West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: *Z* - The Queen of Dubcc on August 15, 2008, 05:26:05 AM
-
Thats my man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlRoaFTHuE&feature=related
-
How is regular pornography humiliation and degradation of women? I'm serious, I don't understand why people feel this way. Of course there are types of porn that obviously are that way, but I never, ever was able to understand how normal porn in principle is considered to be just that.
-
How is regular pornography humiliation and degradation of women? I'm serious, I don't understand why people feel this way. Of course there are types of porn that obviously are that way, but I never, ever was able to understand how normal porn in principle is considered to be just that.
becuz it seriously is just that. i mean what else are the women who perform in pornographical videos or photos? they are simply sex objects. nobody who is sane and realizes that women are humanbeings can be in favour of that. these women are used, most of them are too naive, in need of money or/and ignorant to realize that aint that reason enough to be against pornography?
-for me it is
-
How is regular pornography humiliation and degradation of women? I'm serious, I don't understand why people feel this way. Of course there are types of porn that obviously are that way, but I never, ever was able to understand how normal porn in principle is considered to be just that.
becuz it seriously is just that. i mean what else are the women who perform in pornographical videos or photos? they are simply sex objects. nobody who is sane and realizes that women are humanbeings can be in favour of that. these women are used, most of them are too naive, in need of money or/and ignorant to realize that aint that reason enough to be against pornography?
-for me it is
Umm... isn't ANY service you provide for somebody ultimately something you are "used" for? Like, if you take a cab, the taxi driver is "used for" driving you somewhere in exchange for money. It could be a robot for all you care, fuck what kind of human being he is. All that matters is him driving properly.
Do you think this photo is humiliation and degradation of men:
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/1/Posters/LP0372~Six-Pack-Posters.jpg)
Simply a sex object. Nobody cares what kind of hobbies this guy has. What a poor guy, I feel so sorry for him. This needs to stop. It's just like child abuse.
-
no becuz this photo isnt degrading men, its just a naked men, doesnt humiliate him. being naked is nothing unnatural. i also wouldnt talk of porn if i saw this picture
if i mean porn, i mean things like that:
(http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1955/pornbeispielcl3.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
and dont tell me that this isnt degrading, only becuz such porn arrouses you, it doesnt justify this business. and you couls also ask yourself wether it arrouses you becuz its supposed to arrouse you in our society and wether you find it to be acceptable becuz it is in our society.
-
(http://img218.imagevenue.com/loc432/th_98939_back_380x541_123_432lo.jpg) (http://img218.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc432&image=98939_back_380x541_123_432lo.jpg)
(http://www.picamatic.com/show/2008/08/13/09/811166_430x600.jpg)
-
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but so far your 3 points have been
*being used for something
*women having no form of free will, not capable to decide what to do with their lives (lol)
*seen as sex objects
all those points can be brought forward for the pic I've posted, it is sexual arousement, it's there cause to some people it's pleasant to look at and nothing else. Pornography just takes it a step further, but that's about it.
Now you say "being naked is nothing unnatural". And having sex is?
I could even go as far as claiming that the pic you posted is even more degrading to men than it is to women. The woman at least interacts with the camera and so on. If she was hotter one could even argue that she is worshipped. The man, however, really is just used as a body, all they need is his stiff dick and his cum. Isn't that terrible?
Society and culture always come to mind in such discussion, but I can tell you damn straight that I prefer such a society to a society in which dogs get forbidden because walking them around in the park leads to conversations between men and women.
-
excuse me, but yes youre wrong
*being used for something wasnt meant as being used in general
but being used for very low reasons:
those are:
a) putting men socially and culturally on a highler level: as someone who has control
over the woman.
b) gaining unbelievable sums of money by pornographical businesses
some of which enslave women and teenagers(underaged people that is)
and which partly go into human trade in order to keep up with the rival
companies
c)not use but ABUSE the naivity, ignorance and poverty of people
*dont give me that off-topic bullshit about women not having any free will
as if it had anything to do with free will. pornography of the kind i gave you
an example of promotes an image of women who dont need any free will, who
SHOULD NOT have anything like a WILL. the woman is degraded to a sex-object
is an object to have any will?
*I didnt say "women are seen as sex objects" i said, women are used in pornography to
be objects of sexual arousement, which, im sorry, i cant be in favour of. i understand
that i cant change that development in our society. but i would never want to support it.
thats my point.
of course sex is natural, committing crimes and violence is also natural to the human kind, does it mean
we should support videos of violence and of murder? beucz you know they are also kinda cool
and give some people a feeling of satisfaction.
tell me how interacting with the camera makes a woman seem as if she is worshipped or in control of anything
you can make a child in a child pornography interact with the cam too, if you want to.
what is rather interesting is that the men are not even shown mostly, you can only hear their
sighs, moans and "i will fuck you till you scream"-talk. so who is humiliated here?
and i can tell you damn straight that pornography and its repercussions on our society nowadays
is so heavy that such stupid prohibitions are made.
-
Noam Chomsky is a good guy, but from a Libertarian standpoint I totally disagree with much of what he said.
Noam Chomsky is too idealistic, and his high virtue gets in the way of his reason. He wishes that he could conform society into the way that he would like it to be. He has no problem telling others how they should live their lives and what is best for him.
The example he uses about sweat shops displays just how irrational and fanciful Chomsky's idea's are. He says that the answer is too "eliminate the conditions (such as poverty) that drive women into pornography or sweatshops". Well, nobody has ever been able to wave a magic wand and eliminate poverty, so we have to deal with life as it is. And if you are a starving woman in Thailand and you have a choice between pornography and working in a sweat shop or starving to death... then NOAM CHOMSKY is not God, and he can not tell you that you have to starve to death and that sweat shops and pornography should be illegal.... as a Libertarian I believe that it should be up to the individual to make whichever decision is most beneficial to them.. regardless of what Noam Chomsky thinks.
-
The example he uses about sweat shops displays just how irrational and fanciful Chomsky's idea's are. He says that the answer is too "eliminate the conditions (such as poverty) that drive women into pornography or sweatshops". Well, nobody has ever been able to wave a magic wand and eliminate poverty, so we have to deal with life as it is. And if you are a starving woman in Thailand and you have a choice between pornography and working in a sweat shop or starving to death... then NOAM CHOMSKY is not God, and he can not tell you that you have to starve to death and that sweat shops and pornography should be illegal.... as a Libertarian I believe that it should be up to the individual to make whichever decision is most beneficial to them.. regardless of what Noam Chomsky thinks.
you take his response out of context, he responded to the interviewer asking whether you can favour this job if the person decides to do it becuz he also gets paid.
chomsky responded that it is just as stupid to favour as it is to favour jobs who humiliate women otherwise, as in hard work 15 hours a day.
then the interviewer asked how the conditions of production of pornography can be improved. which is a stupid framing question in frist place. so he said, it is better to improve the lives of the people who are in need of money and do these humiliating jobs, than to improve the conditions of productions of these humiliating porn products.
i think that his response is quite reasonable.
-
excuse me, but yes youre wrong
*being used for something wasnt meant as being used in general
but being used for very low reasons:
those are:
a) putting men socially and culturally on a highler level: as someone who has control
over the woman.
Well, first it has to be said that the directors of porn are often women, even. And even if you put all the control that women sometimes have aside, it is still normal that the boss has control over the one who is employed. That's just how things work.
b) gaining unbelievable sums of money by pornographical businesses
some of which enslave women and teenagers(underaged people that is)
and which partly go into human trade in order to keep up with the rival
companies
AGAIN, I do not deny that there are niches in the sex business that are completely fucked up. What has that to do with decent porn, though? It's like wanting to prohibit soccer and basketball, because some activities that are considered "sport" can be messed up. There's always this issue with where to draw the line, but that's a general tension with everything in life and porn is not special in that regard.
c)not use but ABUSE the naivity, ignorance and poverty of people
How so? If a woman is fine with having sex on camera and getting paid for it, what is the problem? Do you feel like Jenna Jameson had been abused, because she was so naive, ignorant and poor and so she got hella rich and influential in the process of her abuse? Just because having sex on camera for money is nothing you would consider, that doesn't mean every rational woman has to think like that.
*dont give me that off-topic bullshit about women not having any free will
as if it had anything to do with free will. pornography of the kind i gave you
an example of promotes an image of women who dont need any free will, who
SHOULD NOT have anything like a WILL. the woman is degraded to a sex-object
is an object to have any will?
You're reaching here, as in taking the term "object" too technical. AGAIN, yes there is porn in which the women are not supposed to be willing to do what they do. But in many types of porn, part of the porn is that the women (pretend to) enjoy the sex and interact with the camera/the viewer.
*I didnt say "women are seen as sex objects" i said, women are used in pornography to
be objects of sexual arousement, which, im sorry, i cant be in favour of. i understand
that i cant change that development in our society. but i would never want to support it.
thats my point.
So would you rather live in a society in which sex is considered something evil, and in which one has to repress his or hers natural and healthy sexual feelings and desires in order to be accepted?
of course sex is natural, committing crimes and violence is also natural to the human kind, does it mean
we should support videos of violence and of murder? beucz you know they are also kinda cool
and give some people a feeling of satisfaction.
Sorry, but this is just as stupid as this Chomsky guy comparing regular western porn to child abuse. How are videos of a porn star willingly having sex on camera even remotely comparable to illegal violence and murder? It's not, don't pretend that it is.
tell me how interacting with the camera makes a woman seem as if she is worshipped or in control of anything
you can make a child in a child pornography interact with the cam too, if you want to.
what is rather interesting is that the men are not even shown mostly, you can only hear their
sighs, moans and "i will fuck you till you scream"-talk. so who is humiliated here?
I'm not even getting into that child bs. But like I said, I'd never deny that "wrong" porn that is humiliating exists. I'm just saying that normal pornography in principle is not like that.
and i can tell you damn straight that pornography and its repercussions on our society nowadays
is so heavy that such stupid prohibitions are made.
For instance, what exactly is so damn wrong with this video: http://youporn.com/watch/2328
You are also focusing on women too much, as if depiction of sex was a male-on-female crime or something. Ask any strip club owner, men, in average, are a lot more reserved in those places than women are. Women can really behave completely ridiculous when they get drunk and hit those kind of locations.
You also make it look like it was a ghetto thing. Like only women who are completely lost and are destined to die with no other option left would consider doing porn. That is, with all due respect, completely delusional. Not all women are like you (want to be), get over it.
-
You also make it look like it was a ghetto thing. Like only women who are completely lost and are destined to die with no other option left would consider doing porn. That is, with all due respect, completely delusional. Not all women are like you (want to be), get over it.
well said, reality looks different. Chomsky doesn't know shit about today's woman and the mind of younger generations or the nature of human beings. In fact, very few women have no other choice than to "humiliate" themselves.
to assume better living conditions= less pornography or pornography is a result of poor living conditions is very naive and too simple.
I doubt that Chomsky ever spoke to an actress about her reasons to do porn therefore he can't judge about it.
-
Women are just as perverted as men. Provided they are free from legal and social restraints research has shown women are just as sexually obsessed as men.
Women like and get off to the feeling that they are causing somebody else too feel pleasure and that they are being sexy. She gets off to the fact that you are getting off to her.
Now thats not to say I don't agree with Chomsky (although personally I find him boring and predictable; but he's an academic so I respect).
There ain't nothing wrong with the act of pornography itself, provided there is an adequate:
-level of establishment of the rule of law in that society.
-level of economic equality and economic options.
-level of availability of living necessities (food, clothing, shelter, health)
If those factors are poor, than of course; industry in general will become more prone to exploitation.
He says that the answer is too "eliminate the conditions (such as poverty) that drive women into pornography or sweatshops". Well, nobody has ever been able to wave a magic wand and eliminate poverty, so we have to deal with life as it is. And if you are a starving woman in Thailand and you have a choice between pornography and working in a sweat shop or starving to death... then NOAM CHOMSKY is not God, and he can not tell you that you have to starve to death and that sweat shops and pornography should be illegal.... as a Libertarian I believe that it should be up to the individual to make whichever decision is most beneficial to them.. regardless of what Noam Chomsky thinks.
Infinite and the rest of you making assumptions about Chomsky's work need to learn the difference between positive and normative:
***
Positive science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the humanities and social sciences, the term positive is used in a number of ways.
One usage refers to analysis or theories which only attempt to describe how things are, as opposed to how they should be. In this sense, the opposite of positive is normative. An example would be positive, as opposed to normative, economic analysis. Positive statements are also often referred to as descriptive statements.
Normative
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Normative has specialized meanings in several academic disciplines. Generically, it means relating to an ideal standard or model. In practice, it has strong connotations of relating to a typical standard or model (see also normality). In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong. Normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions.
For example, "children should eat vegetables", "smoking is bad", and "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" are normative claims. On the other hand, "vegetables contain a relatively high proportion of vitamins", "smoking causes cancer", and "a common consequence of sacrificing liberty for security is a loss of both" are positive claims. Whether or not a statement is normative is logically independent of whether it is verified, verifiable, or popularly held.
***
Chomsky is being positive in his analysis, that is; descriptive (he would have zero academic credibility otherwise and would not be employed at any university if he just preached normative babble).
Now, in third world countries, the choices faced for women at low end of the economic demographic is either sweat-shop or sex-trade (voluntarily but more often than not, involuntarily). And the fact is its desperation out of poverty.
Another fact is:
The UNICEF estimates every child on the PLANET could be fed, housed, clothed and educated and kept WELL for $30 billion to $40 billion (US dollars) more than is currently being spent.
Incidentally,
In 2002 the US military budget amounted to $379 billion (US dollars). Chalmers Johnson estimates $1 trilllion for fiscal year 2008.
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have too much...
...it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
-
That is, with all due respect, completely delusional. Not all women are like you (want to be), get over it.
ok stop catching feelings...youre right if you say that there are pornstars who do it "out of choice/pleasure"and in my opinion it is humiliation, if you sell your body, well its just the way i see it and thats why im not in favour of that biz.
as u admitted and this is my primary concern that there are women(men of course too.my bad i focused too much on women)teenagers etc who get abused in this business and in my oppinion this business calls for it. chomsky may seem very conservative in this regard and may not have a lot to do with pornography but i understand where he is coming from and why he doesnt support it. im not in favour of forbidding this or fighting against it either-we live in a free society dont we`? but im concerned about the im pact it socially and culturally has.
-
Z, you used an *example of porn that degrades women to get your point across (logical fallacy, any chomsky fan should be aware of that)
but you know that the genre "porn" has hundreds of sub genres, not all degrading to women. What about gay porn?
I know plenty of women who watch pornography. they might not watch the gag videos where a guy repeatedly fucks a woman's mouth til her makeup smears, but the idea of that raw sexuality on film turns them on.
It doesn't have to be for you, just like sports or some other physical form of entertainment, but it's not yours, or chomskys, or the christian family network's decision to rule it out as a vile degrading form of entertainment just because you don't have the taste for it.
Economics aside, a large number of young women and men will get naked on camera anyway. The idea of dangling cash in front of some reluctant young girl to suck cock is more of a gimmick used to sell to old perverts and you see that in several videos, but really these girls are very sexual, promiscuous girls to begin with. Most of those girls you see in films aren't dirt poor crackheads wasting away, they are just young women who found a way to make money doing something they ordinarily would after an hour of talking to some guy at the keg party.
So Z,
You, are "wrong". You are speaking subjectively on an issue that makes a lot of humans feel uncomfortable because we are taught from birth to repress our sexuality, and you are just another brick in the wall in those regards.
Porn will always be disputed as long as we have the stringent standards on sexuality that our world has today.
You are just offering your opinion and if you say any one of us are "wrong" then you are flawed as well.
-
Z, you used an *example of porn that degrades women to get your point across (logical fallacy, any chomsky fan should be aware of that)
but you know that the genre "porn" has hundreds of sub genres, not all degrading to women. What about gay porn?
(men of course too.my bad i focused too much on women)
ive never said you guys are wrong. i just expressed my opinion on this matter. as i said, im not trying to fight or prevent pornography, i just cant identify with it and see a danger of abuse in this biz, so its nothing i can support- and thats basically what chomsky says as well. you just takin him out of context, you must see how framing the questions of the interviewer are. and i also dont think i belong to the people who deny sexuality. not at all. the way it is portrayed in movies is okay for me either. i just cant favour porn that denigrades a man/woman semiotically.
-
Amateur pornography that gets heavily dispelled throughout the internet and lot's of people see it, is that alright? Afterall it's two people who already know each other and have feelings, and there is no seedy undertow since it's non business.
My only point here Z is that the word "pornography" encompasses so many different styles and methods and genres, that blanket statements just don't feel right to me.
I'm a huge Chomsky fan, and his writing on linguistic and logical fallacies has continued to change my words in every day conversation, but it seems like on this on he was kind of being hypocritical, and it doesn't seem right for someone to co-sign him this time.
-
My only point here Z is that the word "pornography" encompasses so many different styles and methods and genres, that blanket statements just don't feel right to me.
i cant favour porn that denigrades a man/woman
-
aiiiiiiiiiigghhhhhht
-
;)
-
The "degradation of women" argument never made sense to me. First, they are there because they want to be and they are for the most part all doing things they already do. Is it degrading if I get some head from my woman and then fuck her in multiple positions? What if we film it? And why is nobody taking issue with the way men are viewed as sex objects on these very same videos? Where is the "PORN DEGRADES MEN!!" crowds bitching about it? Sounds like a double standard.
-
ive never said you guys are wrong.
excuse me, but yes youre wrong
Huh?
i cant favour porn that denigrades a man/woman
Oh really? So now we limit it; depending on type of porn, just what I said in my very first post, that you boldly argued against.... don't we?
How is regular pornography humiliation and degradation of women? I'm serious, I don't understand why people feel this way. Of course there are types of porn that obviously are that way, but I never, ever was able to understand how normal porn in principle is considered to be just that.
becuz it seriously is just that. i mean what else are the women who perform in pornographical videos or photos? they are simply sex objects. nobody who is sane and realizes that women are humanbeings can be in favour of that. these women are used, most of them are too naive, in need of money or/and ignorant to realize that aint that reason enough to be against pornography?
-for me it is
That is, with all due respect, completely delusional. Not all women are like you (want to be), get over it.
ok stop catching feelings...youre right if you say that there are pornstars who do it "out of choice/pleasure"and in my opinion it is humiliation, if you sell your body, well its just the way i see it and thats why im not in favour of that biz.
as u admitted and this is my primary concern that there are women(men of course too.my bad i focused too much on women)teenagers etc who get abused in this business and in my oppinion this business calls for it. chomsky may seem very conservative in this regard and may not have a lot to do with pornography but i understand where he is coming from and why he doesnt support it. im not in favour of forbidding this or fighting against it either-we live in a free society dont we`? but im concerned about the im pact it socially and culturally has.
How am I catching feelings.. I've been polite, lady. Maybe I should have put a "them" between "want" and "to", but I liked the ambiguity :D
I agree with the men in this thread ;)
-
ok first you took things completely out of context quoting me, somewhat this is typical to this forum.
excuse me, but yes youre wrong
*being used for something wasnt meant as being used in general
but being used for very low reasons:
those are:
a) putting men socially and culturally on a highler level: as someone who has control
over the woman. (...)
excuse me but yes youre wrong
was a response to you saying: excuse me if im wrong but are these the points of your argument?
--> my "you are wrong" refered to the arguments you listed as my arguments like: "women dont have any free will" etc.
okay there are two points i argued: (next time i have an argument with you i will structure it and add footnotes)
-Pornography is to me overall degrading, becuz in my opinion (that is FOR ME PERSONALLY) it is degrading to be semiotically turned into a sex-object and robbed of humanity publically
-my second point is critisizing the entire business (im not talking about amateur videos, cuz this falls under my first point)
which promotes an image of a woman as sex-objects (in some gay-porn the image of a man most likely too, but you must admit that porn with women as the central objects is more wide spread)
which leads in its business competition to slavery and humen-trade in some areas of this world.
thats what i feel negative about. thats why i DONT SUPPORT the pornographical business.
of course you agree with the men in this thread becuz this is the generally accepted point of view which is unsurprisingly encouraged by this business.
-
Dammit why dosn't anybody read my shit!!? Me. Me. Me. Me.
-
Z, if porn is always degrading to you, why would you say "you can't be in favour of porn that degrades people" ... That's like saying "I can't stand water that is wet"
Anyways... since you categorically label all porn degrading; this is no longer up for debate anymore... as in saying, if, to me, all porn was that way I wouldn't be in favour of it either. Since it's not, I am. But since you won't put the question whether it is or isn't up for debate anymore, I'm done talking.
Dammit why dosn't anybody read my shit!!? Me. Me. Me. Me.
I read your shit, what makes you think that I didn't? I simply won't quote such a long post and say "I basically agree"... well anyways, here's something I don't entirely agree with, since you asked for it:
Chomsky is being positive in his analysis, that is; descriptive (he would have zero academic credibility otherwise and would not be employed at any university if he just preached normative babble).
Now, in third world countries, the choices faced for women at low end of the economic demographic is either sweat-shop or sex-trade (voluntarily but more often than not, involuntarily). And the fact is its desperation out of poverty.
Another fact is:
The UNICEF estimates every child on the PLANET could be fed, housed, clothed and educated and kept WELL for $30 billion to $40 billion (US dollars) more than is currently being spent.
Incidentally,
In 2002 the US military budget amounted to $379 billion (US dollars). Chalmers Johnson estimates $1 trilllion for fiscal year 2008.
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have too much...
...it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Well, you are a nice guy and give this old nigga the benefit of the doubt. I, however, do think that he in fact would think it be a great thing to do; bettering the conditions and shit.
I mean one question is "How should we..." isn't that as normative as it can get?
First, it is of course incredibly ignorant to act as if porn was only produced in third world countries. You can't be serious.
Next, you can't solve structural problems with individual goody-good doing.
Also, if you dispise sweat shops, porn, prostitution and shit, what is your solution to make thise conditions better? White people giving them mad scrilla? Is that your solution to all the problems in the world? Ridiculous.
This guy is so self-righteous that I almost feel like breaking his face. Comparing porn stars to starving children in slums who get abused in exchange for food. How is that smart?
The overall tactic that is used here is to simply pick the worst of the worst, then compare it to something that is completely different and a lot worse. Overall, the third world is simply a terrible place. It's no surprise that things like the sex business are terrible over there. That, however, is no argument that videos like the one I linked are disgraceful and inhuman or something.
-
^I was just fuckin wit chall, I was just confused about what PIFF TANNEN said about how we shouldn't co-sign the dude so I had to go watch the video myself, but I still essentially agree with the old dude; he's just getting muddled as is with old age (your metabolism will change too someday young man!)
First of all, Noam Chomsky is an old ass dude and naturally he is conservative about sexuality and the display of pornography.
Thats his personal opinion, I quote:
'if thats people's erotica then well thats their problem, I don't have to contribute to it'.
Now, as a consumer in the free-market, thats his choice and opinion and he is entitled to it, if a product does not suit his goals he dosn't have to consume it or approve of it.
This Chomsky dude is getting old and his mind ain't as sharp as it used to be in that interview he makes the mistake of (to much glee of the 10%) of confusing in his mind the exploitive third world sex trade with the sex industry of the West (+Japan) and mistakenly criticises both as one and the same. In all reality they are totally different worlds.
As I said:
There ain't nothing wrong with the act of pornography itself, provided there is an adequate:
-level of establishment of the rule of law in that society.
-level of economic equality and economic options.
-level of availability of living necessities (food, clothing, shelter, health)
If those factors are poor, than of course; industry in general will become more prone to exploitation.
Now secondly, I got to say word, what he is saying is true; just because these individuals are given a choice between the sex-trade and some other exploitive industry, what type of choice is that?
What a free and libertarian world we are where people can choose the manner and method of their suffering and exploitation!
And it IS unnecessary:
The UNICEF estimates every child on the PLANET could be fed, housed, clothed and educated and kept WELL for $30 billion to $40 billion (US dollars) more than is currently being spent.
Incidentally,
In 2002 the US military budget amounted to $379 billion (US dollars). Chalmers Johnson estimates $1 trilllion for fiscal year 2008.
Alot of yall think that these economic structures of the world are simply how it is and always was due to its own natural progression of the free market. This ain't so yo, the free market is being manipulated so that the means (supply and demand) is an end in itself, over supply leads to less demand, so destruction of over-supply and stimulation of demand is purposefully engineered. The latest example of that in this modern century was 9/11 (stimulation of demand) and the Iraq debacle (destruction of surplus [US domestic] and expansion of the market [oil and arms]). All them Lords of War were shook after the fall of the Berlin wall...
Heres a good article on that my university professor gave us:
http://www.antiwar.com/spectator2/spec619.html
-
^I was just fuckin wit chall, I knows yall read my shit, I was just confused about what PIFF TANNEN said about how we shouldn't co-sign the dude so I had to go watch the video myself, but I still essentially agree with the old dude; he's just getting muddled as is with old age (your metabolism will change too someday young man!)
First of all, Noam Chomsky is an old ass dude and naturally he is conservative about sexuality and the display of pornography.
Thats his personal opinion, I quote:
'if thats people's erotica then well thats their problem, I don't have to contribute to it'.
It is not necessary to call it "their problem", like they are sick people who need help or something.
Now, as a consumer in the free-market, thats his choice and opinion and he is entitled to it, if a product does not suit his goals he dosn't have to consume it or approve of it.
Of course, nobody would force him to watch porn, that's absurd.
This Chomsky dude is getting old and his mind ain't as sharp as it used to be in that interview he makes the mistake of (to much glee of the 10%) of confusing in his mind the exploitive third world sex trade with the sex industry of the West (+Japan) and mistakenly criticises both as one and the same. In all reality they are totally different worlds.
Exactly my nigga.
As I said:
There ain't nothing wrong with the act of pornography itself, provided there is an adequate:
-level of establishment of the rule of law in that society.
-level of economic equality and economic options.
-level of availability of living necessities (food, clothing, shelter, health)
If those factors are poor, than of course; industry in general will become more prone to exploitation.
I know you said that nigga. I didn't quote it because I agree with it in principle.
My problem with all the latter stuff you say is that it's a huge stretch, problems of poor countries go much deeper than just "bad conditions in the sex business" ... and I'm not a socialist. I don't see it as my purpose in life to try to make the life of people on the other side of the globe better, sorry. We don't even have the power to do that, all that petty charity stuff is incredibly inane in the grand scheme of things. You can't solve structural problems with individual goody-good doing. Get it through your head, it will only help you in the long run, mayne. Trade, not aid. Ya dig? Like, for instance, you know that story when that white dude goes to India and there's a baby in front of his hotel room in the morning. He's completely shocked and realizes how it seems to be something normal. So he pays some church organization some nice western money so they will raise that child n shit. He feels great. The next day, however, there are 30 babies in front of his room.
-
^
I think we do. With the collective resources of the world we could change it all. Problem is; the only authority capable of implementing anything like that would be a one world government...
Anyway, George Orwell basically deemed socialism and capitalism in their respective absolutes as leading to different, but nonetheless, forms of hellish shitness....so i guess fuck it all, just make your own heaven.
-
^
I think we do. With the collective resources of the world we could change it all. Problem is; the only authority capable of implementing anything like that would be a one world government...
A one world government would do a lot more fucked up shit than good shit, I'm sure of that.
-
Ras,
I want to discuss what you said further with you. Please explain how Chomsky being "positive" rather than "normative" negates the validity of my point above? My point above being that Chomsky's thinking is fanciful and irrational.
Regardless whether it's positive or normative his perspective does not work out logically. It is a socialist perspective in an effort to bring about equality. But it is impossible to bring about equality, because all people are unique, made up of different value systems. And it is only because of these inequalities that mutual exchanges are possible. A mutual exchange benefits both parties. The Thai girl has plenty of time on her hands, so she would rather make a dollar a day then sit at home and do nothing. So she benefits from the exchange. The "greedy" business CEO/CathyLeeGifford/sweat shop owner benefits because they can increase production and profits. And Joe American benefits because he can now buy his clothes at affordable prices. So you see that anytime there is trade without coercion then you have a mutually benefiting relationship. But your Chomsky form of socialism involves coersion because you are trying to insist that the world be equal when this is impossible. If you and I are equal then there could be no means of trade between us. But you and I can never be equal because there is no such thing.
Chomsky seems like the type of irrational thinker who would be in favor of a minimum wage law. He would demand that a law says every worker should get at least $8.00 an hour. This idea hurts the same people it claims to help. Now any worker who is worth less than $8.00 an hour will go jobless and hungry. Chomsky is thinking on the assumption that the bloodsucking CEO of McDonalds will take a cut in pay and raise wage's a couple of dollars. What he neglects to realize is that 9 out of 10 businesses fail. And that a business can not afford to pay it's employee's a cent more than they are worth. Every business must seek to maximize it's profit's. If it underpays it's employee's they will naturally bear the consequences because a person who is truly worth $8.00 an hour will not work for $6.50, so therefore McDonalds must pay it's employee's what is required for them to work for the company. So naturally a business already pays it's employee's what they are worth.
Jobs are unlimited because desires are unlimited. The only way the job market can be limited is by socialist idea's such as minimum wage laws.
-
I think this is Z's way of telling people to quit asking her for nekkid pics
-
eye agree with that Z individual...................... the shit is degrading to females and all of that............ and you cant really flip it around because most of the time niggas face stay hidden. but then again the choose to partake in that line of work. but nonetheless its degrading
-
Z, if porn is always degrading to you, why would you say "you can't be in favour of porn that degrades people" ... That's like saying "I can't stand water that is wet"
if i imagined myself to be a porn-object itd be degrading to me it doesnt matter what kind of porn itd be...becuz to me this would mean humiliation.
Anyways... since you categorically label all porn degrading; this is no longer up for debate anymore... as in saying, if, to me, all porn was that way I wouldn't be in favour of it either. Since it's not, I am. But since you won't put the question whether it is or isn't up for debate anymore, I'm done talking.
well debate means argumentative exchange of oppinions, so yea i guess were done here.
-
This Chomsky dude is getting old and his mind ain't as sharp as it used to be in that interview he makes the mistake of (to much glee of the 10%) of confusing in his mind the exploitive third world sex trade with the sex industry of the West (+Japan) and mistakenly criticises both as one and the same. In all reality they are totally different worlds.
Exactly my nigga.
bullshit, you cant look at the sex industry in third world countries seperated from the sex industry in the west. the big corporations in the sex-industry have their trades and market everywhere. and as if there was no exploitation in the western sex-industry. are u really so naive to believe that?
-
Ras,
I want to discuss what you said further with you. Please explain how Chomsky being "positive" rather than "normative" negates the validity of my point above? My point above being that Chomsky's thinking is fanciful and irrational.
It dosn't. I made a mistake, my bad, sorry I did not do the knowledge. I thought you all were referring to Chomsky's literary work. Then I found that video 'Chomsky on pornography' and realised that is what yall are speaking on. And yes, the man basically looses his academic reasoning, but I think if he was given the opportuniy to respond in written word he would have a much more reasoned answer for the interviewer.
As for the rest of your post, I agree in principle with free trade (as defined by Adam Smith, ya know The Wealth of Nations). However, it is naive to think the system is not tainted by spoliation. Free trade as defined and espoused by Adam Smith is a system where people are free to pursue their goals and naturally that translates to profit and healthy selfishness and so on and so forth. Free exchange encourages division of labour which increases productivity, and some people may advance out of the original poverty. This is no injustice to those who do not, provided the relation between the two groups is one of genuinely free exchange and not spoliation. It is naive to think that people's poverty is not being taken advantage of for the benefit of the more powerful. What of the castaway confronted with the choice 'Be our slave or keep swimming'? People faced with such an alternative may consent to the bargain, and it may be in their interest to do so; is this enough to make it just? If a person must have access to land or to other means of production in order to stay alive, freedom of contract may not be enough to secure a fair exchange. It is as Thomas Hobbes said power prevails and the powerful's goals will simply trump those of the less powerful. Adam Smith's idea of a free market is a system where all people are free to pursue their goals; for some this is profit but for others profit is not necessaryily their goal, its subjective really and it is down to the 'free market' to meet that demand and in turn supply it. The problem is that demands are not met and structurally the market is not able to meet all demands and that it is certain demands, namely that of the powerful that are addressed above everybody elses. Thats why I said in principle, I agree with free trade, but it is not in actuality as perfect as the theory, although I am still an optimist that this current free market system will adjust to the emergig shift in demands. Environmental problems are increasingly being seen within the free-market paradigm and that is perhaps the best way to address environmental concerns as demand increases for safe-guards against pollution; is that a demand the free market will supply to? As I was saying the structure is not initially geared to meeting all demands and supply, for instance Japan's whaling industry does not make profits and is propped up with financial aid by the japanese government despite the demands of people all around the world and the japanese market and government is not responding with supply of that demand (supply in this case would be the cesation of whaling). You know, you can argue that socialism is infact part of the free market because profit is not the intrinsic component of free market theory (Adam Smith) as yall seem to believe, instead profit and the profit motive is more an extrinsic part of the free market and the intrinsic component is that 'individuals be free to pursue their goals and self interest'. (Of course for some this is profit, but not necessarly everybody; it is subjective). If people have voted for government to implement socialist programmes then they are simply pursuing their goals. For instance, here in Australia we have alot of what you would call socialist government funded programmes and we have centrelink (where you don't work and get money from the government because you can't find a job, yes its that simple) and the government is undergoing an intervention in the Northern Territory and I can imagine yall would be surprised to know that indigenous Australians are subject to laws that say things like you can't get your welfare-check without passing an alcohol and drug test. Well the intervention is actually quite popular with the indigenous communities and is being hailed so far as making positive progress. Government supplied basketball courts, footy fields, swimming pools, etc. So you can't necessarily dismiss democratically elected government sponsored socialist programmes if you truly are a free market supporter. (The thing is politicians don't call it socialism anymore, its too become too much of tainted word, now its more about 'universal rights').
By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectively
than when he really intends to promote it.
-Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.
I will give an 'A' to the student who can find a single favourable reference to a businessman anywhere in the 900 pages of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
No student has ever gotten an 'A' that way.
-Dr Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, appearing on Face the Nation.
-
This Chomsky dude is getting old and his mind ain't as sharp as it used to be in that interview he makes the mistake of (to much glee of the 10%) of confusing in his mind the exploitive third world sex trade with the sex industry of the West (+Japan) and mistakenly criticises both as one and the same. In all reality they are totally different worlds.
Exactly my nigga.
bullshit, you cant look at the sex industry in third world countries seperated from the sex industry in the west. the big corporations in the sex-industry have their trades and market everywhere. and as if there was no exploitation in the western sex-industry. are u really so naive to believe that?
? When did I ever say 'exactly my nigga' ?
Anyway, read this and if you still don't get my point I could no longer give a fuck.
As I said:
There ain't nothing wrong with the act of pornography itself, provided there is an adequate:
-level of establishment of the rule of law in that society.
-level of economic equality and economic options.
-level of availability of living necessities (food, clothing, shelter, health)
If those factors are poor, than of course; industry in general will become more prone to exploitation.
The reason I say the West (+Japan) and the third world are totally different worlds and that the sex industry is totally different in each because those levels are vastly different in each.
Of course it is possible for exploitation in the US pron industry to occur but its only because in the instance when and where the exploitation is occuring those levels are insufficient (although some people genuinely like being exploited). If you have a range of options outside of porn to make money, its your choice whether you choose to do, but in countries with a low level of economic options even if you willingly make the choice to work in the sex industry you will be more prone to exploitation because there will be a mass of other dirt poor mutherfucks scrambeling to suck a hundred dicks in your stead. In the US you can become a millionaire celebrity off porn. Whos ever heard of the South African or Indonesian millionaire pornstar who came up in their local industry? I agree it is an exploitive industry due to its nature and thats only because everybody wants to be in on it, as is with any industry with a high level of competition. The I.T inustry is exploitive in general, but its waaaaaay more exploitive in India than it is in Australia. Fuck with that.
I'm off to watch porn now...
-
now that i read your post twice i got where youre coming from :P
and im cool with you watching porn just one drop in the ocean.-still in my view its degrading to the woman, no matter wether they rich as fuck or dying of hunger.
-
So you would never, ever allow your boyfriend or husband to record a video while you 2 are having sex, because you'd feel humiliated?
-
All depends on the individual though. Some bitches in porn you be thinking how wonderful they are, others bitches who do it you can tell they don't respect themself.
-
and im cool with you watching porn just one drop in the ocean.
more than a drop tho...
...spiderman ain't got shit on me
(http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii48/YGZ_2008/spiderman1.jpg)
-
So you would never, ever allow your boyfriend or husband to record a video while you 2 are having sex, because you'd feel humiliated?
no, becuz first of all, private and intimate loving sex has nothing to do with the porn you watch.
second i would not want other people to watch my private life.
-
and im cool with you watching porn just one drop in the ocean.
more than a drop tho...
...spiderman ain't got shit on me
(http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii48/YGZ_2008/spiderman1.jpg)
oh of course he doesnt... ;)
-
So you would never, ever allow your boyfriend or husband to record a video while you 2 are having sex, because you'd feel humiliated?
no, becuz first of all, private and intimate loving sex has nothing to do with the porn you watch.
second i would not want other people to watch my private life.
Those external reasons don't concern me... what concerns me is: Would you feel humiliated and degraded?
-
depends on what kind of "pornography" you watch
gagging is degrading to women and other shit
but most porn is normal. no weird shit and usually pornstars are nymphomaniacs so they like getting f*cked.
just another job not to be ashamed of till you have kids :P (for women)
also dont forget theres porn were women tie men up and stick objects up their ass which is degrading for men...
so some sorts of porn are degrading both for men and women
funny thing is that when a girl has sex with 20 guys you call her a hoe and when ia guy has sex with 20 women he's the "shit"
:P always bugged me
-
First of all...people do what the fucc they wanna do. If they wanna shoot porn, they will shoot porn and if bitches wanna succ dicc on camera, they will succ dicc on camera. "Oh the money made me do it...I was taken advantage of..boo fuccin hoo hoo" HOW ABOUT TAKIN SOME FUCCIN RESPONSIBILITY...if u think porn is degrading then that's only your opinion. I personally love porn and I would encourage my daughter to do porn. Why?? because it pays well and there is no shame in it.
-
So you would never, ever allow your boyfriend or husband to record a video while you 2 are having sex, because you'd feel humiliated?
no, becuz first of all, private and intimate loving sex has nothing to do with the porn you watch.
second i would not want other people to watch my private life.
Those external reasons don't concern me... what concerns me is: Would you feel humiliated and degraded?
no it wouldnt be degradiing, becuz this is somthing i would do becuz i love this guy im doing it with...i would feel uncomfortable and MY bf would feel uncomfortable too to publish our intimate and private life, as i said pornography is degrading to me, not sex with my bf. two compketely dif things for me
-
First of all...people do what the fucc they wanna do. If they wanna shoot porn, they will shoot porn and if bitches wanna succ dicc on camera, they will succ dicc on camera. "Oh the money made me do it...I was taken advantage of..boo fuccin hoo hoo" HOW ABOUT TAKIN SOME FUCCIN RESPONSIBILITY...if u think porn is degrading then that's only your opinion. I personally love porn and I would encourage my daughter to do porn. Why?? because it pays well and there is no shame in it.
well good for you, its your opinion
-
So you would never, ever allow your boyfriend or husband to record a video while you 2 are having sex, because you'd feel humiliated?
no, becuz first of all, private and intimate loving sex has nothing to do with the porn you watch.
second i would not want other people to watch my private life.
Those external reasons don't concern me... what concerns me is: Would you feel humiliated and degraded?
no it wouldnt be degradiing, becuz this is somthing i would do becuz i love this guy im doing it with...i would feel uncomfortable and MY bf would feel uncomfortable too to publish our intimate and private life, as i said pornography is degrading to me, not sex with my bf. two compketely dif things for me
But you realize that there are people who LOVE to make their life public, and how LOVE it when people look at them, right?
Would you record a video if it's not meant for the public? Or maybe you already did one :laugh:
Is it really that great of a step to publish it anonymously? For some people, it ain't.. that's how it starts
-
Porn is one of the few industries in the world, where the women makes exponentially more than their male counterpart.
I say we band together, and put an end to this. Men are not being fully compensated in adult films for eating out women, and ejaculating on film. This is outright wrong.
-
So you would never, ever allow your boyfriend or husband to record a video while you 2 are having sex, because you'd feel humiliated?
no, becuz first of all, private and intimate loving sex has nothing to do with the porn you watch.
second i would not want other people to watch my private life.
Those external reasons don't concern me... what concerns me is: Would you feel humiliated and degraded?
no it wouldnt be degradiing, becuz this is somthing i would do becuz i love this guy im doing it with...i would feel uncomfortable and MY bf would feel uncomfortable too to publish our intimate and private life, as i said pornography is degrading to me, not sex with my bf. two compketely dif things for me
But you realize that there are people who LOVE to make their life public, and how LOVE it when people look at them, right?
Would you record a video if it's not meant for the public? Or maybe you already did one :laugh:
Is it really that great of a step to publish it anonymously? For some people, it ain't.. that's how it starts
i realize that there are people who LOVE to make their lives public, thats cool for them. ive never tried to prevent them from doing so.
still i wouldnt record a video, it wouldnt make any sense to me to record a video. i dont have a voyeur/exhibition-tendency in my private sex-life. its only something between my bf and me.
well if its ok for other people and they slobber over it, then its great for them, to me its pointless.
-
porn has really helped a lot of muthafuccas...i personally love to imitate some of these niggas like rocco and max hardcore. it spices up yo sex life. 8)