The High Court just sent COPA back to a lower court 5-4, claiming it likely to infringe on the first amendment. This is a Good Thing™ and the ACLU is applauding the decision.

If you believe that pornography is damaging to minors then protecting your kids against it must start and end in the home. This trend of calling in the government to work in loco parentis by bad parents is driving me nuts--the responsibility is for the parents, not the government, to "protect" their children should they believe that their children need protecting.

What is it with people? Instead of paying attention to what their child does on the internet, they try and get the government to limit it. Instead of paying attention to what their child sees on television--locking out channels as appropriate and taking an active role--they want the government to intercede "on behalf of the children.

What disappoints me is that this ruling was only 5-4. Though I was pleased to see that Thomas disagreed with Scalia for a change.

The High Court just sent COPA back to a lower court 5-4, claiming it likely to infringe on the first amendment. This is a Good Thing™ and the ACLU is applauding the decision...

...What disappoints me is that this ruling was only 5-4. Though I was pleased to see that Thomas disagreed with Scalia for a change.

I hate to appear dense, chum - but is there any chance of a translation for us across the pond?

;)

Is the question here regarding Pornography, or just parents who don't want to take responsibility for watching their own children in general?

Not that it affects my response, as Tweety (http://tweety.bowlofmice.com/tweety/yraise_your_own_kid.html) pretty much covers my stance on both. :)

I completely agree with you. I think Parents lose their authority or maybe fake losing it (I don't know) and escape their responsabilities. I couldn't say about Laws in the States, but here you can find some small lobbies(?) who work hard to ban everything porn related on tv/net, everywhere. Just as if we couldn't take our decisions by ourselves and teach our kids what isn't right.

btw, what does 5-4 means? is it some kind of level?

Tweety is my new best friend...

:)

I hate to appear dense, chum - but is there any chance of a translation for us across the pond?

;)

<G> Alright, I've gotten two comments on this, so I'll try and clarify.

The Supreme Court is comprised of 9 judges. Thomas and Scalia are both justices on that court and Thomas tends to always side with Scalia.

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union and is an organization dedicated to upholding the bill of rights sans the second amendment--the right to keep and bear arms.

I suppose it's easier for the parents to blame anyone but themselves. Uh...what is this debate again? Who should be blamed for subjecting pornography to minors and who should stop it? I think first off, it's the kids. They should at least have the sense to not look at that stuff, but obviously they can't be blamed for being subjected to it. Although I think the parents should really be the main ones trying to stop their children fromseeing that stuff, it's not the kids fault they they haven't got a Net Nanny or blocked off the wrong channels.

Gotcha. Thanks, Lly.

And I take it COPA is the Child Online Protection Act? (Not the Conservatory of Puppetry Arts, as another Google result suggested ;) )

I agree w/ Lly here on this...But just to play devils advocate I'll say that there are alot of parents who arent responsible and dont keep track of what there child is doing. They abuse drugs, aclahol ect...and to put it simply, there just bad parents who dont care.
What about them?

We can scream 1st amendment rights all day long. But where is my 1st amendment rights to view it (if I want to) when it is thrown in my face. You have the right to view it if you want to and I have my right to not view it. This argument is a catch 22 suituation. The government should not take away your right to view it just as it should not allow those to throw it in my face.

Ll has a point about it starting at home. I am the one who should be teaching my children about life. Not regulations from the government. It does start at home. But the governement should put restrictions on porn to reduce the avenues that kids will be exposed to it. For example. Porno is meant for adults 18 and over. All it would take is to stop the promotional pictures that follow every porno banner. Once you are in, then you can see what you have paid for. I think that it's the free porn that is the problem not the issue of porn it self. I am not one for porn but I understand that is it your right to view it if you see fit. All I ask is that it is kept in your home and not in the public for all to see. I am not for outlawing porn just regulating it to reduce the possiblity of my child to view it.


tMR

Doesn't it seem that as time goes on personal responsibility for anything is dwindling? I agree parents should be responsible for their children. Parents should explain to their kids why they shouldn't watch porn, and then explain the consequences if they're ever caught doing it. (Up to a certain age... which is up for debate) You can make porn very difficult for children to access, and it should be. Just don't interfere with an adults ability to do so. It seems that more and more in society today it's becoming acceptable to be stupid and to pass off your duties and responsibilities onto "someone else". Careless, apathetic people who are too lazy to think for themselves are trading their personal freedoms so that they don't have to think as much. They'd rather let the government regualte every aspect of their lives so they cannot stray too far out of bounds by way of their own ignorance. Metaphorically speaking, they'd like to have the government lock them up in their padded room so they can't hurt themselves, while sacrificing their own freedom in return. Most people are naturally going to do what's easy for them, and I have no doubt that the majority will eventually be this worthless breed and that our legislators will slowly be changing our laws to support the erosion of personal responsibility and freedom.

I agree w/ Lly here on this...But just to play devils advocate I'll say that there are alot of parents who arent responsible and dont keep track of what there child is doing. They abuse drugs, aclahol ect...and to put it simply, there just bad parents who dont care.
What about them?
Frankly, I believe there should be tighter rules governing neglectful parenting.

Nobody else made the decision to have a child - it's up to the parents. If they can't be bothered, there should be some form of punitive redress for society as we're going to have to carry the can for these lazy bastards.

As for the kids, you can't save everyone, unfortunately. :( And the measures we'd have to put in place to try to help would be too restrictive on the rest of us, imho.

Of course pornography is something that should be looked at on a more parental discretion level. With something like this you are always going to meet both ends of the spectrum, and when that happens the question of what exactly is considered pornography should hopefully come up. In the dictionary pornography is described as lurid and sexually arousing, but the same can be said for may monuments I'm sure, given a certain perspective.

I would have no objection to my child seeing nudity or casual sex on tv. Reason being, I am open enough that it will never have to be brought up on a seperate level. Sexual repression is not a good thing, and can lead to very weird personality traits. People who are open enough to view a naked body without getting squirmish, are usually not the ones to be having multiple sex partners at a very young age.

Repression leads to curiousity. Sensorship leads to low self-esteem when it comes to ones body. Being open with your children, as hard as it may be for you, will make you both more comfortable when it comes to dealing with issues regarding sex later on, and your children will most likely have a more healthy view of their body.

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo denounced the ruling.

"Our society has reached a broad consensus that child obscenity is harmful to our youngest generation and must be stopped," Corallo said. "Congress has repeatedly attempted to address this serious need and the court yet again opposed these common-sense measures to protect America's children."

source: http://www.ktvu.com/news/3473526/detail.html I find this quote from the USDOJ particularly disturbing. Any time someone argues for their position based on popular consensus or "common sense" when faced with constitutional issues, I'm at a loss as how to go about discussing the topic with them. Good thing I don't know Mark Corallo (or John Ashcroft) personally. ;)

Too many people want the government to interfere in others' lives but not their own. That just feeds the beast. I agree with the ruling.

Angelia's post reminded me of how shocked everyone acted after the Janet Jackson incident. My child saw a nipple! He's damaged for life! :p

Angelia's post reminded me of how shocked everyone acted after the Janet Jackson incident. My child saw a nipple! He's damaged for life! :p
Apparently, Americans have some deep issues with sexuality and the human body, to wit:
A full frontal nude shot of Colin Farrell in Home at the End of the World has been cut because U.S. test audiences cheered, disrupting a poignant scene.

Members of both sexes reacted enthusiastically at a recent screening upon seeing the Irish actor naked, prompting the film's producers to modify the scene in hopes of keeping moviegoers focused on the storyline, E! Online reported Friday.

source: http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=db083c19e3c237ea
(emphasis mine) What is wrong with a society that can't maturely deal with human sexuality?!

You're all right, of course. Parents should take responsibility for what their children are exposed to. However, a lot of people should do a lot of things; that doesn't guarantee they will. While I agree that most children will not be harmed by viewing nudity, some pornography is just too graphic for consumption by extremely young people. Porn is often laced with the underlying message of the subjugation of women, a theme I don't think we should be programming into our children. Also, certain porn may skew the child's view of sex before he or she even knows what it is. Handcuffs, whips and chains, and the like may make a child uncomfortable with sex, leading to issues later in life. I was never exposed to porn when I was a youngster, but I did witness quite a bit of "kinky" sex, and I was really afraid of sex for quite a long time. There are certain things a young child should not be exposed to, and graphic sexual scenes beyond their comprehension are included in this, to my mind.

As for Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, I think it was inappropriate, but blown way out of proportion.

Slashdot has an ongoing discussion (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/29/1544255&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=153&tid=95&tid=99).

cool, a fellow slashdot reader ;)

my two cent:
* forbidden things are much more interesting to children! think of children who are allowed to watch sex on tv. why would they? thats boring at that age. but if its forbidden, there's gotta be something to it. and later, when it becomes interesting for some other reason, children find a way ...
* a lot of parents don't manage to teach their children that tv is not reality! its not a big deal with children watching any kinda tv with parents talking to them about it.


btw, whats more unsuitable for children - watching somebody being murdered/injured/kidnapped/etc or a couple having sex on tv?

btw, whats more unsuitable for children - watching somebody being murdered/injured/kidnapped/etc or a couple having sex on tv?

The answer is, none of the above. We should guard our children's innocence from such scenes. They shouldn't have to think about violence or sex until they are old enough to comprehend REALISTICALLY the risk to them (in the case of violence) or their sexual roles. While I think that some pornography might not HARM children, I have concern about the vast majority of it. Not only does it depict the subjugation and objectification of women, but also occasionally shows "sexually deviant" behavior such as S&M. While some of us believe that this is a healthy expression of sexual desire, it is certainly not healthy for a child to witness when it is beyond their understanding.

<3 Mary

Porn, to me, is anything that is suggesting sex, or directly involving sex.

While a girl laying their nude isn't porn to me, one laying there spread eagle is.

Childern should be able to look at the human body without shame, if they are brought up thinking the naked body is nasty and disgusting, they'll never feel comfortable in their own skin or when involved in sexual activity. Hopefully when they are older anyway.

Kids who grow up in tribes and countries where nudity is part of everyday life, do they grow up perverted and twisted? No, they don't. I don't know what it is about Amercia and nudity, but it definately is twisted on how it works. They can show people getting shot, killed, having sex, swearing, whatever. But once the nipple slips, it's a public outrage. It's a damned nipple for god sakes, you sucked on it while you were a kid, and you have them yourself. Yet they can show natives on the Discovery channel running around without any clothes on. Apparently nudity must be some sort of un-civilized thing, and we're just too good for that.

Now actual porn is a different story, it's something that kids really shouldn't be exposed to. A 14 or 15 year old looking at it out of curiosity, I really don't care about, because I was that 15 yeard old. And with your hormones raging, it's perfectly natural to want to view it. But for 9 or 10 years old to be subjected to it, isn't right at all, simply because they still should able to maintain some sort of innocence. And I highly doubt they go and purposely try to find these things.

Either way, the parents should be in control in what their kids see or cannot see, as much as possible, and quit depending on everybody else to do their job. Not saying to completely ban any discussion or thought of sexual activity, but letting the kid view explicit videos or pictures of sex isn't the way to go about teaching them. You need to explain to a child what sex is, and all that, but they don't need to see a vivid example of it.

It doesn't help either that there are constant popups, malware, e-mails, and misleading links out there that directly lets you view it, often accidently. Sometimes that can't be helped, and I've already had malware that makes your homepage automatically set to a porn site. Still, parents can control mostly what their child is viewing.

Not only does it depict the subjugation and objectification of women, but also occasionally shows "sexually deviant" behavior such as S&M. While some of us believe that this is a healthy expression of sexual desire, it is certainly not healthy for a child to witness when it is beyond their understanding.

For any person who isn't into S&M, no matter what age they are, it's most likely beyond their understanding. As with many fetishes or what you consider to be "sexually deviant".

Now, I don't understand how porn depicts the subjugation and objectification of women, to me, it's just sex. What about gay porn then, or the males in porn videos themselves? How does it not objectify them? If porn really did do that to males, then probably 90% of the male population would treat us like objects. The reason males do, I think, is because they were basically brought up that way. If the male grew up in a family with a strong female role model, I highly doubt he'll treat women like sex objects, even if he views porn often.

Personally, I think there are things worse than pornography. Well, not really really really bad hardcore gross stuff- thats just gross- but how 'damaging' is it? If someone can distinguish between reality and fantasy... Anyway, I find violence and stuff much more of an issue than pornography. But otherwise, I agree with Lly about the irresponsibility of parents who depend on others to raise and protect their kids, especially the gov't.

Should say "especially the government".

For any person who isn't into S&M, no matter what age they are, it's most likely beyond their understanding. As with many fetishes or what you consider to be "sexually deviant".

I put "sexually deviant" in quotation marks for a reason. Technically, anything that deviates from the norm is by definition deviant, but I didn't want to come off like I was passing judgment on people's lifestyle choices. I just don't know if little kids are capable of understanding what S&M really is (even less so than adults who aren't into it). For little kids, it can be kinda scary. That's all.

Now, I don't understand how porn depicts the subjugation and objectification of women, to me, it's just sex.

Let's see. Most porn is straight male-on-female sex or female-on-female sex. The 3some scenario is also popular. Most porn purchasers/viewers are male. Those who view porn are undoubtedly objectifying the people in the porn as a means to the end of achieving sexual pleasure (through masturbation etc). There is extreme concentration on the woman's body (her breasts, private area, face, and hair). The viewer enjoys the woman's body while reveling in the man's sexual enjoyment of her. The vast majority of porn is centered around the woman pleasing the man (or two women pleasing a man), with little concern for the woman. If she gets off, great, but not the point of the porn. This in itself elevates a man's satisfaction above a woman's, sending an ever-so-subtle message that men are more important than women.

What about gay porn then, or the males in porn videos themselves? How does it not objectify them?

It does. I said the majority of porn.

If porn really did do that to males, then probably 90% of the male population would treat us like objects.

Wait. Don't they?

The reason males do, I think, is because they were basically brought up that way. If the male grew up in a family with a strong female role model, I highly doubt he'll treat women like sex objects, even if he views porn often.

You're probably right. It's not so much the way they treat people as much as how they view people. And in a family with a strong female role model, I highly doubt a young child would be regularly exposed to pornography. But I guess it could happen.

That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the naked human body. Parents don't have to shy away from letting their children see them naked or even letting them ask questions about their bodies or the physical differences between men and women. I am all for openness, but totally against graphic sex being viewed by children who aren't yet capable of understanding it.

<3 Mary

I don't know what it is about Amercia and nudity, but it definately is twisted on how it works.

The majority of Americans are ignorant. I think thats basically a stereotype Americans are given, right? Along with being rich and fat. Well, the rich part isnt true.

Im referring to that UFO debate- Americans are afraid of the unknown. Like uh, i bet theres many Americans who would never set foot in the ocean because of sharks. Thats just because they dont understand sharks, or they arent used to them. Same with nudity, I guess. We dont understand, or arent subject to enough nudity in our everyday lives, so it's unusual for us to see it, so uh...yeah.

hm, the fear of the unknown is an old human instinct, not an american based confusion ;)


anyway, this whole debate makes me kinda curious, how easy in america it is to get to see an actual porn movie?

i mean, around here, it's not like it is jumping in your face all the time. in fact, you really have to search for it in order to see it. in the whole spectrum of public and private tv channels, there is sometimes a soft porn movie late at night, but never an actual porn movie or even some "sexually deviant" content. well, i don't know about the pay-tv channels though, because they aren't common around here. and to get a porn from the video rental, you gotta be 18+.

That's basically true here in the US. Underage people can't legally buy pornographic material. But the COPA (Child Online Protection Act) was about online pornography. It is extremely easy for children to stumble on to pornography online. My sister, for instance, did a search for "Baptist." She was doing a research project for school about girls in the Baptist denomination (her class was having a celebration of religious diversity day. She clicked on the first link she got, and it was a porn site. She was 8. All the COPA sought to do was require a credit card number as proof of age before allowing the user to view pornography.

Child pornograhpy is the only thing they should be concerned with stopping. Regular porn is legal to look at if your over the age of 18, sometimes 21, I believe it is 21 in a few states, but this child porn ring is absolutely appalling. I have been misfortunate enough to witness this awful crime against children. I was downloading what I thought was a music video but somehow got mislabeled or whatever and was actually a little girl that couldn't have been more than 8 years old. She was being molested and it made me sick. I clicked it off as soon as I seen what it was and deleted it. It's hard to fathom why someone would want to have sex with a child. But, sadly enough there are predators out there that gets off on litle kids. They should be castrated. :mad:

Yes, castrated. And I don't mean chemically. I think we should rip off their pee pees and catheterize them. Absolutely.

Interestingly enough, pornography is not a very big deal in several European countries. I traveled to Italy and Greece my freshman year of high school and one thing that I remember is that there was a street vendor on every other corner selling porn. It was everywhere. Go to France sometime and watch some television. I bet you would be shocked.

What we are dealing with is cultural differences. Many American parents have no problem allowing their children to see old John Wayne westerns or Star Wars despite the violence but do not want their children to see such movies as Striptease. In Europe, the situation seems to be reversed. Parents are more lenient on sexual content in movies and less tolerant of violence. What we veiw as an acceptable level of violence in film may not be acceptable to families in parts of Europe and certain popular French television programming may be viewed as some in this country as borderline pornopgraphic. Every society is different. What some view as pornography others may not. Go to a tribe in South America where all of the tribe live their entire lives nude. Show them a Playboy. What do you think will happen? Take the same magazine to a Southern Baptist church. What happens there? You cannot judge one society's morals in terms of another. There is not common ground.

Not to go completely off topic, but censorship in America is extremely hypocritical.

What standards would they use to monitor the internet anyway?

In movies and on TV, violence and swearing is okay, but nudity is restricted.

In music and music videos, borderline porn and detailed lyrical descriptions of hardcore fucking is okay, but anything to do with guns, violence, or suicide gets bleeped out.

Are they going to prevent children from downloading music videos too, or does that become the new loophole, like pornography is to prostitution?

Who decides how and what is "damaging" to the children?

Let's see. Most porn is straight male-on-female sex or female-on-female sex. The 3some scenario is also popular. Most porn purchasers/viewers are male. Those who view porn are undoubtedly objectifying the people in the porn as a means to the end of achieving sexual pleasure (through masturbation etc). There is extreme concentration on the woman's body (her breasts, private area, face, and hair). The viewer enjoys the woman's body while reveling in the man's sexual enjoyment of her. The vast majority of porn is centered around the woman pleasing the man (or two women pleasing a man), with little concern for the woman. If she gets off, great, but not the point of the porn. This in itself elevates a man's satisfaction above a woman's, sending an ever-so-subtle message that men are more important than women. *taps on your shoulder* Have you actually tried to download porn yourself, ever? Or been on a porn site? A very large percentage of pornography, especially as far as picture are concerned, is female masturbation. Self-satisfying. And as far as porn concentrating on women's breasts, and other parts of her body... what is a larger percentage of viewers looking at porn again? Right. ;)

Actually, statistically women would rather see another women's body over a man's, which plays into alot of what you see in magazines. Honestly, I would also rather see a womens body. I'm not sure why though, it just deems more appealing to me.

Pornography has many terms, many diversities to it, and to say you are censoring it as a whole just does not make sense.

What I personally believe, is that stopping online porngraphy is not only depleting your freedom and rights, it would also be extremely hard to do. There are too many intricacies involved. First off, you'd need to come to some type of consensus as to what is actually defined as pornagraphy. As Mutant already pointed out, this would be a tricky one. As far as children viewing porn sights, I can't see any reason why we should censor everyone from something so natural, when really it already seems it's regarded differently by a variety of people in society. This is where the parents should step in, take ownership over their child, put safty locks on the computer if needed be, whatever. It may be everyone's job to raise a child, it's not everyone's job to impose there own personal beliefs on that child.

Incidently, has anybody actually read over the COPA short list? Funny over 80 paragraphs, yet not one single sentence on what actually constitutes as pornograhy. :/

If they can't even define it, how can they possibly judge, and impose a law for it?

Who decides how and what is "damaging" to the children?Congress. :/

As of right now, the government has a tyranny over our internet. It's sickening, and the Communications Decency Act is a good example of where it all wen't amiss.

For those that agree with the government taking on a monopoly on our internet rights, I have to ask you this: If you take away freedom of speech on the internet, if you censor to what you see fit, where do you draw the line? Should it be the same for your television, or book, or magazine? If so, what is the point when your own judgement plays into affect? Also what do you think is easier for a child to get a hold of.. the remote, or internet access?

Just a few thoughts. ;)

Interestingly enough, pornography is not a very big deal in several European countries. I traveled to Italy and Greece my freshman year of high school and one thing that I remember is that there was a street vendor on every other corner selling porn. It was everywhere. Go to France sometime and watch some television. I bet you would be shocked.

What we are dealing with is cultural differences. Many American parents have no problem allowing their children to see old John Wayne westerns or Star Wars despite the violence but do not want their children to see such movies as Striptease. In Europe, the situation seems to be reversed. Parents are more lenient on sexual content in movies and less tolerant of violence. What we veiw as an acceptable level of violence in film may not be acceptable to families in parts of Europe and certain popular French television programming may be viewed as some in this country as borderline pornopgraphic. Every society is different. What some view as pornography others may not. Go to a tribe in South America where all of the tribe live their entire lives nude. Show them a Playboy. What do you think will happen? Take the same magazine to a Southern Baptist church. What happens there? You cannot judge one society's morals in terms of another. There is not common ground.
I've been to Europe as well and i have to agree with you. people in europe are much more open about their bodies in general and more comfortable with their sexuality. For example, it isnt uncommon for people who are casual friends to rest a hand on their friend's leg or shoulder for a long period of time. Over here you can get yourself slapped around for that kind of thing. Also, people in europe generally don't give each other any "personal space." People seem to always be touching each other in a very casual way.
Anyway, back on topic. Its the parent's responsibility to raise their children as they want them to grow up. Blaming the government for not taking raunchy programming off of tv is a little rediculous, considering that parents have a large degree of control over what stations are allowed on their own televisions. But as for porn...... I don't have a problem with the government eliminating child porn.....its disgusting and unnatural. As for legitimate porn, people should have the ability to view it if they want to.

Im straying off topic, but in Europe, are people friendly, too? Do strangers just say 'hi' to each other all the time? Just askin- cuz I've never had that happen where I live (California), unless it's elderly people walking their dogs because they're cool like that.

Anyway, without the internet, even, I think MTV is enough porn for everybody.

Im straying off topic, but in Europe, are people friendly, too? Do strangers just say 'hi' to each other all the time? Just askin- cuz I've never had that happen where I live (California), unless it's elderly people walking their dogs because they're cool like that.

Anyway, without the internet, even, I think MTV is enough porn for everybody.
Dude, maybe it has something to do with Cali, but here in SC you can approach ANYBODY as say "g'day how you doing where you going bud?" and they won't look at you like you're insane. They'll talk to you. And waving to people that you've never seen before as you're driving to work is totally cool as well. Anyway, back to being off topic with your question:cool:. It depends what part of Europe. In germany lots of people seem to hate americans, but in Italy people were overwhelmingly cool and would talk to you and each other all the time, even if they'd never seen you before. That's assuming that you can speak a little italian or vice versa, but stilll, yes, people do go out of their way to help other people and speak with you.

First amendment. Or something.

There, now i don't feel so worthless

Dude, maybe it has something to do with Cali, but here in SC you can approach ANYBODY as say "g'day how you doing where you going bud?" and they won't look at you like you're insane. They'll talk to you. And waving to people that you've never seen before as you're driving to work is totally cool as well. Anyway, back to being off topic with your question:cool:. It depends what part of Europe. In germany lots of people seem to hate americans, but in Italy people were overwhelmingly cool and would talk to you and each other all the time, even if they'd never seen you before. That's assuming that you can speak a little italian or vice versa, but stilll, yes, people do go out of their way to help other people and speak with you.

First amendment. Or something.

There, now i don't feel so worthless


People are more friendly here too. It took a while to get used to, especially after coming from Baltimore, where you don't look at someone out of fear of getting shot or stabbed. I still have a hard time dealing with people bieng overly friendly.

As far as the porn is concerned. I agree with "tweety's" rant about raising your own kids. Don't take my porn away just cause you don't want your kids to see it.

Here in hawaii, there is an air of sexuality that I think is more prevalent than on the mainland, well in non-coastal areas. Girls here walk around with little more than a bikini on, even if they are just at the mall. I don't mind, but when I see a girl who barely looks 9 showing 75% of her body, it can be a little disturbing, and I have to ask how they got out of the house wearing so little. :cool:

Girls here walk around with little more than a bikini on, even if they are just at the mall. I don't mind, but when I see a girl who barely looks 9 showing 75% of her body, it can be a little disturbing, and I have to ask how they got out of the house wearing so little. :cool:

That is the parents fault. Plain and simple. I know one girl who dresses her daughter just like she dresses her self. She thinks it's cute. It is when they are wearing conserative outfits. But when she wants to turn heads, it is freighting. Infact, it makes me ill.

There is a time and a place for each person to learn the ways of the world. Porno is not my thing but who am I to judge.

tMR

My sister, for instance, did a search for "Baptist." She was doing a research project for school about girls in the Baptist denomination (her class was having a celebration of religious diversity day. She clicked on the first link she got, and it was a porn site. She was 8. All the COPA sought to do was require a credit card number as proof of age before allowing the user to view pornography.
If that's all, then I would be in support of it.

SangReal brings up a good point. As much as I'm for freedom of speech and expression, I know her little sister is not the first one to have been tricked into clicking on a porn site. And it's not like our little sisters are stupid or can't read... Earlier in the week, I was having a debate with someone here about Gargoyles characters, and one of the first search results I found for gargoyles images was a guy who video taped homeless women giving him blow jobs in exchange for a place to sleep. That's fucked up.

I contacted Google about modifying that web site's key words, but realistically, they don't have time to do that for everything their spiders pick up. The credit card number thing doesn't infringe on anyone's rights (someone not old enough to have a credit card is not legally allowed to view porn in the first place), it's just a minor annoying extra step.

If anybody had ACTUALLY READ the legalese that is the COPA, you would know that its supporters don't want to make porn illegal or censor it. They just want to make sure you're old enough to view it before you do.

I contacted Google about modifying that web site's key words, but realistically, they don't have time to do that for everything their spiders pick up. The credit card number thing doesn't infringe on anyone's rights (someone not old enough to have a credit card is not legally allowed to view porn in the first place), it's just a minor annoying extra step.

Yeah, that and people with bad credit can't get porn.

If anybody had ACTUALLY READ the legalese that is the COPA, you would know that its supporters don't want to make porn illegal or censor it. They just want to make sure you're old enough to view it before you do.



Yeah, that and people with bad credit can't get porn.


I'm just going to refer back to the link that Emma posted at the beginning of this thread. I totally agree with tweety on the issue of "protecting" children from porn.

Tweety (http://tweety.bowlofmice.com/tweety/yraise_your_own_kid.html) pretty much covers my stance on both. :)

If anybody had ACTUALLY READ the legalese that is the COPA, you would know that its supporters don't want to make porn illegal or censor it. They just want to make sure you're old enough to view it before you do.First off, I don't really understand why congress needs to use filter programs to block content straight from url addresses instead of just having society do it themselves. Are we really that incompetent that we cannot decide for ourselves what we want to censor? The COPA act only prevents children from viewing American sites, which means that any foreign site is still accessible, meaning you would still need some sort of filtering on your computer. At home filtering has way more benefits and can include much more then government filtering url ever could. So in actuality you will still need both, which seems rather pointless to me.

The fact is, both a lot of young people and adults use the internet alike, so why are we censoring for one over the other, as a country wide restriction. I can only assume that most children that have access to the internet is through their parents, and never the other way around. I should also note that the COPA has also been noted to censor in according to internet access at schools and libraries, which is ridiculous to me.

The problem still remains that first of all, what is considered pornography (as they are very aloof of what is entailed), and what if an adult does not have or want to use a credit card to view a site? I try and use my credit card as little as possible when it comes to the net, and I am not so sure I would trust many porn sites.

So what exactly are they filtering? They say:
imposed on the sources of otherwise lawful adult content that would be deemed harmful to minors under COPA. or:
the government argues the strict construction of the harmful-to-minors test "narrowly cabins the material that is covered by the Act, so that COPA applies primarily to pornographic teasers that appear on the Web sites of commercial pornographers

Which really means nothing. Given this broad spectrum they seem to fall under, anything from BDSM sites to birthcontrol can fall under their scrutiny.

First off, I don't really understand why congress needs to use filter programs to block content straight from url addresses instead of just having society do it themselves. Are we really that incompetent that we cannot decide for ourselves what we want to censor?
We should, but as has been established, there is a huge gap between what "society" SHOULD do and what it DOES do. Yes, we are damned incompetent if a Google search for Baptists yields two naked women in an empty bathtub performing oral sex on one another.

The COPA act only prevents children from viewing American sites, which means that any foreign site is still accessible, meaning you would still need some sort of filtering on your computer. At home filtering has way more benefits and can include much more then government filtering url ever could. So in actuality you will still need both, which seems rather pointless to me.
Right, it does only prevent kids from seeing American sites, but American sites are the most likely to turn up in a search engine or hound you with popups. And if I'm a parent, I might be stupid. I might not know my child could accidentally view such things, and never suspect that they might purposely do so. Parents are stupid. We need to compensate.

The fact is, both a lot of young people and adults use the internet alike, so why are we censoring for one over the other, as a country wide restriction. I can only assume that most children that have access to the internet is through their parents, and never the other way around. I should also note that the COPA has also been noted to censor in according to internet access at schools and libraries, which is ridiculous to me.
Why? God forbid they have a religious freedom day at school and do research in the library.

The problem still remains that first of all, what is considered pornography (as they are very aloof of what is entailed)...Which really means nothing. Given this broad spectrum they seem to fall under, anything from BDSM sites to birthcontrol can fall under their scrutiny.
There are other laws which adequately define pornography for retail purposes, and these can be used to define it for children protection purposes.

<3 Mary

We should, but as has been established, there is a huge gap between what "society" SHOULD do and what it DOES do. Yes, we are damned incompetent if a Google search for Baptists yields two naked women in an empty bathtub performing oral sex on one another.Just because some people are incompetent, does not mean we should censor the internet and deprive adults oftheir basic rights, whom happen to be paying for the internet.
Right, it does only prevent kids from seeing American sites, but American sites are the most likely to turn up in a search engine or hound you with popups. And if I'm a parent, I might be stupid. I might not know my child could accidentally view such things, and never suspect that they might purposely do so. Parents are stupid. We need to compensate.Why do we need to over-compensate and punish adults who happen to be paying for the internet, again?

Why? God forbid they have a religious freedom day at school and do research in the library. Yes, god forbid the school or library puts their own filter protections on the computer...

There are other laws which adequately define pornography for retail purposes, and these can be used to define it for children protection purposes.List them for me? Seriously. There is a definite differentiation between what is considered harmful for children, and just sexuality. To date, the COPA has already been tried in court and has failed for censoring material that wen't against the first amendment and was put under false scrutiny.

Just because some people are incompetent, does not mean we should censor the internet and deprive adults oftheir basic rights, whom happen to be paying for the internet.
Why do we need to over-compensate and punish adults who happen to be paying for the internet, again?
What basic rights are we depriving people of?

Yes, god forbid the school or library puts their own filter protections on the computer...
My school had them. They filtered out a lot of stuff, blocked the entire angelfire.com site, and still allowed porn through.

List them for me? Seriously. There is a definite differentiation between what is considered harmful for children, and just sexuality. To date, the COPA has already been tried in court and has failed for censoring material that wen't against the first amendment and was put under false scrutiny.
Where I live, you have to be 18 to purchase pornography. To enforce such a law, wouldn't it seem that they'd have a working definition of pornography? I think that anything that graphically depicts:
1. people engaging in any form of sexual activity, or
2. nudity of the "private parts" (breasts of woman, genitalia, etc.)
should be considered pornography.

In fact, where I live you can view an R-rated movie until you are 18, and they really do card you, BUT the ticket-tearer cards you, not the ticket-seller. So how is that different than requiring adults online to prove their age before they can view adult material? Doesn't THAT violate rights, too? I mean, they've already paid for the ticket, haven't they?

What basic rights are we depriving people of?How about to define what pornography for yourself, or to decided what should and should not be censored for you or your family? I believe both of those should fall under basic human rights.

My school had them. They filtered out a lot of stuff, blocked the entire angelfire.com site, and still allowed porn through.Not knowing or learning how to figuring out how to use the software, is nobodies responsibility/fault but their own.

Where I live, you have to be 18 to purchase pornography. To enforce such a law, wouldn't it seem that they'd have a working definition of pornography? I think that anything that graphically depicts:
1. people engaging in any form of sexual activity, or
2. nudity of the "private parts" (breasts of woman, genitalia, etc.)
should be considered pornography.
Yes well, where I live showing a womens breast is usually not censored. We do have nudity on basic cable and some networks. We do not go so far as some european countries I am sure, but what you consider "pornography" would not be the case here. Is it considered pornography to see another women change at a pool too? :/

I am actually very concerned that breasts would be considered pornography.. do you guy also censor monuments or other forms of art that depict a nude women? This is exactly what I am talking about when it comes to defining what pornography actually is. To me it would seem more along the lines of explicit content such as oral sex or other such acts of sex, which would include graphic detail of the genitals.

In fact, where I live you can view an R-rated movie until you are 18, and they really do card you, BUT the ticket-tearer cards you, not the ticket-seller. So how is that different than requiring adults online to prove their age before they can view adult material? Doesn't THAT violate rights, too? I mean, they've already paid for the ticket, haven't they?Okay, so what if your under the age of 18 but are accompanied by an adult? Your damn right they will let you in.. because the ownership of rights is not the ticket-tearer's, it is whomever is the caregiver of the child happens to be. Which btw, is exactly my point.

Okay, first of all I was being a little too non-specific. I do think that ACTUAL BREASTS should be censored. Not those of a statue or a cartoon, but actual breasts.

Second of all, ponder this. It is the parent's responsibility to protect and take care of a child. If the parent doesn't do this, the government steps in. Why is this any different? You act like we want to completely remove your right to view pornography, which is not true. We just want to make sure you're old enough before you do it. I don't see why this is so awful. So a person is paying for the internet...what's your point? They give their cred card number out, and end of story. They're in. A lot of porn sites are doing this voluntarily, and I don't think it's censorship, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

I always thought of pornography as an explicit sexual activity.

But if it were considered

1. people engaging in any form of sexual activity, or
2. nudity of the "private parts" (breasts of woman, genitalia, etc.)
then that means children should be banned from even seeing two people making out.

Nudity is not pornography. Granted, naked people shouldn't be displayed out in public for everyone to see, but still, it's not pornography. There is a vast difference.

But for the rest, I agree with Angelia - it's up to the parents what they think their kids should/should not see.

naked people shouldn't be displayed out in public for everyone to see

Why not?

Why not?
I thought that, as well, after I had typed it in but wasn't quick enough to edit it. I don't think that it's wrong for people to be naked in public; it is a "rule" of law and society that makes it seem wrong, when it really is not.

Basically, I was trying to use that to say that nudity is not the same as pornography, and shouldn't be treated as such. I don't believe there is anything wrong with either, but being in the nude does not have to be a sexual act.

I thought that, as well, after I had typed it in but wasn't quick enough to edit it. I don't think that it's wrong for people to be naked in public; it is a "rule" of law and society that makes it seem wrong, when it really is not.

Basically, I was trying to use that to say that nudity is not the same as pornography, and shouldn't be treated as such. I don't believe there is anything wrong with either, but being in the nude does not have to be a sexual act.
Fair enough, just clarifying :)

Okay, first of all I was being a little too non-specific. I do think that ACTUAL BREASTS should be censored. Not those of a statue or a cartoon, but actual breasts.The question is, why do you consider a breasts pornography? Have you never seen a women breastfeed before? There is nothing pornographic about this, and should also not be censored. It is a very natural process in life, yet because our society happens to adulterate a lot of issues, we are led to believe that it is something that should be covered up. Having a complex is not a good thing. Censoring does not lead to healthy sexual relations, and depleting of how we view the human body, can often lead to very unhealthy ideas when it comes to sex.

Second of all, ponder this. It is the parent's responsibility to protect and take care of a child. If the parent doesn't do this, the government steps in. Why is this any different? You act like we want to completely remove your right to view pornography, which is not true. We just want to make sure you're old enough before you do it. I don't see why this is so awful. So a person is paying for the internet...what's your point? They give their cred card number out, and end of story. They're in. A lot of porn sites are doing this voluntarily, and I don't think it's censorship, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it.The government has and should remain to have the right to step in when a child be being abused or mistreated. What a parent decided is acceptable for a child to view, given in light context, should remain the parents responsibility, not the government. If a parent is found abusing this right, it should be dealt with on an individual level. Since most people don't consider nudity pornography in other countries, why should the government be allowed to censor it as such here?

Basically, I was trying to use that to say that nudity is not the same as pornography, and shouldn't be treated as such. I don't believe there is anything wrong with either, but being in the nude does not have to be a sexual act.Exactly. Nudity does not fall under a harmful or explicitly sexual act, which as far as I have seen, is what the COPA has deemed their named target.

I think if pornography only reached people above a legal age, it didn't make unlegitamate sales, was accompanied with a prompt before display (on the net, as in, it cannot be reached by accident), and was safe and legal... it wouldn't be a bad thing. Like, if people want to have sex publically, and people want to watch them, let them.

Nudity is a seperate issue, though. I think sexual organs should be kept covered except for for people's lovers, of course, in the bedroom... in private. I don't care when I see people with their breasts out on the beach, but if I saw someone's dick it'd probably disturb me. Strange, but true.

I don't care when I see people with their breasts out on the beach, but if I saw someone's dick it'd probably disturb me. Strange, but true. I'm sure you'd rather see breasts. :)

But have you ever considered why seeing another guy in the nude out in public may be disturbing to you?

It isn't because it's wrong, it's because that's the way society treats it.

If no one made a huge deal about everything (ie, "OMG Janet Jackson's BOOB showed on TV! Our CHILDREN are seeing this!), and never treated nudity as if it was something horrid and unnatural (at least out in the open), I'd bet it wouldn't be so disturbing to you.

Having not read the briefs and decisions from the Supreme Court on this case, I'm not really in a position to speak on the legalities and nuance of the Law where it concerns Pornography. However, it is also plain that the entire "Free Speech" Clause of the 1st amendment has become a bit twisted in interpretation over the last 30 or so years, and needs a thorough review.

So, let's clarify just exactly what "Free Speech" is. There is NO 1st Amendment protection on this site, that is plainly stated. That is because this is a commodity and a quasi-business, and the owner of the site can damn sure set his rules as he pleases. Taking this a step further, any Porn site has set IT'S own rules on what is said and what conduct takes place. I seriously doubt scandalous pics of any nature would be tolerated here, but at the same time would be greedily promoted on a Porn site. Yet, on either site, we as individuals can pretty much say whatever we please, as long as it's not stoopidly offensive to the sites owner. Compare that to the average town in America, and you will see that "Free Speech" pretty much follows the same dictates from the local powers-that-be, though with lesser restrictions on Speech itself, and greater restrictions on "Art". But, you still can't yell FIRE in a theater, call the mayor and threaten him, start a riot, or go around yelling and screaming profanities without local officials getting into the act. So, what exactly IS "Free Speech". I define it as saying whatever you want, but in a Socially acceptable way. We are, after all, responsible for what we say, and the consequences which ensue from those words.

Is pornography "Art", an expression of an idea, or merely entertainment? John Maplethorpe, and his "Piss Christ" and other homo-centric "works" would argue that these pictures represent art, even if it is of a deviant type, as well as an expression of an ideology outside sociotal norms. It surely was not entertainment. But, compare Maplethorpes work with run of the mill Pornographic material. His work can actually be considered art, though it is repulsive to some (and others get bothered by the Mona Lisa's smile), but by and large pornagraphy is not considered an art, but entertainmant. This is because it is a commodity, bought, paid for, thrown away, and there is an entire worldwide industry focused on it's production and marketing. So, if Pornography is indeed a marketable commodity, ranking in the Entertainment business, is it "Speech", or even the expression of an idea? I daresay no, to both qualifications. It is NOT Speech, per se, and it is certainly NOT an expression of ideas. It's merely entertainment.

If you look at Pornography as I have described it, then it, and other forms of comparable entertainment, would never be considered to have 1st amendment protections, and could be subject to government licensing and controls for distribution. We see similar controls already in place for many Adult activities, be it strip clubs, alcohol, tobacco, massageparlors, brothels (in Nevada) or Casinos, and even "Adult bookstores" and movie parlors. These are limited, rightly so, to being ADULT behaviours, and are restricted by law to person over 21 in most jurisdictions.

Why should the pornographic industry, on the Internet, consider itself to be outside these same restrictions? Possibly because it is an International industry, not a locally controllable one. Herein lies the entire crux of the problem, IMO. NO one except a parent, or the Internet user, can restrict acces to a site in Holland. Even though Pornography should not be afforded the same protections under the 1st amendment as true Speech, it is also almost impossible to stop without extremely draconian measures. All you have to do is look at the existence of Child Pornography sites in 3rd world nations, and the occasional announcements of Child-Porn rings being arrested, to realize just how hard it is to control even a very tiny fraction of Porn traffic in the US, much less the World.

Others on this thread have noted that Porn is basically slanted toward the exploitation and subjugation of women. The fixations of a guys making women vomit by forcefully deep-throating them (even though they are paid for it), BDSM and the "golden shower" thing, or even the ever popular Beastiality movies all point this out. Personaly, I find it BORING!!! But, at the same time, the Porn becomes more flagrant, more violent, more bizarre, in order to hold the interest of BORED customers. This has nothing to do with SEX, now, but is a means for making money. Kind of sad, but very true.

Let's say you are a great parent, restrict your childrens access to the Internet, and have all the child safeguards on the computers. Then, 14 year old Betty goes over to her friend Amanda's house. They just got a computer, its on the Net, and no one has any safeguards on it .. and they stumble across a porn hub site with links to 1,000 other sites. . . . . It happens. Now what do you do?

This is where being pro-active as a culture will remove most of the problems with this. Janet Jacksons "boob flop" would have meant nothing if we Americans were not so fearful of nudity. It was a cheap stunt, to get attention. . it worked because we reacted and for the most part didn't have the presence of mind to laugh at it (it WAS pretty silly) The same holds true for Porn on the Net. Instead of the Government getting into the act (with or without 1st amendment guarantees and Supreme Court decisions) it's time that we Americans came to grips with our own sexuality and figured out how to TALK about it with our children. Ignorance is bliss, so they say. . it also causes a lot of anxiety and fear amongst the ignorant, who then go running around demanding our Government step in and protect them from these vile pornographers. Children are experimenters, they are curious, they want questions answered. One of the hardest things I ever did was point out to my 9-year-old neice that it was not MY place to explain what oral sex was to her (she asked) but that her mother was the one to talk to about it. I then lambasted my Sister for being so stupid and prudish and not being open with her daughter on this touchy subject. We have to be honest with our children, and especially ourselves on the subject of Internet Porn, and how we feel about it, and what is reasonable and responsible concerning it.

The Supreme was right in its decision, no matter that I feel Porn should not have 1st amendment protections. Sometimes you have to just admit that there is no "Fix" to a problem like this, then go out and educate and talk about it and keep your children informed and help them understand it for what it is. After all, America was founded on the principles of individual liberties, rights, and the responsibilities that go with them. Maybe it's just time we stood up and reclaimed our heritage in that regard.

Kris^

"Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way"

The Supreme Court has yet to clearly define what they mean by obscene materials. it's not a matter of taste but in actuality it is. The US censors A LOT of things, over in Europe, a woman's breasts are shown in ads on the street, so I don't understand why the US has to be so rigid about this. It's not like and 18 year old will grow a brain at that age and be able to enjoy adult material. All in all it's all about opinion, and that's where the problem is. some people may find a woman's breast obscene, some may find it natural and some find it only appropriate during breastfeeding. Whatever the case may be, it's opnion plan and simple.
Though I will say we do have a it a little better than Japan. They are seriously censored. It is distasteful to show public hair, and therefore they cannot show it. They will show breasts. But their porn is censored, yes, they blur that part out, so I guess that could explain why their anime is so violent and sexually oriented or why there is some pent up sexual agression. And China has censored a lot of things, as well, they filter and block out all porn sites, but i'm sure there are a few kids in china that can figure a way around it. But it seems the more limitations and restrictions you put a society the more pent up sexual aggression they have and it will come out in other forms...what i'm saying is that yes the parents should have some control over their kids, but you can't apply your opinions to the lives of everyone else.

They are seriously censored. It is distasteful to show public hair, and therefore they cannot show it. They will show breasts. But their porn is censored, yes, they blur that part out,

I believe the word you are looking for is Pubic. However it gave me a good laugh. Public hair... can't show your public hair... why is it public then Godammit!?!

I believe the word you are looking for is Pubic. However it gave me a good laugh. Public hair... can't show your public hair... why is it public then Godammit!?!

yes yes pubic hair...

i just do not understand pr0n

i just do not understand pr0n

For some reason we are stimulated or aroused while watching others engage in sexual acts, whatever they may be. Something in our brain clicks and triggers no demands a reaction, which our genitals happily respond to. Go figure. Some people aren't amused by porn, while others thrive on it. Either way, it's all about what floats your boat and how many ppl find it offensive so they can basically take it away in spite.

For some reason we are stimulated or aroused while watching others engage in sexual acts, whatever they may be. Something in our brain clicks and triggers no demands a reaction, which our genitals happily respond to. Go figure. Some people aren't amused by porn, while others thrive on it. Either way, it's all about what floats your boat and how many ppl find it offensive so they can basically take it away in spite.
Porn doesn't always have to be sexually arousing, either. I think some of it is much more appealing on an artistic sort of level.

Porn doesn't always have to be sexually arousing, either. I think some of it is much more appealing on an artistic sort of level.
I want to be artistic.

I'm creative...I'm VERY creative.

Heh.

I was just thinking of something that I was told earlier:
"If you're nude, then you're doing something like taking a bath. If youre nekkid, then you're probably in the woods up to no good."

sorry that just came to mind.


So if we can't even accept and enjoy our own bodies, then its no suprise that people get upset over pr0n.




*goes off to be naked, except with clothes on*

ok this is all I have to say on the matter. no matter how you slice it US Government under no circamstance can censor anything if they where being consistent to the constitution.

On the other hand Parents/People can actually get Statations, internet Providers to stop supporting porn and get them to get rid of it. I guess what I'm saying is if the corprations behind the enternet felt threatend enough that they would be loosing profits by the continual suport of porn because of pressure from Parents/People they would self sensor themselves. Just like Hollywood, and the Comic Industry did back at the turn of the century.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the same hand any Corporation that can Come up with a piece of software that Can effectively block Porn sites could make a fortune.

I also think that if Hollywood worked with the Tech industry they could see rise in DVD sales if they worked hand in hand with a DVD player maker to make it possiable to Automagically make any DVD PG Rated. So in effect you could get a Broadcast/Airplane version of a Movie.

Unfortunely I dought any of that would ever happen as people on one hand rather take the easy way out and give up the personal freedoms of others. And on the other hand deep done they don't really want that to ever happen, because they are unwilling to admit they themselves actaully enjoy the stuff.

In a nut shell I guess what I'm saying is if everyone as discusted with porn as they say they are. It wouldn't exist, or at least not as prelavent as it is.

sincerely,
The Master

Sorry, Shivercide "Porn" is just not Art. Perhaps if someone did do a sexually graphic video, to music that juxtaposed the actions, flashbacks (or forwards) of images and scenes that the lovers thought were erotic or sensual, and didn't concentrate on male orgasm . . .and it was tasteful, thought provoking, and made no money. . had some decent dialogue, more camera angles than just penetration shots, and was not marketed as "POrn". . perhaps it could then be considered "Art". That is just not what is going on. .and we all know it.

As for "In a nut shell I guess what I'm saying is if everyone as discusted with porn as they say they are. It wouldn't exist, or at least not as prelavent as it is.. . TheMaster that is just not going to happen. . "Everyone" is a minority, it seems. You'd be surprised what is in your neighbors bedrooms or video collections (my 85 year old neighbors REALLY surpised me one day. . . . . . Hey Kris. . lookee at this!!!!). There is quite a simple solution to YOUR problem with Porn (if you have one). . Don't Watch. It's that easy. Don't go to porn sites, disable your email server or get an email address that is dedicated only to emails, such as a Hotmail account (on a SECURE server) and only give the addy out to people you TRUST. Spam and Porn ads are a result of YOU visiting certain sites on the Web. You just drop your IP addy in the sites lap and basically beg for Porn Spam to be delivered (or any other type of Spam that is out there).

Don't like porn? activate the "parental controls" on your browser, even for yourself. . That's a start. Most spam lists get updated on a regular schedule. . if you don't visit a site for so long, there's a chance your addy will be dropped. A buddy of mine did this. . he never responded. . and in 6 months the emails advertising "how to add 3 inches", Porn, and other sexual material became a trickle, instead of a flood. . .of course, when that happened the Viagra ads INCREASED, as did the ones for hair restoration and retirement plans. . I guess they figured he was too OLD for porn. . so why not sell him something he coule use??.(we actually charted this .. ) . Seems they want us sexually active. . even if we need help being that way. :D

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way.

Sorry, Shivercide "Porn" is just not Art. Perhaps if someone did do a sexually graphic video, to music that juxtaposed the actions, flashbacks (or forwards) of images and scenes that the lovers thought were erotic or sensual, and didn't concentrate on male orgasm . . .and it was tasteful, thought provoking, and made no money. . had some decent dialogue, more camera angles than just penetration shots, and was not marketed as "POrn". . perhaps it could then be considered "Art". That is just not what is going on. .and we all know it. Sorry, Kris^^^^, but what I see art in is not for you to tell me.

Perhaps if someone did do a sexually graphic video, to music that juxtaposed the actions, flashbacks (or forwards) of images and scenes that the lovers thought were erotic or sensual, and didn't concentrate on male orgasm . . .and it was tasteful, thought provoking, and made no money. . had some decent dialogue, more camera angles than just penetration shots, and was not marketed as "POrn". . perhaps it could then be considered "Art". Yes, if you actually had seen every type of porn there is, then I would actually give your shallow opinion more attention.

I didn't even say I thought all porn is that way. I said some of what I've seen that is usually considered porn (sexual acts) I found very artistic. Like nude photography can be very beautiful, only in this case, is the act of sex, in just a natural way.

And if I did say I saw that in all porn, there's still no way whatsoever that you can tell someone how to perceive things. I mean you can, but...that just makes you seem very ignorant.

Shiver. . crayons on paper are "Art"
"Pictures" . are art
"artistic dancing" is art
cool paint jobs, heavy metal iron in street rods, and mongo-radical mechanics can also be considered. . "Art"

Snuff porn flicks are not art. . .its a murder
Rape porn is not art .. its rape
total degradation of a paid actress by 20 guys is not art. . its degradation.

Then lets go into child pornography, incestuous porn, Beastiality porn (Yeah that horse was VERY "artistic" standing there. . .) "Women with machines" porn (those machines. .they are just SOO expressive in their artistic prose) BDSM scenarios, mutilations (VERY artsy there as they emasculated that guy) Suicide porn (oh yeah. . death as an art form .. lovely)

Your calling any of these "Art" just shows the entire problem, since you do not have the honesty to admit a problem exists in the first place. There IS a problem with this . .it's NOT art, and given your stance that You will call anything YOU please "art", you have just proven the point that you have no ability to discern the difference. That is shallow. Just cause you call it art, does not make it so. You really need to start looking at the entire picture, instead of the teensy corner you wish to absorb yourself in. Somewhere you have to draw a line . . the only problem you are having is making sure the line stays in one place. That's just too difficult sometimes.

Remember., porn is still not protected under the 1st Amendment of the US constitution, since every bit of it is a marketed product. It just can't be controlled, which is just fine with me.

Snuff porn flicks are not art. . .its a murder

They are also an urban legend (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.htm).

Rape porn is not art .. its rape

Not if it is consensual role play.

Your point, by the way, would be?


total degradation of a paid actress by 20 guys is not art. . its degradation.


It is not for you to decide what is artistic.

You may not find the particular form of art tasteful, but that does not lessen it artistically.


Then lets go into child pornography, incestuous porn, Beastiality porn (Yeah that horse was VERY "artistic" standing there. . .) "Women with machines" porn (those machines. .they are just SOO expressive in their artistic prose) BDSM scenarios, mutilations (VERY artsy there as they emasculated that guy) Suicide porn (oh yeah. . death as an art form .. lovely)


It is not for you to decide on what is "art."

Frankly, I have sexual tastes that would probably make you turn white. There is artistry in it: both to look at when properly put together and in how it is done. That you are incapable of seeing that art is irrelevant to its existence.

Your calling any of these "Art" just shows the entire problem, since you do not have the honesty to admit a problem exists in the first place. There IS a problem with this . .it's NOT art, and given your stance that You will call anything YOU please "art", you have just proven the point that you have no ability to discern the difference.


I would say quite the reverse.

You have such a narrow definition of art that it shows how shallow and narrow your own views are. But we can bandy bitter words on the subject all day and not get anywhere.

Suffice it to say that what constitutes art and artistry is in the eye of the beholder (there is more to it, of course, but that is the basic ground from which we must start). That you do not agree with it or find it distasteful is immaterial to its potential use as an artistic form. It may not (or it may) be good art, but it can still art.



Remember., porn is still not protected under the 1st Amendment of the US constitution, since every bit of it is a marketed product. It just can't be controlled, which is just fine with me.

It is protected, actually.

Quoting from UNITED STATES et*al. v. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC, case No. 98-1682, decided 22 May 2000 by the supreme court:


Two points should be understood: (1) Many adults would find the material at issue highly offensive, and considering that the material comes unwanted into homes where children might see or hear it against parental wishes or consent, there are legitimate reasons for regulating it; and (2) Playboy's programming has First Amendment protection. Section 505 is a content-based regulation. It also singles out particular programmers for regulation. It is of no moment that the statute does not impose a complete prohibition.


Emphasis mine.

Shiver. . crayons on paper are "Art"
"Pictures" . are art
"artistic dancing" is art
cool paint jobs, heavy metal iron in street rods, and mongo-radical mechanics can also be considered. . "Art"

Snuff porn flicks are not art. . .its a murder
Rape porn is not art .. its rape
total degradation of a paid actress by 20 guys is not art. . its degradation.

Then lets go into child pornography, incestuous porn, Beastiality porn (Yeah that horse was VERY "artistic" standing there. . .) "Women with machines" porn (those machines. .they are just SOO expressive in their artistic prose) BDSM scenarios, mutilations (VERY artsy there as they emasculated that guy) Suicide porn (oh yeah. . death as an art form .. lovely)

Your calling any of these "Art" just shows the entire problem, since you do not have the honesty to admit a problem exists in the first place. There IS a problem with this . .it's NOT art, and given your stance that You will call anything YOU please "art", you have just proven the point that you have no ability to discern the difference. That is shallow. Just cause you call it art, does not make it so. You really need to start looking at the entire picture, instead of the teensy corner you wish to absorb yourself in. Somewhere you have to draw a line . . the only problem you are having is making sure the line stays in one place. That's just too difficult sometimes.

Remember., porn is still not protected under the 1st Amendment of the US constitution, since every bit of it is a marketed product. It just can't
be controlled, which is just fine with me.
Lly pretty much said it all. Art and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

But I just want to ask, when did I say anything about the above types of porn you mentioned? You are on a very narrow spectrum when it comes to all the types of pornography there are. Obviously when you think of the word "porn", you automatically think of male orgasms, child pornography, and that of a violent nature. Of course, obviously you never looked into it, nor have you read my entire post, otherwise you would have noticed that I wasn't categorizing all types of porn to appeal to me in an artistic way.

But yes, I just love it when people put words in my mouth, as happens so often in this forum.

You are also on a very narrow spectrum when it comes to seeing the beauty in things. "Art" can be in many things. It is not just a painting or a photo. To me, things of nature are beautiful and artistic. The same things may have no appeal whatsoever to you, but that does not mean you can tell me that it isn't art.

in the words of homer simpson
"whoa now, theres nothing wrong with a little hey hey!"

lol im just kidding, im not saying whether it is wrong or right because i dont believe it is my place, but about controlling it...

if a child runs into the street and is hit by a car, should the parents get in an uprage and demand the government to block off all roads by means of 6 foot wooden fence? no, i think its the parents responsibility to watch their child and make sure he understands what he is and isnt supposed to do, and what the consequences can be.


just my 2 cents, im shur someones already said something similar...
(im just too lazy to find out who)

Having seen a snuff porn flick, Llewelyn, I'm sorry, its not an urban legend, its real. I suppose childporn would fall into the same realm of "Art is how you perceive it", and that I am not supposed to object to it because it is "Art"?

"The Faces of Death" .. I'm sure you remember it.. Art, documentary, or perfectly good movie? I've seen the uncut version. . do you consider this to be "Art"? It's also obvious you ignored my reference to beastiality, mutilation, or fetish porn. I really fail to see the "Art" behind a Scat movie. .

Now, where do you draw the line? And if you draw it at "X" set of principles, why not at more stringent principles? Simple answer, it's subjectivity makes that impossible for you. Which means you either declare it for what it is. . an industry-based film production which depicts certain sexual acts for entertainment purposes, put a "line" between porn and "Art" and make it subject to regulation. . or attempt to re-classify it as "Art" and give it protections. I'll let you decide where to draw the line where commercialization and art is crossed, because the line will never be in the same place from day to day, and taking a hard stance on the industry as a whole would require acceptance of limitations. It will not matter, though, since by not taking steps to willingly dilineate these limitations will have the result that sooner or later the bureaucrats will finally get their litigation perfected, and then it will be gone for all of us, with a nice big Supreme Court stamp of approval.

As long as it's making money. . it's not really art, it's business. That is the main difference, in case anyone is wondering.

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way.

As long as it's making money. . it's not really art, it's business. That is the main difference, in case anyone is wondering. So when I gave money to Dev for one of his paintings, I wasn't buying art? Did I just buy another commercial "product"?

Having seen a snuff porn flick, Llewelyn, I'm sorry, its not an urban legend, its real.


Your assertion that such is the case is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that such is the case.

That said, their existence or lack thereof is irrelevant.


I suppose childporn would fall into the same realm of "Art is how you perceive it", and that I am not supposed to object to it because it is "Art"?


Your reading comprehension is startlingly bad.

Incidentally, a few years ago a book was published filled with nude pictures of children--running on the beach, playing, etc. It was the author's attempt to capture innocence in photography.


"The Faces of Death" .. I'm sure you remember it.. Art, documentary, or perfectly good movie? I've seen the uncut version. . do you consider this to be "Art"?


I remember it quite well. Do you have a point?

Again, your reading comprehension between shivercide and my posts is really quite bad. First, I haven't said what is or is not art, I have simply said that there are ways that these things can be artistic. Second, something can be both distasteful and even out-and-out illegal but still have artistic value.

Let me break this down for you:

I have claimed that there can exist artistic forms of these things which you detest.

You claim that a specific example of it is not artistic, therefore none of it is artistic.

See the problem?


It's also obvious you ignored my reference to beastiality, mutilation, or fetish porn.


I figured it was already encompassed in what I had said before.

Your distaste for something neither lessens nor increases it artistically.

Now, where do you draw the line?


I don't.

I leave that to others to draw. I personally see a great deal more in terms of art, however, in sexual technique or in a book such as The Joy of Sex than I do in a black dot in the middle of a white canvas or a canvas splattered with paint thrown into jet exhaust.

The difference is that the latter is widely regarded as "artistic" and people will hang it on their walls, where for the former it is considered "distasteful" by people who are far too conservative for their own good.


And if you draw it at "X" set of principles, why not at more stringent principles? Simple answer, it's subjectivity makes that impossible for you. Which means you either declare it for what it is. . an industry-based film production which depicts certain sexual acts for entertainment purposes, put a "line" between porn and "Art" and make it subject to regulation.


It is subject to regulation because it is widely considered distasteful, not because it is an industry and not because it is not art. Yeesh, did you even read that quote I gave you from the supreme court?


. or attempt to re-classify it as "Art" and give it protections.


It is protected. See the supreme court ruling I cited.


As long as it's making money. . it's not really art, it's business. That is the main difference, in case anyone is wondering.


Absolute bullshit. I know several professional artists.

Period.

I really fail to see the "Art" behind a Scat movie. .
So what? Let me put it this way - I fail to see the art in most of Jackson Pollock's work. Does that mean he isn't an artist?

I know this has been said before, and I'm not picking on you... But the point of view you are portraying seems to be a working cross between prudish Conservativism and wilfull ignorance.

Which just ain't cool.

Art, by it's very nature, is a matter of taste. Everybody's taste is different, therefore the level of artistry in a given piece is entirely at the discretion of the viewer (in the case of visual art). Said viewer has the further discretionary choice of just not subjecting themselves to the offending material any further.

So, If you don't like porn and honestly think it has no value, then thank your lucky stars that there isn't a law which forces you to watch it.

I'm so glad I included that last line . because the reactions of dhamma seeker and Llywelyn have made my point for me.

Imagine the painter, the woodcrafter,the dancer. They are all "artists", yet their artistry is also their profession. Put them into an "adult" focused trade (a body painter, maker of wooden sexual toys, or stripper) and their "artistry" suddenly falls under the watchful eye of Gov.co regulations having to do with "Adult" entertainment or novelties, and may actually be banned in certain locations. Just three examples of "Art" now regulated simply due to content. We all have a talent that can be described as "Art". Should I receive protections from the Constitution because my skill at my trade has risen to "Artisan" status, thus keeping disgruntled customers at bay? I daresay I should not, though my work can be truly described as "Art". Again the question comes to mind. . where is the line to be drawn between "Art" and "entertainment industry" And as I have stated in the past, I may agree with the Supreme Courts decision regarding COPA, but not with their reasoning for it because no amount of reasoning would change the fact that COPA is extremely difficult to enforce given the international nature of the Internet.

And yes, Llywelyn, you are correct that I was having a shivercide kneejerk session. My apology.

Concering the Supreme Court decision in "playboy vs. . . " it is difficult to tell what part of regulation "section 505" failed so that it's regulations were overruled. The Supreme Court also overstepped itself (IMO) by declaring "Many adults would find the material at issue highly offensive, " . .who is the Court to set up a moral benchmark for this country, or declare such exists? In this case, again, the Court did the right thing, but for the wrong reason. This continued fascination with people being "offended" versus free speech provisions, and the controls set on Adult material because of "offense" is not germaine. Whether Porn is actually "speech" is more the issue, and I have not seen where this is established or refuted.

The continued assertions that the viewer decides what constitutes art is, at best, apathy. To follow this logic to it's end would lead one to the conclusion that everything is art (given a liberal enough scope of reasoning) , there should be no constraints on it because of societal norms, and only personal tastes provide a guide as to what is acceptable or not. Going to your example of a dot on a white canvas, compared to "The Joy of Sex". . a Follower of Zen would probably find wonder in the single dot, and boredom in the book. I've read the book, I found it limiting. Your position, thus, is interesting, but does not totally address the question of whether Porn (in its many forms) is actually art.

"Let me break this down for you:
I have claimed that there can exist artistic forms of these things which you detest.
You claim that a specific example of it is not artistic, therefore none of it is artistic.
See the problem?"

Yes, I see the problem, you assume I find certain forms of Porn to be detestable, and that I find no "art" in them, and never shall. Also that I would turn white if aware of your own sexual practices. My only contention on this is that since Porn is an indusry based solely on the depiction of sex (how many times can you "artfully" portray oral sex? Cmon, be real) the idea that it has value in an Artistic sense on a continuing basis, is unrealistic. The movie Caligula is a very good example of "Art", and it was certainly pornographic in nature. "Deep Throat" could even be construed as "artful", as can Last Tango in Paris. But to assign this sort of artistry to "doing 7 the hard way" is a tremendous stretch. You can do it, but I can also claim myself as an artist because I walk funny. It still comes back to having a delineating line of what IS Art, and what is not. . whether to make the claim in your personal life is entirely up to you.

I seriously doubt there is anything you have done that would make me turn white. Your assertions that such is the case, does not make it so, and is irrelevant to this thread.

I'm sorry you do not see the point of my reference to "Faces of Death" with it's surreal fascinations and macabre scenes. I thought you'd be able to. It does dovetail in with more bizarre Porn offerings. If you think about it, I'm sure you will see.

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way

I'm so glad I included that last line . because the reactions of dhamma seeker and Llywelyn have made my point for me.

Imagine the painter, the woodcrafter,the dancer. They are all "artists", yet their artistry is also their profession. Put them into an "adult" focused trade (a body painter, maker of wooden sexual toys, or stripper) and their "artistry" suddenly falls under the watchful eye of Gov.co regulations having to do with "Adult" entertainment or novelties, and may actually be banned in certain locations. Just three examples of "Art" now regulated simply due to content. We all have a talent that can be described as "Art". Should I receive protections from the Constitution because my skill at my trade has risen to "Artisan" status, thus keeping disgruntled customers at bay? I daresay I should not, though my work can be truly described as "Art". Again the question comes to mind. . where is the line to be drawn between "Art" and "entertainment industry" And as I have stated in the past, I may agree with the Supreme Courts decision regarding COPA, but not with their reasoning for it because no amount of reasoning would change the fact that COPA is extremely difficult to enforce given the international nature of the Internet.

And yes, Llywelyn, you are correct that I was having a shivercide kneejerk session. My apology.

Concering the Supreme Court decision in "playboy vs. . . " it is difficult to tell what part of regulation "section 505" failed so that it's regulations were overruled. The Supreme Court also overstepped itself (IMO) by declaring "Many adults would find the material at issue highly offensive, " . .who is the Court to set up a moral benchmark for this country, or declare such exists? In this case, again, the Court did the right thing, but for the wrong reason. This continued fascination with people being "offended" versus free speech provisions, and the controls set on Adult material because of "offense" is not germaine. Whether Porn is actually "speech" is more the issue, and I have not seen where this is established or refuted.

The continued assertions that the viewer decides what constitutes art is, at best, apathy. To follow this logic to it's end would lead one to the conclusion that everything is art (given a liberal enough scope of reasoning) , there should be no constraints on it because of societal norms, and only personal tastes provide a guide as to what is acceptable or not. Going to your example of a dot on a white canvas, compared to "The Joy of Sex". . a Follower of Zen would probably find wonder in the single dot, and boredom in the book. I've read the book, I found it limiting. Your position, thus, is interesting, but does not totally address the question of whether Porn (in its many forms) is actually art.

"Let me break this down for you:
I have claimed that there can exist artistic forms of these things which you detest.
You claim that a specific example of it is not artistic, therefore none of it is artistic.
See the problem?"

Yes, I see the problem, you assume I find certain forms of Porn to be detestable, and that I find no "art" in them, and never shall. Also that I would turn white if aware of your own sexual practices. My only contention on this is that since Porn is an indusry based solely on the depiction of sex (how many times can you "artfully" portray oral sex? Cmon, be real) the idea that it has value in an Artistic sense on a continuing basis, is unrealistic. The movie Caligula is a very good example of "Art", and it was certainly pornographic in nature. "Deep Throat" could even be construed as "artful", as can Last Tango in Paris. But to assign this sort of artistry to "doing 7 the hard way" is a tremendous stretch. You can do it, but I can also claim myself as an artist because I walk funny. It still comes back to having a delineating line of what IS Art, and what is not. . whether to make the claim in your personal life is entirely up to you.

I seriously doubt there is anything you have done that would make me turn white. Your assertions that such is the case, does not make it so, and is irrelevant to this thread.

I'm sorry you do not see the point of my reference to "Faces of Death" with it's surreal fascinations and macabre scenes. I thought you'd be able to. It does dovetail in with more bizarre Porn offerings. If you think about it, I'm sure you will see.

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way
(how many times can you "artfully" portray oral sex? Cmon, be real)
Again, you are classifying and putting words in people's mouths.



Your reading comprehension between any post seems to be quite bad.

This whole thing started when I mentioned that pornography doesn't always have to be sexually arousing, but can be appealing on an artistic level. I was speaking from my experience, my tastes. That's the only thing I can go by.

I don't see how that statement means anything that you are implying with your endless argument of the government that seems to be applied to just about every debate you've posted in.

Instead you have been taking words of your own assumption and throwing them at everyone else.

Shivercide do you stand FOR anything, any principle, on this matter?

This thread is a direct result of a Supreme Court decision concerning COPA. Please re-read Llywelyns opening post. Everything in this thread basically goes back to 1st amendment freedoms and the interpretation thereof, as it applies to our SOCIETY, NOT our Government. That the Government has a viable interest in this matter, and has been brought to bear on it and intervene in the interests of people who are offended by Pornography, basically sets the entire debate up as a matter of Gov-intervention into our lives. This actually will come down to the interpretation of Art, Speech, Expression, and whether Porn has any of these facets applied to it by governing bodies, is recognized under the 1st amendment, or is regulated because the 1st amendment does not apply.

I believe it behooves us all to ensure we ALL understand what porn is, and if it takes a bit of arguing over the matter, then so be it. People state their opinions, and everyone has one. They do not all agree, and I doubt a consensus could be reached, BUT, it still brings it out into the open, which is a good thing, because we all learn from it. The worst part about arguing with Llywelin is that I agree 90% with him, but my brain is off line from a straight 14-day work period.

As for the Government. . we're already dead, we just don't know it yet.


Kris^
Mediocrity is doig it THEIR way

Shivercide do you stand FOR anything, any principle, on this matter?

This thread is a direct result of a Supreme Court decision concerning COPA. Please re-read Llywelyns opening post. Everything in this thread basically goes back to 1st amendment freedoms and the interpretation thereof, as it applies to our SOCIETY, NOT our Government. That the Government has a viable interest in this matter, and has been brought to bear on it and intervene in the interests of people who are offended by Pornography, basically sets the entire debate up as a matter of Gov-intervention into our lives. This actually will come down to the interpretation of Art, Speech, Expression, and whether Porn has any of these facets applied to it by governing bodies, is recognized under the 1st amendment, or is regulated because the 1st amendment does not apply.

I believe it behooves us all to ensure we ALL understand what porn is, and if it takes a bit of arguing over the matter, then so be it. People state their opinions, and everyone has one. They do not all agree, and I doubt a consensus could be reached, BUT, it still brings it out into the open, which is a good thing, because we all learn from it. The worst part about arguing with Llywelin is that I agree 90% with him, but my brain is off line from a straight 14-day work period.

As for the Government. . we're already dead, we just don't know it yet.


Kris^
Mediocrity is doig it THEIR way You are the one who started talking about the government, not me.

And yes, read the whole thread for once, and you'll see what I stand for.

You are kind of new to the board, so let me sum it up for you: Most of the topics here evolve. Many times they deviate from the path of the general argument, and many times smaller arguments are going on inside the larger one. When someone makes a new statement (as in, the reason why people like pornography), and another person responds to it, it does not mean I am referring to the general argument at all. I don't quite see why you assume so.

It is fine if you want to bring whatever you want into the original argument, but in responding to my post about other reasons a person may like porn, you are participating in something completely different than what you are trying to conclude.

EDIT: And yes, what I see art in is part of my opinion, my taste. I'm glad you finally realize that.

So my take on the whole matter is that now that porn is easily accessible and largely "free" via the internet to young single males, frequent porn *ahem* usage really kills the sex drive. I'll testify for that one...



So maybe it'll keep people from being horny 24 hours a day, down to something like, say 12.487391 hours. Thats about right.





mmmmmm gradual, brain numbing subduement.......

"Porn doesn't always have to be sexually arousing, either. I think some of it is much more appealing on an artistic sort of level."

All right Shivercide, since you seem to want to bandy back and forth instead of defend this statement. . . I've already given at least 3 major films that are considered to be art, yet are also pornographic. I've stated 4-5 times that you have to delineate the difference between porn and "Art", and asked that you tell me where that line is. I've also explained how it IS important we make this difference very apparent, and expressed the concern that any protections currently given to it will be eroded over time because they are based upon "Free speech" (which definition can change quickly). Then add in the entire list of porn genre's I've brought up, that no one has defended as art. .

Why don't you tell me which porn you consider to be art? It's that simple. If we agree, fine (I'm pretty sure we'll be close). .and then tell me which you find to NOT be art. When you do, (if you can) you are going to find that Porn does not get a blanket stamp of "Art" (which you did not say, but also will not clarify). You might draw the line in one spot, I another, but until you look at it, and make a decision on where that line lies all you are doing is avoiding the issue of your own statement. I've already said what I consider to be Art in a pornographic sense. . now it's your turn.

El_Cid. .VERY well said. . . I find it hard to concentrate on porn. . it's just so. . .boring.

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way

All right Shivercide, since you seem to want to bandy back and forth instead of defend this statement. . .
It's funny, how you seem to be doing the same.

I've already given at least 3 major films that are considered to be art, yet are also pornographic. I've stated 4-5 times that you have to delineate the difference between porn and "Art", and asked that you tell me where that line is.
I can't draw a line, nor should I have to. You can state things all you want, but I was never intending to bring my tastes to the table. My original statement only and still does have to do with the fact that not all porn needs to be sexually arousing. That is based on an individual's personal tastes, yes, but I was only referring to the fact that not EVERYone is sexually turned on by pornography (whether that means all or some), but may see certain things on an artistic level instead.

I've also explained how it IS important we make this difference very apparent, and expressed the concern that any protections currently given to it will be eroded over time because they are based upon "Free speech" (which definition can change quickly). Then add in the entire list of porn genre's I've brought up, that no one has defended as art. .
However important it is, I still don't see what it has to do with my original statement that you quickly responded with "I'm sorry, but porn is NOT art."

Why don't you tell me which porn you consider to be art? It's that simple.

Why is it that simple? Again, my statement had nothing to do with your argument, or any argument in this thread. My statement was nothing but a mere response to someone else's response of why people enjoy porn, not why it should be protected or not.

If we agree, fine (I'm pretty sure we'll be close). .and then tell me which you find to NOT be art.
Which we will never agree on, because you began an argument that pornography isn't art.

When you do, (if you can) you are going to find that Porn does not get a blanket stamp of "Art" (which you did not say, but also will not clarify). You might draw the line in one spot, I another, but until you look at it, and make a decision on where that line lies all you are doing is avoiding the issue of your own statement.
You're right, I did not say that. I don't know why I need to clarify something that was only a sudden assumption of yours. There's no need for me to clarify what you bring into the argument yourself.

I've already said what I consider to be Art in a pornographic sense. . now it's your turn.
I'm sorry...once again, for some reason, I thought you said specifically that porn was NOT art.

Given that you, Shivercide, are incapable, or unwilling (basically the same thing in this case) of defending you position concerning "some porn" being considered Art, one must presume that it has no merit in this debate.

In a debate, it helps to have more than "Feelings" and emotionalism as your basis for a point or observation. You have brought forth no evidence, or rationale, to support your statement. Others, including myself, have done so, however, yet you still refuse to even attempt to step forward and take a stance that would include even the evidence others have made available.

I'll make this easy. . Porn is not art. . Porn used in an artistic endeavor IS art (such as in the movie Caligula, or the play "Lady Chatterly's Lover"), and expression of sexuality (as Llywelin has pointed out) as an artform is widely accepted. There is a difference, though, between the two concepts.

No one would have disagreed with you if you had clarified this point.

Kris^
Mediocrity is doing it THEIR way

Given that you, Shivercide, are incapable, or unwilling (basically the same thing in this case) of defending you position concerning "some porn" being considered Art, one must presume that it has no merit in this debate.

In a debate, it helps to have more than "Feelings" and emotionalism as your basis for a point or observation. You have brought forth no evidence, or rationale, to support your statement. Others, including myself, have done so, however, yet you still refuse to even attempt to step forward and take a stance that would include even the evidence others have made available.
I never intended it to become a debate at all. Again, if you'd really read any of my posts instead of assuming things, then you'd see that my statement has no purpose in this debate, as I was not using it as a defense for pornography. You decided that for me. You put the words into my mouth, and you created your own debate in the matter.

I'll make this easy. . Porn is not art. . Porn used in an artistic endeavor IS art (such as in the movie Caligula, or the play "Lady Chatterly's Lover"), and expression of sexuality (as Llywelin has pointed out) as an artform is widely accepted. There is a difference, though, between the two concepts.
You acknowledged up above that I indeed did say "some porn". Yet you still imply that I meant all, just because I don't make a list of movie titles.

Once again, we're back to the beginning - even if I did say that all porn was more appealing on an artistic level, you still cannot rightfully say what I do or do not see. Again, I wasn't using it as a defense for the original argument of this thread.

No one would have disagreed with you if you had clarified this point.
Surprisingly, you are the only one who disagreed with me and continues to disagree with my "point" - which is that I find some porn appealing on an artistic level.

Then perhaps you should remember this is a DEBATE forum. .everything you say is open to contention.

Kris^

art [aart]
n (plural arts)
1. creation of beautiful things: the creation of beautiful or thought-provoking works, for example, in painting, music, or writing 2. beautiful objects: beautiful or thought-provoking works produced through creative activity 3. branch of art: a branch or category of art, especially one of the visual arts 4. artistic skill: the skill and technique involved in producing visual representations 5. study of art: the study of a branch of the visual arts 6. creation by humans: creation by human endeavor rather than by nature 7. techniques or craft: the techniques used by somebody in a particular field, or the use of those techniques Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------
Pick one, there are quite a few more.
And these are nothing more than a common consensus or 5, they are far from true definitions of the word.


The point being that no