response 103 of 159:

Apr 23 04:17 UTC 1996

Mark, why do I have to "correct" anything for you? You are already wrong in
saying I am rationalizing my poor, misguided, ignorant prejudices. I simply
presented a different opinion and stood by it. If that makes me prejudiced,
fine.

When did I say that I thought people who used porn could not handle themselves
in society? Never. What I did say was that I believe use of it over time can
serve to poison the mind and reshape attitudes on women and human beings in
general, for the worse. This person may act the same as he/she always does
with no outward changes. BUt the mentality is there. And the mind is pretty
damn powerful.

I happen to get offended when a whole rest

response 105 of 159:

Apr 23 13:04 UTC 1996

again, i ask the definition of  a "porn user".

response 107 of 159:

Apr 23 14:10 UTC 1996

<sigh> I didn't use the words "poor, ignorant, misguided" anywhere in here.
Nor did I think them.  I thought I defined pretty well what I meant by the
word "prejudiced".

In #99 I was refering to the exchange in #26-30 when I said that beeswing
said that people who used porn were unlikely to be able to handle themselves
maturely in the real world.  Perhaps I misread those responses.

response 109 of 159:

Apr 23 17:10 UTC 1996

Discrimination and prejudice are words that people have crumpled into
one context over time, and people forget that they are not in themselves
negative words.

response 111 of 159:

Apr 24 02:17 UTC 1996

I agree, and apologize for my part in personalizing this.

I'm not sure we can give a meaningful answer to iggy's question of what
constitutes a porn user; I think it depends.  I get the feeling now that
beeswing has been thinking about "heavier" users than I have, and maybe that's
where our misunderstanding lies.  I don't think reading an occasional Playboy
or watching an occasional movie will affect most people.  Beyond that, I
really don't know; beeswing may be right that going to strip clubs often 
may be a good indicator that someone will treat women badly in the real 
world.  Of course there's a lot of ground in between.

response 113 of 159:

Apr 24 11:46 UTC 1996

A while back I posted one definition of pornography.  I believe that much of
one's opinion about pornography depends upon one's understanding of what that
means.  There are many works of art, both written, painted and verbal which
tend to elicit erotic feelings in the observer which probably would be
difficult to denounce by most, but would, could be called pornography by some.
There are other things created by man which most people would probably find
offensive (snuff movies for example).  

I don't expect that we will ever find complete consensus on a subject like
this, but there probably could be more agreement if we more clearly defined
what each of us was talking about when we refer to pronography.  I, for one,
do not think most strip acts are examples of pornography.  However, I can
imagine times when a strip act could turn to what I consider pornography and
I might find it offensive.  

As is usually the case Marc, I agree with you that I enjoy reading and
participating in the discussion until it gets personal and derisive.  It might
help is people started strong statements with, "It is my belief that. . ."
rather than blanket condemning statements which are likely to ignite a flame.

response 115 of 159:

Apr 24 21:14 UTC 1996

But Clees, that is your definition of pornography and may not be any or
everyone elses.  We have a major problem discussing something rationally
(albeit with some associated emotion) if we do not agree on what the term
being discussed means.  That's where a (somewhat) rational discussion begins.
Making sure the participants are at least talking about the same thing.  From
the definitions of pornography I have recently found, some examples of same
would probably not be terribly offensive to many people (e.g. a woprk of art
that stimulates some sexual arousal.)  Ask any old married couple whose sex
life has diminished whether or not some external stimulus for arousal is bad.
The Karma Sutra was once probably thought of as pornography (well, maybe by
some it still is).  I don't want to belabor the point.  I just want to make
sure we are all talking about the same thing.

response 117 of 159:

Apr 25 03:36 UTC 1996

Thanks to cooler heads for prevailing.  I don't know how I define pornography;
I guess it depends on the consequences of that definition!  A few years ago,
I remember that Newsweek (I think it was) did a story on art and put a
(classical) picture of a nude woman on their cover.  It was not a sensual nude
at all, really, but quite a number of people were offended and complained.

I don't think anyone will contradict me when I say that the human body can
be beautiful.  I go a little farther when I say I think there's nothing wrong
with celebrating that, and there's nothing wrong with celebrating how good
sex feels, either.  That's my opinion.

response 119 of 159:

Apr 25 19:58 UTC 1996

 Like I said, someone did, and it was disgusting.

response 121 of 159:

Apr 26 16:53 UTC 1996

I made a rather strong definition because it excludes e.g. erotic
art and so on. Just like Mark said when I see porno,
I know it. Walking through the red ligt district in good
ole' Amsterdam confronts everyone with pornography.
Selling postcards with photo's (close ups that is, folks) of
people's genitals is for example what I define with pornography.
When I walk past a window and a prostitute reveals her genital
organs to me, I call that pornography. If I'm watching 9,5 weeks and don't call
it pornography.
When western tourists go to the Phillipenes for having sex
with children I will not only call it childe abuse,
I call it rape.
My personal definition is quite clear to me.

response 123 of 159:

Apr 26 22:08 UTC 1996

I'd get a kick out of it actually, woman or man, for maybe the
first block or two, then the novelty would wear thin.  But the
initial experience would be loads of fun.