the views expressed are Mr. Walters and do not reflect grex, nor
the Sexuality converence in any way.

that out of the way

PORN!
is it ok?
is it even something that turns people on?
what's your view?

32 responses total.

Porn deffinately has its uses....

I would have to say that I prefer written vs. pictures, but since I'm not 
a guy, that's not a surprise.

I've been really numbed by it, and unfortunately, I've wallowed in it 
deeply.  Nevertheless, I have to say, it is so not real.  The 
portrayals are fake, especially in the particular materials that are 
dubbed porn.  Some view it as an aid to stimulus.. but I think I'm 
fairly certain that staying grounded to one's own sexual relationship 
is best.  I mean, there should be plenty of fantasy and imagination 
there without having to have someone else provide you with a scenario.

I don't know.. I'm not making my point well.  But at least I know that 
medium.

Hmm.. and how is erotica and exploitation defined?

Porn, at its worst, is exploitation.  Stripping, prostituting, 
filmmaking-- it's all becoming more and more one package.

Where does a mere character begin and a real person end?  We don't know 
the real lives of porn stars, which I assume are generally obscure and 
unknown.  I can admit that they are objectified; I never thought of 
them as anyone I could make acquaintances.

How can erotica exist, for that matter, without characters being 
somewhat fictional?  Do we respond to that which is subjective, or 
objective?

Well, it sounds like there are a few questions here.

First off, you can ask whether porn is just _bad_.  But even if there's
nothing wrong with porn, you can ask whether it can hurt people.  And --
here's the kicker, in my opinion -- you can ask whose responsibility it is
when someone gets hurt.  Is it the authors?  The actors?  The marketers?  The
consumers?  Is it -- oh jeez, here I go -- Our Culture?

or is ith the uber llama who misenterpeted other wise harmless fun
frankly, i'm all about personal responsibility right now, i'm on a trip
if you will.
i think that the people who make snuff films are responsible, they wouldn't
exist if there wern't people willing to tape a crime made to order
i think the person who arranged the filim is resopnsible
i feel the person who comissioned it is also responsible too.
all equaly guilty, since they're ruining it for the rest of us damnit

I love erotic literature, and well-done porn is okay.  I'm more into
literature, though, since I can conjure my own images.

("Uber llama"?  If the leading authority on porn is a wooly South American
quadruped, I don't want to know about it.)

Well, okay.  But put blatantly illegal stuff like snuff films aside.  (After
all, those would be illegal even if they weren't pornographic.)  If an
ordinary porn film -- one with nothing wrong with it aside from the fact that
it _is_ porn -- causes harm to society, whose fault is it?  

I think it's necessary first to decide whether or not it causes harm to
society.  If you assume that it does, the question of who is responsible is
leading.  

Porn can be very stimulating if viewed with the right person

And what is the difference between erotica and pornography?

I'm not sure if the line is as clear-cut as some might think.  Is it a 
degree of explicit detail-- and is it degrees of exposure in said 
medium, or is the video media more explicit than the written one?

I haven't heard an excellent, objective distinction yet..

As for what has been termed erotica, I've enjoyed it much more when 
Julie and I were subjects of our own stories.. and more still when it 
just involved us alone.  I always felt uncomfortable trying to create 
characters that were not us.

*shrug* that make any sense?

My personal definitions are such:

Pornography - pictures and videos
Erotica - stories

i don't get off on porn, but i like it. i'd like to make some money from it.

late greek.
porne = whore
graphein = to write

Those definitions are ironic, given that "pornography" includes "graphy"
meaning "written material."

Erotica - Pornographic art. ;}
 
Seriously, though, there IS an overlap. If you look at a sexually-oriented
piece of art, or read a sexually-explicit story, and have a base sexual
response, llike you want to fuck the people in the work, it's pornographic.
If you have a more aesthetic response -- the work evokes higher emotional
feelings -- it's erotic. Clearly something can cause both responses, and
clearly something can cause one response in one person and another in another
person. (I should also say that "base sexual response" could also be negative:
You could look at a scat photo, for instance, and be revolted that someone
would find that sexually interesting: That's a base sexual response from the
standpoint that you're not responding to any artistic content, you're
responding to how someone would sexually view it.)

yyou stuttered right beffore you said "fuck"

        I'm really torn over the whole issue.  I don't think there's anything
at all wrong with a picture of someone naked, or having sex, as long as they
weren't drugged into submission and forced to take the picture or if there's
something else going on, like child molestation.  I certainly don't think
there's anything wrong with a fictional account that someone's written.  At
the same time, I really don't like what the sex industry does to people.

The people who work in it, or the people who consume it?  Or both?

heh. i'd say i'd favour more the "people that work in it"
but that's just me

Wow.  I have stuff to say about this, but I'm at work now and don't have the
time to write it down well.  :(

        I'm thinking more about the people who work in the industry.

        There is doubtless some social dysfunction in using a lot of porn. 
I don't necessarily think it has to do with objectification and degradation
- if you're not already into those things, objectified porn or degrading porn
isn't going to "do it" for you - but more along the lines of desensitizing
and removing some of the impetus to correct social problems.  But long periods
of sexual or relationship abstinence have their own problems, too, and insofar
as I can see, they're worse, so it's not that big of a deal.

i broused hotornot.com for 2 hours last night.
i don't like porn, i just like pictures of girls with their clothes on

<chuckle>
hot or not is cute, and fuzzy.
and at least all the girls are supposed to be over 18:) unlike TOP
i'm wonderin gwhat you think the problems of long sexual or relationship
abstinance have john, you've piqued my interest. the only problem i can see
porn causeing in a healthy person is unrealistic expectations.

        I guess it depends on what you are doing with the time;  I've seen some
people who're out of relationships for a long while because they're
concentrating on some other area of their life and have all of their needs
met somewhere, but it's a pretty damned strong biological imperative you're
talking about.

resp:20, resp:21  Interesting site-- at least, more realistic.

        hotornot.com isn't a porn site, though, it's one of those internet
oddities, like the original webcam.  The point was voyeurism, but not *sexual*
voyeurism, or at least not purely sexual.

something like that, but it's not purely voyeurism, either.  I mean, 
you've noticed there *is* the option to meet, and then, that reminds 
me more of how people typically meet over the Internet, except the 
picture is presented right up front, first.

I'm sure we're on the same wavelength-- you understand what I mean?

        Maybe not ... the horornot sites I've seen are thrown together sites,
with pictures of various people, willing, unwilling, known, unknown ... and
there's no option to meet them because anyone could send in any picture, and
it might not even be of a human bieng, if the site author thinks it's funny
enough to include in the series.

you mean like impressing room.com?

        Huh?

        I was thinking of things like www.amigothornot.com, if it's still up.

ohh, the wannabies
i should put mine up at geekornot.com:)

resp:26  That's true.. all users *would* be subject to the whims of 
the webauthor.

I've mulled over the issue once again, and think I understand my own 
stance more clearly.

First of all, I think it's possible to have dependence/addiction in 
this area, so it is possible for consumptors to be therefore harmed.  
Before someone responds to this right away, consider that nicotine and 
alcohol are much more socially acceptable, but still carry addictive 
risk for some people, especially the former.  I'll say that for 
cannabis, too.

What is defined as erotica, I think, tends to be media where 
connections to any real people are obscured, untraceable, or 
simply 'coincidental,' as the general film industry puts it in legal 
terms.  It's much more abstract and surreal.

However, my ideal is still internal in focus; I think I'm happier when 
I don't focus on external sources.  In other words, I have enjoyed 
self-made erotica where Julie and I were more or less the only 
subjects, and I remember that we usually felt awkward when there were 
other characters.  I think that's probably the extent of it; we both 
have had problems with being too involved in anything that was too 
external.  So I'd say that imagination and fantasy is *very* good, but 
it doesn't hurt to keep it focused on a working relationship as much 
as possible.

(I suppose views on autoeroticism could be considered here, but no 
comment at the moment.)

To tighten the conversational thread back what was currently 
discussed, I don't think voyeurism is really all that healthy, because 
it is such partial gratification, and subjects aren't necesarily 
willing, but more especially, they aren't participating.  I think real-
time hooching, cruising, or whatever *is* healthy, as long as both 
parties feel gratified and enriched.  If a smile, wolf whistle, cat 
call, or whatever makes both parties' days, then it's good.  But I 
think it's easier to control outside of cyberspace.

I will admit that webcams and amateur party phone sex lines might 
provide gratification for both parties involved.  I remember calling a 
gay party line once, with Julie's permission, and well, we eventually 
just got into each other, and we giggled at the response we were 
getting from the guys that were actually interested in what we were 
supposedly doing.  Gays for pay, I guess, that were refreshed by the 
change of pace.  My view has changed that I wouldn't do that now, but, 
for the moment, it seemed all were getting something.

My point is that I see now that relationship parameters are helpful 
when considering whether or not to consume such media.  My observation 
is that it usually declines (on the whole) for both men and women when 
they are involved in a gratifying, satisfying relationship.  If it is 
still consumed, it is usually used as a part of it, not 
independently.  Again, I tend to espouse a more internal focus.

        It's kind of hard to say whether or not voyeurism is partially
fulfilling for a given person;  so many people have damag ... er, different
sexual psyches, that for a given person, voyeurism might be the only way they
can achieve sexual satisfaction.  Hopefully they can find a consenting
partner, because otherwise they're achieving sexual satisfaction at someone
else's expense, and without their consent, though the harm be minimal compared
to violent assault or rape.

        I'm pretty sure that excessive porn use has detrimental effects, but
it's difficult to seperate from other factors;  people in healthy
relationships don't tend to be porn addicts, the same way that healthy
well-adjusted people don't tend to be junkies.  Some of the social problems
of porn addicts can therefore be ascribed to porn, but some of them are by
definition of a pre-existing condition.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss