It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Revolution9
No dig implied though. Orwell also didnt like pornography because he was a old fuddy duddy. And one mans porn is another mans art.
originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: SeaWorthy
When thought about deeply each form of pornography leads back to something worse than the person watching will admit too.
I have viewed this from every angle possible and maybe I am just ignorant, but could you describe what is worse ?
Performers are sometimes forced or coerced during the production of mainstream pornography.
Violent Child Abuser and Child Pornography Producer Sentenced
originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: yuppa
Oh, that's ok then. I understand where you are coming from.
You mean kind of like he was a tool to "out" the troublemakers like you and I? It does that, too, I guess.
It is a great reference point. I expect it will begin to look more and more archaic as time goes by, but in our time we can see clearly the apparatus of state and some rather scary and clandestine accurate comparisons with an imagined control freak dystopian nightmare authoritarian prison WORLD (that should raise a few eyebrows at least), not just one state. They are all in on it in "1984". There is no escape and individuality, privacy, autonomy, freedom, sentient sexuality, are abolished from reality forever.
I am not against pornography. I did not say that. I am guilty of conforming, too. In the novel Winston is, too. I even regard my marijuana consumption as the cheap gin slumber drug in "1984". We are all in that Matrix to some degree now except Grizzly Adams if he still exists, lol.
originally posted by: phatkhat
I see many on here complaining about porn involving the abuse of some people, but what about the porn that is completely CGI?
In January 1946, George Orwell published a review of a fairly obscure Russian novel titled We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin, in the Tribune. Originally released in New York in 1921 after being banned prior to publication in Russia, We had recently been translated into French, in which Orwell was fluent. As the recent author of Animal Farm and a writer for whom fiction and politics belonged together, Orwell seemed a natural choice to examine this dystopian work. We tells the story of D-503, a man living in a dystopian city of the future in which people no longer have Christian names and are known instead by a letter followed by a series of numbers. In this city, citizens are subjected to constant surveillance by a branch of government called the Bureau of Guardians, with an all-powerful leader called the Well-Doer ("the Benefactor" in some translations). At a point early on, D-503 notices a particular woman showing up wherever he goes. Filled with suspicion, he first hates her, but soon falls in love with her. She inspires him to commit acts of rebellion against the state.
His imagination conjured up "kaleidoscopes", "telescreens", "versificator(s)"
originally posted by: FamCore
originally posted by: yuppa
Orwell was another means of controlling the people. And apparently its been very successfull.
What do you mean by this? Orwell's literature is meant to dishearten and discourage us "citizens of the future"? To make us believe that there is no hope for a better world?
Can you please explain what you mean?