The difference between porn for sexual gratification, porn for entertainment and porn for objectification is the mind of the viewer. A person's
opinion of pornography says more about the opinionator than the directors, actors, distributors and viewers.
I look at pornography as part of my everyday business as an adult webmaster. I have no interest in the porn I view except for the financial return it
provides for my publishing efforts. Looking at lots of porn does not desensitize me to real people or to my own notions of right and wrong. I'd say
the majority of people who view porn do so for light-hearted entertainment not sexual gratification; and when for sexual gratification it's usually
either viewed with a partner as foreplay or to aid the visualization of fantasies. The porn people view has little bearing on their moral
compasses.
When I choose to view porn for pleasure then I take pleasure from it; and I believe the majority of society's members also can be trusted to choose
the purpose for which they use porn.
I accept some people look to porn for the instruction they ought to be given by society through schooling, parenting and mentoring; but this does not
equate to them disregarding right and wrong with regard to non-consensual and extremely violent sexual behavior toward others.
Of course, in addition to what I've written above, people view porn for as many reasons as there are sexualities hence as many reasons as there are
people on this planet. A person who will rape will rape whether porn exists or not.
Porn could be banned or more heavily censored, its distributors, actors and viewers prosecuted. Likewise for sexual activities that some consider to
be their'n to ban. But those activities portrayed in pornography will not be conducted by non-actors any less than any other form of sexual
expression that some would ban: gay people will still be gay and continue to enjoy gay sex (as they always have); ditto for those who enjoy BDSM,
Matures, Teens.... You can ban as many activities as you want but you will never ban a person's will and desire; so those activities will never stop
but under prohibition will assume the greater luster of taboo.
There are some sexual activities that need to be legislated against. Specifically, those that are non-consensual, those that involve forced consent
and those that concern people unable to provide consent due to illness, physical immaturity and mental decline (I've left out mental immaturity
because it would cover a third of the world's adult population). Yet, legislating against such things will only ever serve two purposes - one to make
clear society's tolerances, and two, to give the state power to act on society's behalf to prosecute for detention and "reform" those who breach
such tolerances. To me, the fact we need to legislate suggests the majority of people are incapable of civilized behavior (isn't it strange that we
must pay people to enforce the laws we require to protect us from ourselves - how fickle and a sham is the surface of human society?).
We need to remember that we should not call to ban something just because we don't like it. Bans should not be placed out of emotion but for well
considered (separated of emotion) reasons. And anyone who shouts: "I don't like it so I think you shouldn't do it, watch it or fantasize about
it." despite society's majority's protestations should be prosecuted, detained and reformed for society's good (in my opinion). A third of those
who protest certain forms of pornography (or anything else) protest to hide their own feelings for it - feelings that provide them guilt because
they're unable to separate their feelings and thoughts long enough to allow them to objectively analyze them and reconcile their own opinion of right
and wrong in the face of perceived social taboos. Guilt is vicious to objective thought and is the promoter of repression; and fear feeds it more than
anything else I can think of. Further, they feel shame due to the pride they have in their ability to live "normal" lives and think "normal"
thoughts as defined by their peers (which these days include TV characters and Internet avatars and all other media for that matter).
Ask yourself this question: do we become desensitized to sex, the human form and sexual expression via watching pornography, or are we sensitized to
those same things via nurture?
Perhaps it's a bit of both but it's important to know your base before you decide your opinion.
As for the case that opened this thread, it began 2002, was dismissed 2005 then later restarted on appeal by the Justice Department:
The case has been waged for much of the decade and began when an undercover U.S. Postal Service inspector bought porn videos through Extreme
Associates' membership site, ExtremeAssociates.com, in 2002.
A federal grand jury indicted the couple in August 2003 on 10 counts of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., mailing obscene or crime-inducing matters and
transporting obscene matter for sale.
A federal judge dismissed the case in January 2005, ruling that the anti-obscenity statutes were unconstitutional when applied to Extreme Associates
because they violated an individual’s right to privacy. But the Justice Department appealed that ruling before the 3rd Circuit, which overruled the
judge.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Extreme’s appeal from the 3rd Circuit, sending the case back for trial. Upon learning of the Supreme
Court’s refusal to hear the case
XBiz
The case has destroyed a million dollar business, bankrupted and brought to near destitution two once successful people and caused many people to feel
guilty and shameful for their natural human desires and curiosities. I don't believe any state should ever have been given such power to yield over
its populace. There should be legislation to prevent the state from evoking guilt and shame - the two greatest tools of a manipulator's armory.
Rich23, couple of stars handed out to you.
Edited to correct end quote tag.
[edit on 5/7/09 by Rapacity]
