object sometimes, or a Dominatrix etc... )
Back to point, this means that the answer to the question "Are you into porn" is irrelevent to the making of serial-killers or even disrespect toward women. the answer to "What kind of porn are you into" or "What do you see when you look at this image" is far more enlightening... and a persons taste in porn, or interpretation of a pornographic image, isn't going to be greatly inluenced by Playboy for instance.
There's alot of breadth out there, blaming 'porn' for anything is effectively meaningless. Not that I'm really really into porn or anything I'm just saying.
Last edited by problem_child on 22-08-2004 at 20:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:35
|
|
I don't really disagree with any of that. It would however seem that the tastes of most Western men who are into porn are for kinds that demean women (assuming that portrayal as passive sex objects or as dominatrices is demeaning).
Last edited by Last Conformist on 22-08-2004 at 21:28
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-08-2004 04:28
|