Author Topic: Chomsky on Pornography  (Read 398 times)

Australian Bastard

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #25 on: August 16, 2008, 06:48:41 AM »
^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

« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 07:10:29 AM by Ra's al Overfiend »
 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #26 on: August 16, 2008, 07:12:04 AM »
^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.
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
 

Australian Bastard

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #27 on: August 16, 2008, 07:37:57 AM »
^
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.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 07:43:05 AM by Ra's al Overfiend »
 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #28 on: August 16, 2008, 07:42:27 AM »
^
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.
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
 

Infinite Trapped in 1996

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10859
  • Thanked: 33 times
  • Karma: -1130
  • Permenent Resident of 1996 Pre-Sept. 13th
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #29 on: August 16, 2008, 09:23:48 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 09:27:21 AM by Abdul-Infinite »
*******

"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

********
 

jeromechickenbone

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2008, 11:40:09 AM »
I think this is Z's way of telling people to quit asking her for nekkid pics
 

Nat Turner-reincarnated

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #31 on: August 16, 2008, 09:30:49 PM »
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* - The Queen of Dubcc

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 864
  • Karma: 470
  • "u gotta give respect to get respect"
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #32 on: August 17, 2008, 02:07:43 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"

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

 

*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 #33 on: August 17, 2008, 02:14:04 AM »


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?
"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 #34 on: August 17, 2008, 04:03:04 AM »
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.


« Last Edit: August 17, 2008, 04:53:59 AM by Ra's al Overfiend »
 

Australian Bastard

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2008, 05:07:09 AM »


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...
 

*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 #36 on: August 17, 2008, 05:14:29 AM »
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.
"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 #37 on: August 17, 2008, 05:29:51 AM »
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?
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
 

Australian Bastard

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #38 on: August 17, 2008, 05:39:26 AM »

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.
 

Australian Bastard

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #39 on: August 17, 2008, 08:34:45 AM »

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
 

*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 #40 on: August 17, 2008, 11:52:25 AM »
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.
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

*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 #41 on: August 17, 2008, 11:53:31 AM »

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


oh of course he doesnt... ;)
"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 #42 on: August 17, 2008, 12:07:51 PM »
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?
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
 

ekmek

  • Guest
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #43 on: August 17, 2008, 12:26:59 PM »
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
 

C-BLUE

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1380
  • Karma: -359
  • evil don't die
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #44 on: August 17, 2008, 03:19:38 PM »
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.
 

*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 #45 on: August 17, 2008, 05:44:55 PM »
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
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]

 

*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 #46 on: August 17, 2008, 05:46:32 PM »
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
"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 #47 on: August 17, 2008, 05:50:40 PM »
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
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
 

Sikotic™

  • Moderator
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28701
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Karma: 3135
  • PussyCunt
Re: Chomsky on Pornography
« Reply #48 on: August 17, 2008, 09:12:23 PM »
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.
 

*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 #49 on: August 18, 2008, 04:01:53 AM »
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.
"I grew up on the chill-side, the no-big-deal-side, staying alive was no problem"
[J-Live]