Author Topic: Chomsky on Pornography  (Read 406 times)

*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Chomsky on Pornography
« on: August 15, 2008, 05:26:05 AM »
Thats my man:
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2008, 05:43:27 AM »
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.
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2008, 05:50:12 AM »
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
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2008, 05:54:07 AM »
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:



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.
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2008, 06:09:43 AM »
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:



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.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 07:17:00 AM by *Z* - The Queen of Dubcc »
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

smegma

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2008, 06:14:37 AM »


 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2008, 06:20:04 AM »
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.
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2008, 07:14:01 AM »
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.
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

Infinite Trapped in 1996

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10909
  • Thanked: 38 times
  • Karma: -1130
  • Permenent Resident of 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2008, 07:15:23 AM »
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.
*******

"I will make records as big or bigger than Death Row".   -Dre, Source 1996

"I didn't do nothing but make people money and I didn't leave nobody high and dry.  Any album (on death row) people are going to check for.  But it's time for Dre to worry about Dre.  I'm focused on the new Snoop Doggs, not like that but you know what I mean."

Dre -  Source 1996 cover

"Eminem will be bigger than Michael Jackson as long as he doesn't change."

-Dre, Rolling Stones mag 1999 Em cover

********
 

*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2008, 07:28:47 AM »

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.
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2008, 07:47:11 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 07:48:45 AM by 7even »
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

Furor Teutonicus

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1467
  • Karma: -145
  • aka Dr. Jan Itor
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2008, 08:22:34 AM »

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.






« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 08:37:31 AM by Inspector Dr. Ján Ďtor alias Columbo »
 

Australian Bastard

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2008, 09:24:28 AM »
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
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 09:56:00 AM by Ra's al Overfiend »
 

*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2008, 11:26:14 AM »
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.
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

J Bananas

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2008, 12:10:55 PM »
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* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2008, 12:56:06 PM »
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?


Quote
(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.
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

J Bananas

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2008, 01:03:18 PM »
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.
 

*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2008, 01:16:35 PM »

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.


Quote
i cant favour porn that denigrades a man/woman
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

J Bananas

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2008, 01:20:59 PM »
aiiiiiiiiiigghhhhhht
 

*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2008, 01:37:51 PM »
 ;)
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

Turf Hitta

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3374
  • Karma: 13
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2008, 02:40:13 PM »
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.
 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2008, 04:48:17 PM »
ive never said you guys are wrong.

excuse me, but yes youre wrong

Huh?

Quote
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  ;)
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #22 on: August 16, 2008, 01:35:52 AM »
ok first you took things completely out of context quoting me, somewhat this is typical to this forum.

Quote
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
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 01:38:32 AM by *Z* - The Queen of Dubcc »
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

Australian Bastard

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #23 on: August 16, 2008, 03:53:26 AM »
 Dammit why dosn't anybody read my shit!!? Me. Me. Me. Me.
 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #24 on: August 16, 2008, 04:54:57 AM »
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:

Quote
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.

« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 05:08:17 AM by 7even »
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin