Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Chomsky on Pornography
smegma:
7even:
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.
*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc:
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.
TraceOneInfinite:
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.
*Z* - The Queen of Dubcc:
--- Quote from: Abdul-Infinite on August 15, 2008, 07:15:23 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version