Not sure why this made me laugh

[Occhidiangela]

Watched a decent amount of porn on film in the early and mid 80's, not much since then. Having done that did not spoil the fun in my romantic life at all, though sad to say it did not offer all that many constructive suggestions either. It did not, for sure, offer any good examples of romantic dialogue either. :D Written commentary was better for that where imagination failed. I'd guess that most men prefer "real" to "Hollywood Enhanced" by an order of magnitude or two, particularly when one is "there in the flesh" and the other is "on celluloid." I think the unreasonable expectation theory is a load of nonsense, but I admit to having only my own perspective to draw from.

Not sure how women respond to porn, only met one or two who cared for it, so I suspect it is as with men: differs with the individual.

[[wcip]Angel]

I actually think Doc has a point when he says that pornography creates unhealthy ideals.

You have to remember, Occhidiangela, that all men and boys are not as experienced as you. (I'm not trying to be impolite or sarcastic in any way here.)

I'm 20 years old, so when I watch a 'dirty' movie, I know it's fake. I know the people on screen are not making love; as such an affair is an intimate, private matter. The people in these movies are merely positioning themselves in tittilating positions in order to entice the audience. Lovers have no one to please but themselves, whereas the function of the pornstar is to please the audience.

But I didn't always feel this way. I'm not ashamed of admitting that I've been young and naive; hell, I still am when it comes to some things. (I've yet to have sex myself) When I was younger, I was amazed at how long the "actors" in 'blue' movies could perform before releasing, and as a result I became insecure.

I don't think I was the only one. I do honestly feel that pornography can instill some horrifying images in a young boy's mind, which he may or may not recover from.

[TaiDaishar]

I know this entire discussion is dead serious but I can't help but chuckle at some of things said here...

[Doc]

It's not often I can discuss such matters with such reasonable people.

Look for The Flynt Interviews. (I think that's what it is called) He has a lot of insights, feelings, and an insiders look into the Porn Industry. In typical Flynt fashion, he tears apart the very thing that made him what he is. He talks about how his company even hired psychologists to better gauge what makes a "life time customer" and all of the dirty tricks. He talked a great deal about how his rags, and the whole industry at large, caters to low or broken self esteen clients by showing pictures of agressive sexual domination, to which people who are mice can act out their fantasies. He talked about how porn films are made, how long a shot can take, and how the use of illegal drugs often help a shot out, as some of the "male models" inject novacaine or other numbing drugs to decrease sensitivity so they can get the "money shot" and make themselves look like stallions. He talked a great deal about selling porn to minors, and how important it was to get them when they were young and impressionable, to make them "life time customers." I know some of this had to be written tongue in cheek, but, even the cheeky stuff has a grain or two of truth.

[kandrathe]

Interestingly you have danced all around my thoughts on this matter. I feel If you are taught a proper grounded reality (in regards to sexuality, violence, video games, fantasy role playing games, etc) then you will not have problems in having fantasy influence your perception of reality.

My parents were fairly old fashioned when it came to teaching their children about sexuality, and so for me it was a vast learning adventure. Before I learned better, the little pornography I had seen or read did give me a distorted sense of reality. But I would say that once I started to experience and learn about the reality of sexuality, I quickly abandoned my false delusions.

I think there may be more danger in exposing adolescents to violence, namely the fantasy of being able to use violence to solve their problems. Mostly the risk of having wrong sexual expectations is either disappointment, or embarassement. But, the consequences of trying out learned violence may be extreme. I am frequently in discussions with other parents who are concerned about their adolescents playing Diablo, or other "dark", "evil related" or violent games. My advice to them is to judge how well their child has a grasp on what is real and what is fantasy. If they still aspire to be a Shaolin master of Kung-Fu, or believe that there are monsters in their closet or under their bed, then you'd best wait a little longer.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . she liked science fiction. She said, "No". So I started asking her about specific books. Seems she read and enjoyed Stranger, Dune, and a few other classic SF titles. When I pointed that out to her, her reply, "Those aren't science fiction, Those are Literature." She's long since come to the realization of the snottiness of that remark. If you define crap as porn, then all porn will be crap. Give me a definition that we both can live with.

I'm slightly offended that you would classify a show for containing beautiful people as pornography.

And your more than slightly off base. I did not say that the L&O people were porn. I said that they are unrealistic examples of real people. Almost all actors and actresses (especially) are. So, get off your high horse, read and think then -- if you understand what is being said -- reply.

I think it frightens me a little.

And your knee-jerk reaction would frighten me if I hadn't seen it so many times before. Use your brain, not your gut.

--Pete

[Archon_Wing]

Angel,Sep 19 2003, 03:03 PM]
Pornography in general has a few common elements

* Horrible music
* Horrible acting
* Naked people having sex on screen

That describes 90% of all shows/movies today. :D Of course they do it to diffrent extents.

[[wcip]Angel]

If you define crap as porn

Did I define crap as porn? Seriously; have I? If I have, it was completely inadvertently.

I'm no good when it comes to logics, but isn't "if you define crap as porn, then all porn will be crap" slightly off?

I may be wrong but the idea of "all bananas are fruit, but not all fruit are bananas" keeps spinning in my head.

---

You feel beautiful people do not depict the -real- world?

1. These actors, don't they live in the same world as us, and do not -we- live in the "real" world?

2. I seem to remember having seen loads of beautiful people in my 20 years on this planet.

Is your argument that, it's not that there aren't beautiful people in the world, it's just that TV-shows tilt the balance by only showing beautiful people? That they don't show the ugly, or less attractive ones? If so, then I agree. I seldom see ugly people on TV (except the few times when I don't reach the "off"-button in time and Ricky Lake and her disgusting guests manage to plague my tv-screen for a several agonising seconds.)

Get off your high horse

My horse is busy sleeping it off in the stables. I'm sorry, but from my point of view, my feet are firmly in place on a grassy knoll. I'm sorry if you feel I was being pretentious or arrogant. I certainly wasn't trying to be.

if you understand what is being said -- reply.

Well, I'm not sure if I understand you, but in order to find out, I do actually have to respond to your post.

And your knee-jerk reaction would frighten me if I hadn't seen it so many times before. Use your brain, not your gut.

knee-jerk adjective
[only before noun] (disapproving) produced automatically, without any serious thought:
It was a knee-jerk reaction on her part.

(didn't know that expression, so I had to look it up.)

Whenever I post on this board, I always make a point of seriously deliberating every word I choose to post as I have the utmost respect for the board, the moderators and most of all, you and the rest of the posters. I feel a bit sad and depressed knowing that you assumed I didn't use my brain, when I actually thought (and still do) I -had- used my brain.

[[wcip]Angel]

Angel,Sep 19 2003, 03:03 PM]
Pornography in general has a few common elements

* Horrible music
* Horrible acting
* Naked people having sex on screen

That describes 90% of all shows/movies today. :D Of course they do it to diffrent extents.

To be honest, I just copied a few points from an MTV-discussion on another discussion forum. They certainly apply to pornography as well.

[Doc]

Of course, if you want real stimulating pr0n, allow me to enlighten you. Yes, Ol Doc is going to post his favourite pr0n links.

http://www.scoutwalker.com

This sight is fantastic. Star Wars robot pr0n. Wont do much for organic life forms, but this is outlawed in all known robot states. Not for small bots who have no um, "battlefield experience." One of those things that make you go "hmmmm?!" Occhi should have a field day with this one. Has some very, er, um, memorable quotes.

And my personal favourite, a site sure to cause some flutters and might even get me banned forever from the Lounge Forums.

http://sleazy.macfreak.org/home.html

g33k pr0n! For those who live "alternative lifestyles." This sight is racy, is translated from German, has poor english, and has nude pictures of 5 year old models. Be warned, this site is not for the faint of heart, as it has some very explicit content, and, um, models doing things you did not think was possible. This is not softcore!!

[Count Duckula]

Because, naturally, when Pirengle hears about porn, she just comes a 'runnin...

(All puns here on out are intended, btw.)

The day I don't check the forum is the day all the fun stuff goes on...

Most porn is a hoot. Ever see La Blue Girl? Think American/English speaking country porn is strange, wait 'till you see tentacle pr0n in all its glory...

But then again--this is also coming from a 20-year-old female--I've never been a Barbie doll, though I come closer to who I want to be every day. I've done MST3K with HBO softcore porn. I've analyzed hardcore porn. There's a pornography and censorship J-term course on this campus. I got hooked on Red Shoe Diaries. I tried to legalize nudity on our hall. I settled for 15 minutes of "nakkie time" every day. I am a closeted nudist. Next spring, I'm posing for the art department. The sex has been strange. And nonexistant sometimes. Interesting getting there, for both genders.

So what does this have to do with anything? Not sure. Believe it or not, spent the evening (morning) watching back-to-back Cowboy Bebop and Golden Boy and drinking rum and diet Dr. Pepper. Thought I'd take a look-see on the forums before sleeping whatever this is off.

But as long as my parents get a Playboy subscription from my grandparents, my hall can analyze a Playgirl at lunchtime, we can spend our evenings watching hentai and ecchi, and that some people in this universe know how to separate what they see from what they know truly deep down inside, everything's going to be all right and okay. There is no shame in anything, except what's in your head. Don't let it leak out--that's bad.

Link was funny, Oochi. Doc--try nutella. Won't go back.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Did I define crap as porn? Seriously; have I? If I have, it was completely inadvertently.

Pornography in general has a few common elements

* Horrible music
* Horrible acting

Seems to me that in terms of a performing art, that comes sufficiently close to "crap" for all practical purposes. So, something like Bolero which has excellent music and adequate acting (given the cast) is not, in your opinion, porn in spite of "Naked people having sex on screen". Your attitude is self fulfilling: "Porn is crap because if it isn't crap it's not porn."

none of which can be found on Buffy - The vampire slayer.

Frankly, there have been enough lousy bands playing at the Bronze to fit the requirement for "Horrible music". The next to last season had so many flaws in the stories that god (as in George Burns) or Sir Alex Guinness couldn't have given a decent performance -- so much for "Horrible acting". And the "people having sex on screen" were about as naked as they could be and still get by the censors -- had it been on a pay channel, I suspect the nudity would have been greater. So, tell me again why the Buffy does Spike shows weren't porn according to your definition?

I'm no good when it comes to logics, but isn't "if you define crap as porn, then all porn will be crap" slightly off?

I may be wrong but the idea of "all bananas are fruit, but not all fruit are bananas" keeps spinning in my head.

Buzz, sorry, wrong. A definition is not an implication (i.e., "conditional"). It is a "bi-conditional" as in if "A is defined to be B" then "A implies B and B implies A" or, equivalently "A is B". For details see http://www.utdallas.edu/~darcy/TEACH/FALL0...cProjectmom.htm

Your example is wrong in that "all bananas are fruit" is *not* a definition of "banana". Had you said something along the lines of "bananas are the fruit of the banana tree" (making this up as I go along -- I really don't know much about bananas other than I like to eat one for breakfast) then you would have a definition and the following statement would also be true: "the fruits of the banana tree are bananas".

You feel beautiful people do not depict the -real- world?

Sorry, but that is a straw man. Let me recap:

Doc claimed that one of the flaws of porn was that by watching it ". . . you degrade your sense of sexual values and desensitize your self to beauty by fostering a false concept of what is desireable."

I did not deny that, simply pointed out that the same "false concept of what is desireable" is prevalent in *all* the performing arts and gave some examples.

You then accused me of calling L&O porn.

Within the context of the discussion, this last statement of yours is idiotic. The point is not that there are no beautiful people in the world (since, clearly, actors, actresses and models *live* in the world) but that the people featured in the visual media are *not* representative of the world at large.

my feet are firmly in place on a grassy knoll.

That wouldn't be in Dallas, would it?

I feel a bit sad and depressed knowing that you assumed I didn't use my brain, when I actually thought (and still do) I -had- used my brain.

Be that as it may. However, when you make a sweeping generalization (such as your statement on porn) which assumes your conclusion to arrive at that conclusion, or when you completely fail to follow an argument and make a false accusation (such as your claim that I considered L&O porn) then I'm left to wonder if you *can't* think or simply *didn't* think. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you are making me wonder if that was a mis-given gift.

--Pete

[Pangloss]

Porn at Work - It's not hard to find something that is at least tangentially related to your job that will allow you to goof off online. Techies can safely poke around Tom's Hardware, Inquirer, Pricewatch, et al all day and still claim to be accomplishing things. Non-techies can kill time reading whatever they want if they can get their boss hooked on it too (ebay or any news site) . This usage of worktime for quasi-leisure leaves them free to spend more time ogling "Himalayan Sluts in Hot Yeti on Yeti Action!!!" at home if they so desire.

Giving an unpaid vacation to chronic porn fiends is a nice solution, and if someone still can't lay off the porn at work then it's time for them to go elsewhere for employment.

Porn at Home - For the single, "porn" (movies, pictures, romance novels, certain television shows and whatnot) occasionally has its uses. For the not-so-single it has considerably less uses. Escapism, motivational (ie: must have body like that by summer), or just general amusement are the ones that I can think of.

As far as desensitizing someone to what people in the 'real' world look like, I've seen more attractive people strolling down the Esplanade or Rue St. Denis than I have in porn.

[[wcip]Angel]

Hi,

Did I define crap as porn? Seriously; have I? If I have, it was completely inadvertently.

Pornography in general has a few common elements

* Horrible music
* Horrible acting

Seems to me that in terms of a performing art, that comes sufficiently close to "crap" for all practical purposes.  So, something like Bolero which has excellent music and adequate acting (given the cast) is not, in your opinion, porn in spite of "Naked people having sex on screen".  Your attitude is self fulfilling: "Porn is crap because if it isn't crap it's not porn."

none of which can be found on Buffy - The vampire slayer.

Frankly, there have been enough lousy bands playing at the Bronze to fit the requirement for "Horrible music".  The next to last season had so many flaws in the stories that god (as in George Burns) or Sir Alex Guinness couldn't have given a decent performance -- so much for "Horrible acting".  And the "people having sex on screen" were about as naked as they could be and still get by the censors -- had it been on a pay channel, I suspect the nudity would have been greater.  So, tell me again why the Buffy does Spike shows weren't porn according to your definition?

I'm no good when it comes to logics, but isn't "if you define crap as porn, then all porn will be crap" slightly off?

I may be wrong but the idea of "all bananas are fruit, but not all fruit are bananas" keeps spinning in my head.

Buzz, sorry, wrong.  A definition is not an implication (i.e., "conditional").  It is a "bi-conditional" as in if "A is defined to be B" then "A implies B and B implies A" or, equivalently "A is B".  For details see http://www.utdallas.edu/~darcy/TEACH/FALL0...cProjectmom.htm

Your example is wrong in that "all bananas are fruit" is *not* a definition of "banana".  Had you said something along the lines of "bananas are the fruit of the banana tree" (making this up as I go along -- I really don't know much about bananas other than I like to eat one for breakfast) then you would have a definition and the following statement would also be true: "the fruits of the banana tree are bananas".

You feel beautiful people do not depict the -real- world?

Sorry, but that is a straw man.  Let me recap:

Doc claimed that one of the flaws of porn was that by watching it ". . . you degrade your sense of sexual values and desensitize your self to beauty by fostering a false concept of what is desireable."

I did not deny that, simply pointed out that the same "false concept of what is desireable" is prevalent in *all* the performing arts and gave some examples.

You then accused me of calling L&O porn.

Within the context of the discussion, this last statement of yours is idiotic.  The point is not that there are no beautiful people in the world (since, clearly, actors, actresses and models *live* in the world) but that the people featured in the visual media are *not* representative of the world at large.

my feet are firmly in place on a grassy knoll.

That wouldn't be in Dallas, would it?

I feel a bit sad and depressed knowing that you assumed I didn't use my brain, when I actually thought (and still do) I -had- used my brain.

Be that as it may.  However, when you make a sweeping generalization (such as your statement on porn) which assumes your conclusion to arrive at that conclusion, or when you completely fail to follow an argument and make a false accusation (such as your claim that I considered L&O porn) then I'm left to wonder if you *can't* think or simply *didn't* think.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you are making me wonder if that was a mis-given gift.

--Pete

1. Yes. I talked about pornography. I explained my take on pornography. I listed 3 points I believe most pornography has in common. I never defined "crap". I never explained "crap." I used the term "crappy" as an adjective to describe an aspect of pornography, but I never discussed what my feelings were on "crap" itself.

Therefore, I must raise an eyebrow when you claim that I defined crap as porn, as in my eyes, I did no such thing.

If you had said "you defined porn as crap", I might be inclined to agree with you there, as that is a closer resemblance of my initial statement than "you defined crap as porn", but even then I'd have the luxury of arguing that "I never said porn was crap, just that it included som crappy elements/facets/aspects, etc.)

I just can't seem to follow your logic when you say that I've defined "crap."

2. So, tell me again why the Buffy does Spike shows weren't porn according to your definition?
Because the function of people having sex in pornographic programming differs from the function that Buffy and Spike had when they were having sex on Buffy - The vampire slayer.

It is also my view that pornography has to include an element of nudity (nudity meaning the showing of something else than legs, arms and faces), and as you already said, they can't get nudity past the censors. No nudity, no pornography.

Ergo: Buffy can never be interpreted as pornography if one were to accept this line of argument.

3. I tried to read the article you linked to, but I'm no good with math. I will therefore forego it in favour of what you wrote prior to the inclusion of the article to your post.

As I've already explained in "1.", I never defined "crap", but I will address what you said for the following reason:

You said something like "When defining A as B you might as well just say that 'A is B' or 'A=B'." (In your case: "crap=porn")

Now, I never said "crap=porn" but I presented the possibility that "porn=crappy". Even if mathematics would allow you to change this to "crappy=porn", logics wouldn't, as "crappy" would be one of many elements or properties, if you will, of "porn"; a property which can be found in numerous other items.

Just think about all the crappy stuff in life. All these items, events, persons or things contains the property "crappy," but it is not the only property of the item. Most of them extend physically in space, they can be touched and felt. They have a texture. These are other properties of these items. Events contain no such property, but they contain others. Is it an international or local event; is it a joyeus or feared event. etc..

The point I'm trying to make is that even if you were to take my 3 points I attributed to pornography and summarize this as "porn=crappy", which, as I've already mentioned, is a fair assessment, however arguable, it doesn't translate into "crap=porn" because "crappy" is just 1 out of several aspects of "porn." If you turn the tables around, you lose all the other aspects of pornography which were never mentioned.


4. I understand and accept your argument vis-à-vis the banana.

5. The point is not that there are no beautiful people in the world (since, clearly, actors, actresses and models *live* in the world) but that the people featured in the visual media are *not* representative of the world at large.

Didn't I already say this? Is your argument different from mine here, in other ways than the mere phrasing of it?

Is your argument that, it's not that there aren't beautiful people in the world, it's just that TV-shows tilt the balance by only showing beautiful people? That they don't show the ugly, or less attractive ones? If so, then I agree. I seldom see ugly people on TV

6. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "That wouldn't be in Dallas, would it?" but I am not American.

(If you're sighing now thinking to yourself "but that wasn't what I meant! God, how come he didn't get that?" then please explain it to me. From my perspective, it seems like you're insinuating that, seeing as I'm this stupid, I must be from Dallas. This is how I interpret your remark. Obviously there are cultural differences between the two of us, so there might be a joke or another meaning of that remark than the one I got at first glance. If so, please find the patience to explain it to me.)

7. I'm left to wonder if you *can't* think or simply *didn't* think.

Obviously, I *can* think, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. In order to produce an argument, let alone form a thought, you have to be able to think.

I'm also rather certain I *did* think, as posting a message on an Internet board without thinking wouldn't result in anything. The message would be complete gibberish.

I can now see where I made my mistake.

You wrote:
"ever notice that the female ADA's in the various Law and Order series look nothing like Janet Reno??) as it is in porn."

I managed to read:
"ever notice that the female ADA's in the various Law and Order series look nothing like Janet Reno??) as it is porn."

Sorry, my mistake.

Do you see how a small word like that can change one's perception of the meaning of the text? Obviously, I'm the one at fault here for not reading your post properly. It was I who managed to slip up and misinterpret what you had written.

When reading your final response one last time, I'm inclined to ask you if you wouldn't mind rephrasing one sentence as it's not perfectly clear to -me- what you mean:

However, when you make a sweeping generalization [...] which assumes your conclusion to arrive at that conclusion

I tried analysing this sentence in order to have it make sense, but I was unable to do so. Would you mind terribly explaining this to me?

Even if you feel I'm not thinking, I can guarantee you that I'm doing my best.

[Hammerskjold]

>It is also my view that pornography has to include an element of nudity (nudity meaning the showing of something else than legs, arms and faces), and as you already said, they can't get nudity past the censors. No nudity, no pornography.

>Ergo: Buffy can never be interpreted as pornography if one were to accept this line of argument.

If I misread you somewhere, feel free to correct me.

I never quite understood the sentiment that for something to be pornographic, it has to have nudity or elements of it. If it does, then the majority of museums and art galleries are nothing more than a fancy porno store. (Some people seem to thinks so, I like to call them senators. ;)

Let me ask you this, what would you find more pornographic:

- Buffy fully nude, standing in a medical position. (Arms at the side with the palms facing outward.) There's a basket of fruits near the floor where she is standing.

- Buffy fully clothed, she's even wearing a hat. Grabbing a banana out of that fruit basket and performing an act that can be best described as "Clintonesque".

[--Pete]

Hi,

then I'd have the luxury of arguing that "I never said porn was crap, just that it included som crappy elements/facets/aspects, etc.)

And that is the first valid argument you've made on this topic. However, you again fail to see the underlying situation, which I've tried in different ways to point out to you. 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. The same actions performed in a cheap homemade video and in a high production value movie would be porn to you in one case but not in the other. Whatever porn may be, it cannot be distinguished by the quality of the product, any more than science fiction can be distinguished from literature because the first is the crude puerile contents of pulp magazines with green monsters and half naked women on the cover and the second is bound in leather covers.

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.

Because the function of people having sex in pornographic programming differs from the function that Buffy and Spike had when they were having sex on Buffy - The vampire slayer.

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? I don't remember quite that degree of heavy breathing when she "established a relationship" with Angel. Even with Riley, the "establishment of a relationship" was limited to a couple of episodes, and in at least one of them, that "establishment" of itself was central to the (weak and convoluted) plot. How do you know that JW didn't say at some meeting, "Frankly, I'm all out of ideas. Have been for a season or two. The show is going into the crapper, but maybe we can rescue the ratings (the show died on graduation day anyway) by pandering to the prurient interest of our mostly immature audience." And, if he did, then that would make the intent pornographic.

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.

No nudity, no pornography.

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

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "That wouldn't be in Dallas, would it?" but I am not American.

I made that comment in reply to you're statement that "my feet are firmly in place on a grassy knoll." I thought you were making a joke, but clearly you did not realize the significance. Try a Google search on "grassy knoll", JFK, and Dallas and you'll get more history, conflicting stories, and conspiracy theory than you can digest in a month. Sorry, I did not assume you were an American (quite the contrary from things you've said in the past), but that information is not limited to Americans.

The point is not that there are no beautiful people in the world (since, clearly, actors, actresses and models *live* in the world) but that the people featured in the visual media are *not* representative of the world at large.

Didn't I already say this? Is your argument different from mine here, in other ways than the mere phrasing of it?

That paragraph was a recap and summation of the four paragraphs immediately preceding it. It was in reply to your question "You feel beautiful people do not depict the -real- world?" Yes, I feel that beautiful people do not depict the real world, just as Olympic athletes don't, just as multi-millionaires don't. That is not to say those people do not exist in the real world, but that they do not *represent* it -- they do not represent the common people who make up the vast majority. And, further it was a follow on from what you've labeled point 7.

Obviously, I *can* think

There is "thinking" and then there is "thinking". "I think I'll take a nap" is thinking. But that level of thinking is not sufficient for rational discussion. That requires thought of a deeper level.

Now, while I can accept that you misread one word as you claim, had you been reading whole concepts rather than isolated words, you would have immediately seen that your first interpretation did not make sense within the context of the discussion, which was that porn is not the only field that raises a "False sense of what is desirable". Indeed if I were to contrast porn with L&O to show how they have that element in common, then proceed to claim that L&O *was* porn, I'd be ripping the guts out of my own argument. Contrasting a genre with an example of that genre is usually pointless. Thus, while the symptom of the problem might be the misreading of a single word, the underlying cause seems more like the misunderstanding of the whole concept, of the whole argument.

However, when you make a sweeping generalization [...] which assumes your conclusion to arrive at that conclusion

I tried analysing this sentence in order to have it make sense, but I was unable to do so. Would you mind terribly explaining this to me?

This goes back to your characterization of porn as crappy. Without giving justification or even a supporting argument, you simply pronounce it so. Then, by implying that Buffy is somehow too great to have anything crappy, you found your rebuttal to my comment. By putting your argument into the most simple terms, its illogic should be clear:

"Porn is bad, Buffy is good. Therefore Buffy can't possibly be porn."

You've assumed your conclusions and then used them to prove your conclusion. That's circular logic and circular logic is no logic at all. Even if I agreed with your conclusion, still would find your argument flawed and useless.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

I liked your "I like to call them senators." :)

You have a valid point with one flaw (that does not effect that point).

I never quite understood the sentiment that for something to be pornographic, it has to have nudity or elements of it. If it does, then the majority of museums and art galleries are nothing more than a fancy porno store.

Bad logic. If porn required nudity (which I agree it does not) that still would not imply that all nudity is porn. Indeed you give a good example of nudity that is not porn yourself, namely the medical illustration.

However, I do think that many museum pieces are excellent examples of high quality porn, thus refuting in part the "porn is crap" argument :)

--Pete

[WarLocke]

we can spend our evenings watching hentai and ecchi, and that some people in this universe know how to separate what they see from what they know truly deep down inside, everything's going to be all right and okay. There is no shame in anything, except what's in your head. Don't let it leak out--that's bad.

God, I wish more people shared that viewpoint. America seems to have this fetish about regulating what everyone else does and thinks. It's sad. :(

Most porn is a hoot. Ever see La Blue Girl?

Yeah, LBG is out there. But personally, I prefer Twin Angels or Cool Devices. Hand Maid May or AIKa are also some tongue-in-cheek 'softcore' options, as well. Heck, you could go retro with '80s classics like Iczer-1 (although it's not really hentai, but definitely a must-see) if you want...

I know, I'm a deviant.

[Count Duckula]

Yeah, LBG is out there.  But personally, I prefer Twin Angels or Cool Devices.  Hand Maid May or AIKa are also some tongue-in-cheek 'softcore' options, as well.  Heck, you could go retro with '80s classics like Iczer-1 (although it's not really hentai, but definitely a must-see) if you want...

I know, I'm a deviant.

Ever see Amazing Nurse Nanako? That one's picking up speed around here.

I'm a deviant too, and I don't care. :D

[[wcip]Angel]

I never quite understood the sentiment that for something to be pornographic, it has to have nudity or elements of it.  If it does, then the majority of museums and art galleries are nothing more than a fancy porno store.  (Some people seem to thinks so, I like to call them enators. ;)

I don't understand where this is coming from.

For me, the following reasoning is perfectly logical:

In order for something to be classified as pornography, it has to include an element of nudity. Some art includes nudity, but that doesn't mean it's pornography. For this to be true nudity has to be the only element of pornography, and that is an impossible feat. How do you simply show nudity? It is an abstract concept and cannot be shown without the application of other elements, such as people for example.

Let me try and say this in another way.

Statues are usually made out of stone. They are made out of stone. The fact that they are built in stone makes it a property of the statue. Does that mean that everything made out of stone are statues? What about small pellets of rock.. are those statues as well? What about gravel in the driveway? These are also made out of stone, but they are not statues.


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.