Not sure why this made me laugh

[Doc]

Summary:
Pornography contains nudity.
Statues are made of stone.
Not everything which contains nudity is pornography
Not everything made out of stone is a statue.

Hmm this equation is incomplete.

There should be something about "In porn you want something to remain as hard as stone on a statue for an unreasonable length of time."

There is a difference between erotica and porn. And it's not a case of softcore vs hardcore vs strange blue tenticle tickler porn. It's a subtle delicate easily crossed line that is not easily definable. There are other things of course, which are harder to catagorize but contain images which some might find objectionable, while others would merely look at it and go "eh."

I remember back in the 80s there was a fairly good sized circus created over a series of comics and graphic novels by Wendy and Richard Peni, called Elfquest. Some outraged parent groups were furious that in the graphic novels, there were pictures of breast feeding. They cried porn at the top of their lungs, and stirred up a bloody hornets nest. Yes, there were some sexual themes in there, but it was pretty tame. The sight of breast feeding was enough to cause a real riot though. Was it porn? A natural act? One of those things where most normal people would just go "eh?" Of course, the fact that most of these folk were raving about a naked tit being sucked on by a baby and not raving about the graphic depiction of a character named One Eye being gored and then killed by a spear is what concerns me... Murder is ok... Death is dandy. But breastfeeding will cause your head to roll.

[[wcip]Angel]

In porn, as in any other endeavor (and probably more than in most) Sturgeon's law applies. That 90% of porn (or of science fiction, or of TV) is crap is not an indicator that porn is crap, or that science fiction is crap or that TV is crap.

Now, if you still do not understand the point, then it is beyond me to explain it to you.

I understand this point (wohoo!); I just don't agree with it.
I'm really trying to figure out how it would be illogical to say that porn is generally crap when 90% of it is. I understand you just explained this to me, but I just don't get it. If most porn is crap, why is it illogical to say that, generally speaking, porn is crap? Doesn't "generally speaking" translate into "for the most part"; 90% being the 'most part'?

Is it because you're not supposed to generalise over the 10 remaining percent; that the last 10 percent voids any such generalisation; that even if there is just but 1 or 0,1% or porn being anything but crappy, you're still not allowed to say that porn is generally crappy?

Or perhaps it has something to do with this:

As long as you distinguish what you mean by porn by the quality of the material, you will always be in a position of speaking biased nonsense

meaning you can't define something in a reasonable way, if you're determining its value based on its quality? --> Saying it's crappy is a subjective opinion and therefore unfit for definition.. is that what you're saying?

So, porn is based on intent?

Yes, I'd say that's a fair assumption of my take on pornography.

Off-topic:

I don't remember quite that degree of heavy breathing when she "established a relationship" with Angel.

Actually, in season 2 when the characters of Buffy and Angel made love, it wasn't Sarah and David doing the heavy breathing. Apparrently, Joss Whedon was too embarrassed to ask the actors to do it, so he recorded the heavy breathing himself. :) (http://www.buffyguide.com/episodes/innocence.shtml, see "notes")

Back on-topic:

So, porn is based on intent? Even if we accept that for the moment, how do you know the intent of the scenes between Buffy and Spike? To establish a relationship?

No. The intent was obviously for Buffy to feel something. Coming back from the dead and later finding out she came back "wrong" (if you know what happens in season 7, please don't spoil it for me, as I've only completed season 6.) shook her up. Unlike the other seasons where Buffy is set against some sort of unbeatable foe (Master/Angel & herself/Mayor/Adam/Glory), season 6 deals with Buffy's detachment from normal life, her exile from the gang and her spiralling into an emotional abyss. When first coming back to life she uttered the words "is this hell?". Her "boinking the undead" was a feeble attempt to feel something other than a void.

Of course, this is just my humble opinion on season 6, and can in no way be proven barring a surprise visit from Joss himself. Even then, we'd just have his word that the scenes with Buffy and Spike were not meant to create a tittilating response in the audience's nether regions.

So, your "intent" argument leads to the curious result that those episodes are or are not pornographic based on a remark that might or might not have been made in a meeting that never appears on the show and is at least at one remove from the show. Sorry, but that's too metaphysical to be of any value to me in identifying porn in the future.

When all we can do is speculate over what might or might not have been said (which is a form of entertainment both sides of a discussion can enjoy) one must look to the tangible. Although entirely possible, there is no indication that Joss ever said those words. ("Frankly, I'm all out of ideas...") When defining pornography, obviously intent has to be relatively evident. (Yes, I'm being vague for a reason.)
Unless the author, writer or creater actually admits his true intent the audience can never truly know his or her reasons behind the alledged piece of pornography.
Thus, the intent-argument is moot.

Therefore, I must go back and attempt a second answer to your question:

2. So, tell me again why the Buffy does Spike shows weren't porn according to your definition?

Obviously..

no nudity, no pornography

No nudity, no pornography.

Clearly you've never seen any leather or rubber freak "literature".

No, I haven't. So I take it your argument is that nudity is not a necessary property of pornography?

Admitting the intent-argument is void, I suppose the definition of pornography has to lie in the receiver and how he or she responds to pornography, meaning we're screwed. If this is indeed the case, then there really is no universal definition of pornography. Speaking of Law and Order, I seem to remember Adam Schiff quoting someone on this very subject:

I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it.

(edit: http://www.af.mil/news/speech/current/sph2003_19.html - "It may not be easy to define, but it calls to mind what Justice Porter Goss once said when asked to define pornography: he replied 'I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it.'")

I thought you were making a joke, but clearly you did not realize the significance.

Obviously I was unaware of any reference I made, but my point was simply that, from my perspective I was not on any form of tall animal.

[--Pete]

Hi,

There is a difference between erotica and porn.

Only in the eye of the beholder. Let's see what M-W has to say ( http://www.m-w.com/ )

pornography: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.

erotica: literary or artistic works having an erotic theme or quality.
erotic: of, devoted to, or tending to arouse sexual love or desire <erotic art>.

So, both are some kind of work which aims for sexual arousal. The difference: you like one and don't like the other. Gays kissing might be "pornography" to the homophobe and "erotica" to the homosexual. How much you put on which side of the line is more a reflection on how much society has twisted your mind about matters sexual than it is about the actual content.

There is NO difference. The "I know it when I see it" criterion is nothing more than formalized prejudice. And as to having "no socially redeeming value", hell that makes 99.9% of TV and 90% of movies porn.

One of my main points throughout this tread was to test. Had I made the comments that I did and used the word "erotica" instead of porn, most would have agreed. Their mental image would have been of something that they found enjoyably titillating. By using the word "porn" I conjured up images of what they found repelling, even disgusting. Would the loungers, normally a very tolerant group, be able to "disagree with the opinion but fight to the death for the right of it being held?"

Some did.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

When all you have left is to repeat yourself, the discussion has ended.

--Pete

[[wcip]Angel]

Hi,

When all you have left is to repeat yourself, the discussion has ended.

--Pete

Oh thank God. Finally, I can rest.

[--Pete]

Hi,

You did have some good points. If you haven't, read my reply to Doc and you'll see my "agenda" in this thread.

Well, it was fun while it lasted.

--Pete

[[wcip]Angel]

Fun?

It was hard work! :)

You wouldn't believe the time I spent racking my brain trying to figure out how to express myself.. :)

But it's been productive, because it's been such a great challenge (for me, at least.)

[Doc]

I neither oppose nor champion porn. I just don't get it.

[[wcip]Angel]

I just don't get it.

Right now, I'm not sure I do either ... :lol:

[Doc]

If according to Pete, porn is porn is porn and erotica is porn as well, and all of it seems ok, where does child pornography fit in? Is it too, erotica? Just a little harmless fun? Have we blown the whole porn thing out of proportion? If porn is porn is porn, how is child porn any different from any other porn? I mean, if I go by your logic, that makes child porn ok. Is it one of those "unfair moral labels" that we apply to porn that we "just don't like" as in the case of Pete's gay porn remark? Well, perverts and child molesters love child porn, so, does that make it ok like gay porn? Who decides what porn is ok? The International Porn Board of Authority? What about beastiality? Is that ok as well, or, was that just slapped with another unfair moral label? What about animals doing small children porn... Surely by the powerful logic displayed here, that is only harmless erotica... And nothing more.

I still don't get it. And now my brain needs a good scrubbing. Icky.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Doc, you are full of crap.

Define "child" and define "pornography" and then maybe, just maybe, we can continue this discussion. But as long as "child pornography" is applied to baby pictures and to 18 year olds doing what they've been doing since they were 13, then the topic is meaningless. And only invoked by people who are bankrupt for arguments or ideas and have to appeal to emotional reaction.

"Child porn" is to porn discussions as "nigger" is to racial discussions or "Nazi" to political discussions. And I have little respect for anyone that appeals to any of the three.

--Pete

[naraht]

Porn in the workplace....
I think the real issue with Pron in the workplace isn't the "hit on efficency" but more the lack of respect. The work environment is a public environment and while employee "A" might enjoy seeing pictures of silicon enhanced women going down on guys who make Dirk Diggler (which is why I find the DII Unique Dirk..."The Diggler" so amusing) look small arrousing, Employee "B" might not. So rather than potentially putting employee "B" in a posistion where the exposure could occurr, by preventing it to begin with saves everyone from potentioal embarassment.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The work environment is a public environment

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. During the years I worked, I had a private office as often as not. But viewing porn was just as much against the rules in either case. And for much of that time I was in an environment where my communications could be, probably would be, monitored. Thus, the circumstances would not have mattered.

But I do agree with you that respect is indeed one of the causes of the rules about porn in the workplace. It is the extremity of the reaction that I find curious and indicative of a sick society.

--Pete

[Kryn]

Yeah, BBSpot has some silly articles. Personally, I prefer Satire Wire more though. Unfortunately, he's discontinued the making of new articles, but all of the old ones are still available and just as funny as ever.

[Jester]

There are wallets made by workers paid a decent wage in decent conditions.

There are wallets made by exploited, beaten, unpaid child labourers in dismal conditions.

It's not the wallets that are the problem.

If you don't like exploiting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves (legally or realistically), then speak against that. Certainly the prepubescent pornography market is a fairly major (and repulsive) instance. The problem is that it exploits people, not that it produces something.

So, in tying the problem to "what kind of porn is acceptable", you're leading the discussion to a blind alley. It doesn't matter what kind of porn it is. It matters what goes into producing it.

Ordinary porn? Sure, if everyone consents to it. Gay porn? Same deal. Fetish porn? Same deal. Bestiality? Why not, since we obviously don't consider animals to have rights. Child porn? You can't get consent from someone legally unable to consent, so obviously not, unless we want to change the age at which contracts can be binding. Considering how the power tends to be distributed in child porn situations, I would *strongly* advise against lowering that age. But once someone can make a decision for themselves, we really can't stop them from doing what they want, in consenting situations.

Or, for that matter, from selling the pictures of it.

Jester

[swirly]

Doc,

I'm a little confused about where you got the

and all of it seems ok

part of your message from. Reading through this thread I have heard people debate what porn is, and whether certain things classify as it or not. I don't recall anyone saying that all of it is okay. I would argue that people have said that it isn't all "crap" or that some of it is okay, but I don't recall anyone saying it is all okay.

I'm not sure you are even asking the same question. What I mean is that it seems like before the debate was "What is porn?" or "Is this porn?", which the definition given by Pete helps with. Now you are turning the debate into "Is porn good or bad?", which that definition doesn't touch on at all. Saying something is porn has no affect on whether it is good or bad, it is just saying that it is a depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement. My point in all of this is just that you are asking a completely different question than what has been discussed. You are asking for a moral judgement whereas the only thing discussed up until now is classification.

[Occhidiangela]

Is that pornography contains, inherently, sexual content, which may or may not contain nudity. The harder core the porn, the more nude genitalia and their mechanical interactions tend to get depicted. Soft core porn, some of which is on TV shows or in movies, does more by implication of sexual activity than by graphic depiction of piston and cylinder mechanics per hard core porn. The discussion above regarding Sarah Michelle Gellar and her hypothetical oral activities with a banana, with no nudity, is instructive. :) See also a video from about 15 years ago by The Divynls: I Touch Myself. That, sir, was soft core porn. :) So also is damned near every video made these days in the so-called music industry.

An intimate sex scene (two folks having an affair) on a TV soap opera would be soft core porn, no bared genitalia and or breasts but plenty of off angle shots of bare shoulders, backs, thighs, etc, and possibly more effective via titillation index than a standard Tracy Lord or Seka "choke and poke" film, depending on the audience.

For your pornography definition, you may want to get off the nudity focus and focus on the sexual element, or implication of sexual acitivity either depicted or implied.

Does that help clear anything up? :)

[doppel]

I remember the day I turned 18 and I could rent my first porn movie... *sigh* what memories.... :P

..actually, I have never rented porn. and I stopped visiting porn sites, ironically, when I turned 18. I guess it lost its thrill when it became legal. hrmmmm....

I have watched a few videos my friends have rented... including tentacle porn and Nightshift Nurses - weird stuff. My friends tend to have slightly different erotic taste <_<

Now, I perfer the occasional, more tasteful and artistically done "alternative" erotic magazine. I actually do some writing for such a publication. I've also done a little erotic modeling - nothing that I would like to persue in the future, but its fun to catch people off guard with it "yea, I've been a porn model before..." Mind you, this is entirely different stuff than "porn crap," it's pseudo-porn with an artistic edge and social mindfulness. Really, I'm a very unassuming guy and not at all the type one might think is a porn junkie. Mostly, I just like writing.

but shhhh! my parents don't know about it... ;)

Oh, and about the "porn in the workplace" thing. Personally, I have no problem with it, but if its gonna cause that much of a problem, can't people wait until they get home? Oh wait... I see, that has its own risks. ;) :lol:

[swirly]

One thing that I am wondering about that might apply with the Buffy thing, is does having pornographic content make a show/movie/whatever pornography?

I can't talk about Buffy because I haven't seen it so I'll use the Matrix Reloaded movie instead since it has a scene with sexual activity and such so should fit what I am getting at. The sexual scene in the Matrix Reloaded movie if seen by itself (chopping off the movie before and after it) would be considered pornography. Now then this could lead you to say that Matrix Reloaded is pornography. The problem with that is that the movie as a whole isn't pornography, it just has that one scene which could be considered porn. My intuition tends to say that you need to look at the product at a whole to determine what it is. So like for the Matrix Reloaded movie one could say that it is a sci fi movie with some pornographic content, but I'm unsure that one could say that the movie as a whole is pornography.

Now taking this back to the Buffy thing, I think the point some people are trying to make is that if you look at all of Buffy then its not pornography. Maybe certain scenes in certain episodes are, maybe a season is, but all of Buffy is? As a whole, you probably can't say that Buffy is. Now as I said, I have never seen Buffy so don't know anything about that, I just wanted to put out there the thought that having pornographic content may not by deault make the whole thing pornography. I think the amount of content matters and the intent of the show as a whole. Most things that are labeled as pornography tend to be heavily focused on that aspect. Meaning that the purpose of the show as a whole is to provoke a sexual responce. So my question becomes, is Buffy as a whole trying to provoke a sexual responce or is just a particular scene trying to do so? Its the difference in having pornographic content and being pornography.

[Occhidiangela]

'Pornographic' has a different connotation among most folks than 'erotic,' so also pornography and erotica per Pete's comments, but that is exactly the problem in discussing this subject: implied meaning and subjective assessment.

If I want to refer to a sexually explicit act in a story or film as erotica, I infer a different value, or the reader can, than if I call it pornography. The connotation of the second term is negative, while erotica, once again depending upon who you are, is generally applied tp a more positive and high minded category of sexually explicit or secually oriented material. We are now delving into such arcana as usage, where Mr Safire and Mr Bryson are so handy. Where are they when you need them?

When someone calls Playboy pornography, I usually chuckle, since aims, or at least once aimed, a bit higher than that, whereas Penthouse and Hustler typically aimed a bit lower in terms of appeal.

There you have it: subjectivity, and "I know it when I see it" seem to be bound to this topic due to the varying attitudes and taboos regarding sex, nudity, and sexual innuendo in written or filmed material. And for that matter, taste.

Why? Because people make stuff up, both laws and stories aimed at exciting other people's passions.