Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Internet Porn
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 295 (121125)
07-02-2004 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Silent H
07-01-2004 2:04 PM


quote:
This is too much. Are you telling me that figures like Dworkin and Solanas were simply male created stereotypes and did NOT take part in early feminist writings, nor try to exclude those (from using the term feminist) that began to accept their own sexual freedom and porn?
No, I'm saying that these have been inappropriately named as champions of feminism, and used as exemplary icons of feminism, in order that the moderate case can be attakced through ther proxy of the extreme case. So there is much hysteria about Dworkin and her ilk - and even then, Dworkin makes more moderate claims than are often attributed to her - and insufficent recognition of OTHER feminists.
A good example of this is the bra-burning hairy-legged man-hating stereotype.
quote:
uld I be taking notes? Is this part of some radical new feminist revisionism where Dworkin gets removed, even as her rhetoric is championed?
Well I would think that was most post-70's Feminism. Yes, why is it you think Feminism is monolithic and stuck in awe-struck hero-worship of Dworkin?
quote:
Because that leads to confusion, like you just had. If I only called proporn feminists feminists, then the antiporn crowd would bash me.
And rightly so; you can't pick and choose who constitutes a feminist merely because YOU agree with them or not.
quote:
They are all fighting for the same cause. I find the proporn crowd better and on the right track, but the other ones exist don't they?
Yes of course; thats what I was pointing out - feminism does not just have one opinion, and it is not fair to present it as if it does. There are pros', moderates, and anit's on this issue, and you are perfectly entitled to express your own position and preference. You are not entitled to declare who is and wqho is not a feminist based on your own position on this matter, nor can you fairly tar all feminists with the anti brush. Why not just deal with it as a field of reserach and opinion like any other, exhibiting various strands of argument like any other, and containing dievrse people and opinions, like any other?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Silent H, posted 07-01-2004 2:04 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Silent H, posted 07-02-2004 7:26 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 295 (121136)
07-02-2004 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by custard
07-01-2004 6:26 PM


quote:
1- The amount of porngraphy using forced participants is a significant percentage and is representative as pornography, as an industry, in any way.
Well, we don't know and cannot know I'm afraid; its an inherent limit of the medium and is a line of work already substantially underground. But to be frank, all I need is ONE incident to legimiately claim there is cause for concern. If you are going to claim there is no cause for concern, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate why I should have this confidence.
quote:
2- The market for slave traded girls is western men.
I cannot see how that is relevant. In the first case, its unremarkable, because sex tourism by western men is well established; Thailand has been a prime choices for sex tourists for a few decades now. In the Kosovan case, they were definitely Western. Marc Dutroux starved kidnapped girls to death in his basement cell after a career of abductions anrd rapes. But I need not at any time claim that Western men necesarily consciously tell themselves they desire a trafficked person - my allegation is that they don't ask and don't care any more than most people care if their shirt was made by someone working in inhumane conditions.
quote:
3- Many men do not like women very much.
Oh no; I fully recognise its undemonstrabel, as its a claim to an insight into another persons thought process. I can only assert it is my opinion and impression, and manifestly I am not alone in either view.
quote:
4- Interracial pornography promotes and maintains racist stereotypes.
Thats been comprehensively dealt with already.
quote:
5- Where, specifically, holmes has abused feminists.
here:
quote:
Please do not use books from feminist authors, nor sold for a woman audience. Make it real research, academic.
quote:
Yes and no. My "assertion" regarding purpose is that it is fixed but only in a general way. It allows for many facets as human fantasy has many facets. These fantasies may always be deconstructed of course, which is what feminists do in a very subjective manner.
quote:
am also nonplussed by the feminist argument, when you see women making porn (even lesbian porn) which is rough on women and men.
quote:
I am stating that the feminist position is that all porn is mysogynistic.
quote:
It is not up to the people being attacked by feminists to go and correct them, it is the duty of the feminists to get their arguments straight in the first place.
quote:
The example I gave was specific and accurate. It shows the underlying PROBLEM of feminist critiques of porn. In a rush to judge, they grab on to whatever soundbytes sound damning, but have no connection to what porn is about or how it is used.
quote:
But this is yet another problem engaged in by feminist critics.
Again, comprehensivly demonstrated. Is your word search function broken, Custard?
quote:
So far you have provided nothing to support these positions despite request after request after request. At present, you have nothing to support your position but opinion. Sorry, the unsubstantiated opinion of an internet poster doesn't carry much weight... none in fact.
Well funny you should mention that, Custard... I did not demand that anyone agree with my views. I attacked only two things: the bklanket denigration of feminists, and the assertion that all porn is inherently harmless. The people advancing those extreme positions are the ones carryiong the burden of proof. I have only indicated that there is CONCERN, and that it might not all be sweetness and light. Thats an entirely resonable position to adopt. Those who argue that there is NO REASON FOR CONCERN must demonstrate that it is comprehensivleym IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to come to harm in porn, and that therefore expressions of concern are unfounded.
And furthermore, I don't have to tolerate resort to ignorantum; merely becuase you or holmes are unfamiliar with the research work indicating, for example, the degree of trafficking is frankly not my problem. I also openly acknowledge that my capacity to find such materials as they exist on the net is limited, and I make no pretensions, ever, to advancing an academic argument on the net. But then again, I don't have to: convincing YOU individually is a fundamantally trivial issue.
Here's a discussion of the acceptance of violence against sex workers in New York: Page not found | The Sex Workers Project
Identification of a client as a trafficked person, again in NY:
http://www.sexworkersproject.org/...ationAndAdvocacy1103.pdf
The sex workers project also notes:
quote:
Violence Against Prostitutes: Eighty percent of street-based prostitutes interviewed had experienced or been threatened with violence while working. When asked about reporting violence to the police, they reported that police did not take their complaints seriously and often told them that they should expect violence. "Carol" told researchers "If I call them, they don't come. If I have a situation in the street, forget it. 'Nobody told you to be in the street.' After a girl was gang raped, they said 'Forget it, she works in the street.'" She continued, "I hope that never happens to your daughters. I'm human."
Research carried out by UK police departments indicates:
http://209.190.246.239/ver2/cr/uk.pdf
quote:
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) correspondents report that 6 out of 10 women working in London brothels have been trafficked. The BBC further reports that most small-town police stations have recorded on their books between 12 and 20 trafficked women per year. Scotland Yard claims that three-quarters of the women in prostitution in London have been smuggled into the country.
quote:
The Independent, June 19, 2003
Albanian connection to the teenage sex slaves in London
By Jason Bennetto Crime Correspondent
The Romanian girl was 15 when she was smuggled into Britain. She arrived in Dover, via Brussels and Ostend, on a hovercraft in July 2001 and was met at Victoria station and taken to a flat in north-west London. A day later, a man named Mustapha Kadiu, 31, arrived and made the girl, later known in court as Miss X, phone saunas and massage parlours to work as a prostitute.
Kadiu, an Albanian who persuaded her to travel to Britain to start a new life, threatened to kill her if she failed to earn between 400 and 500 a day, charging 30 for straight sex.
After three months of sexual slavery in London she escaped and went to police. Kadiu was arrested and convicted of raping her, indecently assaulting her and of living off immoral earnings. He was sentenced last December to 10 years in prison.
The plight of the Romanian teenager is an example of the growing power of Albanian pimps in London and of the booming sex trade involving girls and women from eastern Europe smuggled to the West. The National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) says many of the people who are trafficked into Britain enter the vice trade. Others work as cheap labour in illicit sweatshops producing counterfeit goods or are brought in by Chinese "snakehead" gangs to work in restaurants.
Most of those who end up in the vice industry are victims of "some form of deception, and exploit the lack of opportunities open to women in source countries", the NCIS says in its assessment of serious and organised crime.
Traffickers advertise in local newspapers abroad offering jobs as maids, nannies, bar and catering staff, receptionists, clerical staff, dancers and entertainers. Even the women who knowingly get involved in vice are told they will be able to keep their profits.
Women from countries in the former Soviet Union and Balkan regions are increasingly the victims of kidnap by the traffickers, NCIS says. "In some rural areas of the Balkans, the fear of kidnap is such that families keep adolescent girls at home rather than send them to school or work."
Traffickers use extreme violence, including rape, to control victims. "In some instances, women have been killed and their bodies dumped in public places as an example," NCIS adds. In Britain, traffickers strip victims of all documents so they cannot work elsewhere. Some threaten to tell their families they are prostitutes.
Over the past decade, violent Albanian criminals have taken control of 75 per cent of prostitution in Soho. Scotland Yard estimates that last year criminals made 61m from 15 people-smuggling operations that police detected.
Appliance Repair Videos - find local appliance repair companies
quote:
The trafficking of people is a rapidly growing global problem that affects countries and families around the world. Because of its hidden nature, statistics relating to trafficking are extremely difficult to measure accurately. A US Government report published in June 2003 estimates that approximately 800,000 - 900,000 people are trafficked across borders worldwide each year. This doesn't take into account those trafficked internally within countries.
quote:
Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit, Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration
Report of the Secretary-General, 58. session, Item 61 of the provisional agenda, 2 September 2003
82. Another area of grave concern is the increasingly widespread practice of trafficking in women and girls, one of the fastest-growing types of organized crime. It has been estimated that more than 700,000 people are trafficked each year for sexual exploitation. Many of the victims are subjected to violence. This is clearly a major human rights challenge for the new millennium. Strategies to counter it need to address the many factors that at present foster a favourable environment for trafficking, including gender-based violence, cultural practices and social structures that promote the demand for and the commercialization of women’s and children’s bodies and the denial of equal status for women in access to property and the attainment of economic independence.
From the US DOJ report:
We apologize for the inconvenience... - United States Department of State
quote:
No country is immune from trafficking. A recent U.S. Government estimate indicates that approximately 800,000-900,000 people are trafficked across international borders worldwide annually, and between 18,000 and 20,000 of those victims are trafficked into the United States. The Department of Justice recently compiled an assessment of USG anti-trafficking efforts, which will be released this summer.
I reiterate: there is just and legitimate cause for concern. The burden of proof lies on those who claim that despite nearly a million people trafficked annually world wide, and despite a persistent and organic relationship between trafficking and the sex trade, that there is no cause for alarm and that the only peopole who consider there might be any concern are miliciously anti-porn.
quote:
"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery
and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms
."
Article 4, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by custard, posted 07-01-2004 6:26 PM custard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Silent H, posted 07-02-2004 8:51 AM contracycle has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 243 of 295 (121146)
07-02-2004 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by contracycle
07-02-2004 5:44 AM


inappropriately named as champions of feminism, and used as exemplary icons of feminism
By themselves no less. Look I didn't say they were the champions, and have made quite clear that in this thread by "feminist" I was referring to the antiporn crowd. They existed, they still exist. And they are feminists.
While not ALL feminists make the claims I was criticizing, the only ones making the specific claims I was dealing with are feminists. Specifically the antiporn ones.
If you want to keep beating a dead horse and ignore the clarification, then you are simply looking to prolong argument where there is none.
why is it you think Feminism is monolithic and stuck in awe-struck hero-worship of Dworkin?
I swear to god you must own a strawman production factory. I have already MENTIONED other feminist authors who I believe represent the more MODERN state of feminism. I think I even used that term, MODERN.
I even said twice that Dworkin is defunct. How you get the above, when I am sidelining her in my commentary and discussing others as feminists, I am clueless.
And rightly so; you can't pick and choose who constitutes a feminist merely because YOU agree with them or not.
Okay I got ya now. This is just BS. Whatever I say you are simply going to attack, even if it means contradicting yourself and when you can't find something to attack you create a strawman.
I don't choose who's a feminist, that was my WHOLE FUCKING POINT.
feminism does not just have one opinion, and it is not fair to present it as if it does.
??????????? That was MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT!

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by contracycle, posted 07-02-2004 5:44 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by contracycle, posted 07-02-2004 7:35 AM Silent H has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 295 (121148)
07-02-2004 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Silent H
07-02-2004 7:26 AM


quote:
By themselves no less. Look I didn't say they were the champions, and have made quite clear that in this thread by "feminist" I was referring to the antiporn crowd. They existed, they still exist. And they are feminists.
Granted. They are also women, so women must be anti-porn. And they are also people, so people must be anti-porn. They are also hominids, so hominds must be anti porn. They are also mammals, so mammals must be anti-porn. They are also vertebrates, so vertebrates must be anti-porn. Etc ad infinitum ad nauseum; this is SYNECHDOCHE, I believe.
quote:
Okay I got ya now. This is just BS. Whatever I say you are simply going to attack, even if it means contradicting yourself and when you can't find something to attack you create a strawman.
I don't choose who's a feminist, that was my WHOLE FUCKING POINT.
You can maintain that, but I have quoted you above: "I am saying the feminist position is that porn is misogynistic"
And as I pointed out a couple of posts ago, the fact that you were inconsistent in this declaration is how I know for certain that you were employing it as a rhetorical device to round up support from the anti-feminist brigade. I have you red-handed, holmes.
And the perverse point about the whole issue is that centrally, we agree. IMO the point you have been advancing in this thread is too extreme for your own argument to defend; what you needed to do was advance a more moderate case and not assume that anyone who disagree with you about any detail has an axe to grind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Silent H, posted 07-02-2004 7:26 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Silent H, posted 07-02-2004 8:59 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 245 of 295 (121156)
07-02-2004 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by contracycle
07-02-2004 6:43 AM


Glad to see you coming clean that you have no facts and just innuendo and anecdotes.
But to be frank, all I need is ONE incident to legimiately claim there is cause for concern. If you are going to claim there is no cause for concern, then it is your responsibility to demonstrate why I should have this confidence.
What kind of concern? Concern that if you go online and buy an Amber Lynn vid, that you may be helping the slave trade? Concern that if you use porn you will want to join the slave trade? Concern that allowing porn to exist helps keep the slave trade alive?
Those are the kind of cases people start building when vague words like "concern" are used. It does not matter what you mean, when you pose your statements so disengenuously.
The reality is that people should be concerned about abuse, and that includes in the porn business. I have never said nor argued otherwise despite the strawman you continually build regarding my position.
The reality is that abuse does occur, but it is like in any other industry, isolated from the mainstream. Most people making and using porn would have no connection to the abuse. Just because there is a justified concern that someone somewhere is being abused to make porn, does NOT mean that you picket VCA pictures to clean up the industry. There simply is no connection like that.
It is fearmongering.
There should be no vague "concerns" about the sex industry. They are concrete. Someone somewhere may be getting abused. You track down leads and prosecute those involved. Just like any other industry.
Thats been comprehensively dealt with already.
Yes, your bizzaro-ideology regarding sex between races has been expounded quite comprehensively. If you habitually do not appreciate your sex partner as just a bunch of parts, and any parts will do, then you are a racist.
Maybe you missed Custard's point. You need facts. I'm still trying to get how you know what everyone MUST be doing privately, though they all do something different publicly. Maybe you have Santa's list?
Cust: Where, specifically, holmes has abused feminists.
You: here:
Me: Told you, that you couldn't tell a joke from reality.
But, since you did take it seriously... nice job rebuilding your strawman through quote mining. My use of the word feminist in this thread, regarding criticisms of porn, has already been well explained. You simply choose not to get it in order to keep arguing.
I attacked only two things: the bklanket denigration of feminists, and the assertion that all porn is inherently harmless.
Well that leaves me out of the picture. Although I will say that all PORN IS harmless, it is not the using of porn which does the harm, it is people who make it that may cause harm during its production. This needs to be stopped wherever it is found.
merely becuase you or holmes are unfamiliar with the research work indicating, for example, the degree of trafficking is frankly not my problem.
Speak for youself asshole. First of all we were talking about PORN, which is a wholly separate issue than TRAFFICKING. If this had been a thread on TRAFFICKING then I could have provided stats on that.
Its curious that you hounded me for stats (regarding PORN), I show you they already existed in this thread, then you brush them off with "can't use them because they are over a 30 year period versus MILLENIA of oppression", and when confronted for stats yourself you switch goalposts in order to provide SOMETHING and for the actual issues under discussion say you don't have to provide jack.
Fuck you. I can't believe you have actually made me angrier than I was with Darkstar's obfuscation but you did it.
Then again, as I am beginning to suspect, that is your point?
Here's a discussion of the acceptance of violence against sex workers in New York
The subject was porn. If you want to expand it to all sex work then that is fine, but then you must still address the stats regarding porn as well to make the actual points that are the MAIN TOPIC of this thread and ALL I WAS ADDRESSING.
Yet in the following links all you do is outline violence against sex workers, and connections of human trafficking to sex work, and the extent of human trafficking.
Well blow me down! I don't even HAVE to address those because they have little or nothing to do with the topic!
And, if anything, they will support my own arguments (if we want to get into a broad based discussion on the issue like we did I think a year or so ago)... If you are aware of research in this area then you already KNOW that human trafficking is a poverty issue, not a porn/sex worker issue.
And where does the profit to use people in the sex trade, as well as violence against these workers stem from?
Both are correlated to its ILLEGALITY. You bring me stats from New York? Sex work (in this case prostitution since you have moved the goalposts to that) is illegal in NY. That is the reason it is profitable, and that is the reason violence gets reinforced against these poor people (which actually includes boys though the study was not so up on that).
Ohhhh, and then Britain? Same thing.
The very beginning quote from the first study you link to points to the underlying issues of poverty, the fact that it is street prostitutes and their involvement with police points to the reinforcement problems.
Street prostitution is BAD. Or at least the vast percentages lean heavily toward that generalization.
If you saw in any of my arguments a support for street prostitution, or a denial that there is violence against sex workers, or a denial that there is a serious human trafficking issue, then you are totally delusional.
And if you believe those issues make any serious case against PORN, even that we must be CONCERNED more about that industry than others, you are also delusional. You have made NO connection between any of the above and the majority and specifically mainstream porn.
The burden of proof lies on those who claim that despite nearly a million people trafficked annually world wide, and despite a persistent and organic relationship between trafficking and the sex trade, that there is no cause for alarm
Persistent and organic. And an upgrade from concern to alarm.
See what I am talking about? Fearmongering. Seriously, is there any reason to believe that your corner porn store is carrying many if any tapes made with human trafficked sex workers? How about the internet? Do you think a person can accidentally buy forced porn?
While I agree it might be tougher to tell when you are dealing with sites outside of the US, don't you think YOU can tell when you are crossing from content in a white market, to a grey market, to a black market?
Trafficking is alarming. Violence against sex workers is alarming. These issues are poverty and legality based, and not dependent on porn for there existence.
Get some REAL stats to support your claims on misogyny, racism, or at least some credible link between general use and manufacture of porn and human trafficking, or go peddle your BS somewhere else.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by contracycle, posted 07-02-2004 6:43 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by contracycle, posted 07-02-2004 9:50 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 246 of 295 (121158)
07-02-2004 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by contracycle
07-02-2004 7:35 AM


Etc ad infinitum ad nauseum
Heavy on the nauseum. Your weird argument has no place in reality.
Dworkin and the antiporn crowd were and are feminists. I have made clear that they are a branch of feminism. My use of the term feminist in the context of criticism of porn is against that branch.
I have made that clear how many times now? Even if there was a misunderstanding at the beginning we should be wayyyyy past it.
Not all feminists are against porn and it should be quite obvious that I understand this.
I have quoted you above: "I am saying the feminist position is that porn is misogynistic"
Starting a quote mining business?
the fact that you were inconsistent in this declaration is how I know for certain that you were employing it as a rhetorical device to round up support from the anti-feminist brigade. I have you red-handed, holmes.
No, no, sadly you are simply insane.
Good bye contracycle. Let me know if you ever get around to dealing with my real arguments and have some research to back up any claims you make.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by contracycle, posted 07-02-2004 7:35 AM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 295 (121166)
07-02-2004 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Silent H
07-02-2004 8:51 AM


quote:
What kind of concern? Concern that if you go online and buy an Amber Lynn vid, that you may be helping the slave trade? Concern that if you use porn you will want to join the slave trade? Concern that allowing porn to exist helps keep the slave trade alive?
Concern that some people in the tarde are there not volutarily, but due to coercion. Do you or do you not acknowledge that this is a possibility and a problem?
quote:
The reality is that people should be concerned about abuse, and that includes in the porn business. I have never said nor argued otherwise despite the strawman you continually build regarding my position.
Actually, you have - for example, you accused me of posting material to "discredit" porn. Your line of argument has been that any concern or cricisim is mischievous and ill-informed.
quote:
The reality is that abuse does occur, but it is like in any other industry, isolated from the mainstream. Most people making and using porn would have no connection to the abuse.
Completely undemonstrable; there is no reason at all for thinking that. Porn on the net is more accessible than porn in the shops. There is no mechanism anywhere that leaves you absoluetly positive that an image you are looking at was not taken under coerced conditions. It may well be that many people are viewing images of coerced sex; but neither you nor I have any idea. This is a reality that you seem to persist in denying.
Its manifest in your sentence above where you falsely conflate buying an amber lynn videa weith the slave trade. Thats clearly ridiculous, and is a spoiling argument artificially constructed to be false.
quote:
It is fearmongering.
Thats arrogant complacency. As you yourself say:
quote:
There should be no vague "concerns" about the sex industry. They are concrete. Someone somewhere may be getting abused. You track down leads and prosecute those involved. Just like any other industry/.
But apparently NOT like any other industry, because according to you all "concerns" are "fear mongering".
quote:
Just because there is a justified concern that someone somewhere is being abused to make porn, does NOT mean that you picket VCA pictures to clean up the industry. There simply is no connection like that.
Thats quite true. But then again, I've never advocated picketing VCA pictures, have I? So I have caught you once again resorting to hyperbole and misrepresenting my argument to make a rhetorical point.
quote:
Yes, your bizzaro-ideology regarding sex between races has been expounded quite comprehensively. If you habitually do not appreciate your sex partner as just a bunch of parts, and any parts will do, then you are a racist.
... as you do here again. Not very good with logic, are you holmes?
quote:
Maybe you missed Custard's point. You need facts. I'm still trying to get how you know what everyone MUST be doing privately, though they all do something different publicly.
And as I pointed out, the medium in which a racist trope is propagated is irrelevant. An undeniable racist trope is being propagated, the medium happens to be porn.
quote:
But, since you did take it seriously... nice job rebuilding your strawman through quote mining. My use of the word feminist in this thread, regarding criticisms of porn, has already been well explained. You simply choose not to get it in order to keep arguing.
Vaion protestations of innocence. [bart]"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can prove a thing".[/bart]
quote:
Well that leaves me out of the picture. Although I will say that all PORN IS harmless, it is not the using of porn which does the harm, it is people who make it that may cause harm during its production. This needs to be stopped wherever it is found.
Well then what the fuck have you been objecting to?
quote:
Speak for youself asshole. First of all we were talking about PORN, which is a wholly separate issue than TRAFFICKING. If this had been a thread on TRAFFICKING then I could have provided stats on that.
Also demonstrably false; in fact I can quote you acknowledging this up-thread:
[quote]me
quote:
'sex is not THE ONLY thing goin on in porn'; please address my argment and not a straw man.
you
quote:
If this is ALL your were saying, then there is no issue. As I myself have already said, there are many different fantasies which get played out in porn, which means things beyond mere sexual acts.
My position has been consistent through-out.
quote:
Its curious that you hounded me for stats
I didn't hound you for stats. I asked you where the stats where that you claimed undercut my point that 1) not everyone in porn is there consensually and 2) that other pernicious tropes are propagated by porn. you ahve provided no states criticising any position I have advanced.
quote:
The subject was porn. If you want to expand it to all sex work then that is fine, but then you must still address the stats regarding porn as well to make the actual points that are the MAIN TOPIC of this thread and ALL I WAS ADDRESSING.
What is the reason for thinking that porn, as a subset of sex work, is uniquely free of the problems that plague other sex workers?
quote:
Well blow me down! I don't even HAVE to address those because they have little or nothing to do with the topic!
well clearly it does, unless you can show some reason for thinking that nobody who was coerced has ever appeared in internet porn. And that is blatently untrue; at the very least we can be confident that some paedophilic images were coerced. Can you provide any reason at all for ruling this out? If not, you must concede it is relevant to the topic of internet porn.
quote:
And, if anything, they will support my own arguments (if we want to get into a broad based discussion on the issue like we did I think a year or so ago)... If you are aware of research in this area then you already KNOW that human trafficking is a poverty issue, not a porn/sex worker issue.
Of course I do; thats why I stated that the poverty was a salient point up-thread. Have you even been reading what I write holmes or just leaping to conclusions? And the reason this is relevant to porn and sex work in general is becuase manifestly, human trfficking provides the PRODUCT - that is women - these industries sell.
quote:
Both are correlated to its ILLEGALITY. You bring me stats from New York? Sex work (in this case prostitution since you have moved the goalposts to that) is illegal in NY. That is the reason it is profitable, and that is the reason violence gets reinforced against these poor people (which actually includes boys though the study was not so up on that).
Yes absolutely. Or at least partially; I would still allege that there is misogynistic collusion between pimps and johns, especially where johns apply violence. But I fully agree that the solution is to make porn legal and bring out into the bright light of day where it can be regulated like any other industry and, among other things, suppress such hate speech as is propagated through this medium.
quote:
Street prostitution is BAD.
You are imposing moralism where none exists.
Somebody who sympathsaies with a girl getting beaten up to perform for camera or for johns is not satying that prostitution is bad; they are saying the violence is bad.
quote:
And if you believe those issues make any serious case against PORN, even that we must be CONCERNED more about that industry than others, you are also delusional. You have made NO connection between any of the above and the majority and specifically mainstream porn.
Shifting goal posts again (as you have already done with Lynn). Who said anything about mainstream porn? Did I? Does the thread title read "mainstream porn"? No, it reads "internet porn". You are demonstrating yet again that the entirety of your argument has depended on selective reading; you parse concerns about internet porn as concerns about mainstream porn, despite the fact that the distinction has been repeatedly drawn. Please start debating honestly.
quote:
Persistent and organic. And an upgrade from concern to alarm.
I see. And so its your contention that despite illegal status of sex work generally, if you found a relationship between any sex worker and organised crime you'd be suprised? Then you have been living in fantasyland. Yes, persistent and organic.
quote:
See what I am talking about? Fearmongering. Seriously, is there any reason to believe that your corner porn store is carrying many if any tapes made with human trafficked sex workers?
I have no idea; its inherently unkowable where a picture was taken. I cannot in any sense verify the sourcing and origin of such material when it is so closely linked with the black- or grey-markets.
quote:
How about the internet? Do you think a person can accidentally buy forced porn?
"buy"? Thats only a subset. But yes, its entirely easy, becuase you cannot know the circumstances under which the material was shot. you have already conceded that much of porn includes the feigning of pleasure, so let me reverse the question and put it to you thus: how can you be sure that any given image is NOT coerced? What methods would you employ to determine that to your satisfaction?
quote:
While I agree it might be tougher to tell when you are dealing with sites outside of the US, don't you think YOU can tell when you are crossing from content in a white market, to a grey market, to a black market?
Haha. Yes, I know for certain I cannot tell. Because the black market was the the conjoining medium that brought porn and the hackers together. And I know that hackers can put together a web site that will in every detail be as good as one designed by a professional outfit. It is entirely possible for any site to be wholly illegal, andf no punter would be able to determine that. And if it were hosted oput of a data haven, there wouldn't be any way to find out either.
So if you think you could tell, would you advise me as to what tools you would use to dinstinguish them? And while you're about it, can yuo explain whaty difference it makes if its consumed accidentaly or deliberately? The performer has still been coerced regardless of the punters interaction with whoever is taking the money.
quote:
Trafficking is alarming. Violence against sex workers is alarming. These issues are poverty and legality based, and not dependent on porn for there existence.
Absolutely correct; but then you will note that my argument from the very beginning is not that they are DEPENDANT on porn, but that porn serves as a VENUE. Will you now, finally and belatedly, acknowledged and address the point I have actually advanced? Or are you still a little high strung about the issue and prone to imagining persecution where there is none?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Silent H, posted 07-02-2004 8:51 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Silent H, posted 07-02-2004 11:35 AM contracycle has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 248 of 295 (121180)
07-02-2004 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by contracycle
07-02-2004 9:50 AM


Actually, you have - for example, you accused me of posting material to "discredit" porn.
Yes. You use broad language which pretends knowledge that abuse can be anywhere. This is not true and acts to put the spectre of abuse in any porn one buys or views. It is a tactic used often in witchhunts. Generalize the fear through the unknown.
For example.
Porn on the net is more accessible than porn in the shops. There is no mechanism anywhere that leaves you absoluetly positive that an image you are looking at was not taken under coerced conditions. It may well be that many people are viewing images of coerced sex; but neither you nor I have any idea. This is a reality that you seem to persist in denying.
This is PATENTLY FALSE. No mechanism anywhere? I tell you what. Start a porn business (even an independent internet one) and run it LEGALLY.
In doing so you will then have your ignorant mouth shut by the facts.
If a person is ever in doubt and wants to make sure, absolutely 100%, that there is no coercion, all you have to do is look at 1) it's a US registered business, and 2) it has a nice little 2257 compliance notice at the bottom.
Now I suppose someone could FAKE those things, but you know how easy it would be to find out?
EVERY PROFESSIONAL AND INDEPENDENT PORN SHOOT IS CATALOGUED, WITH EXTENSIVE RECORDS UP THE YING YANG.
So yeah, as you get into grey and black markets some may fake creds and some may have none at all. You want ASSURANCE? There ARE MECHANISMS.
Thus YOUR UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS are FEARMONGERING.
according to you all "concerns" are "fear mongering".
no read again... from me...
There should be no vague "concerns" about the sex industry.
Here it is again, asshole...
There should be no vague "concerns" about the sex industry.
You ever see the Manchurian Candidate? There are 200 card carrying communists in the Houses of Congress!
Vague, idiot, vague. Its part of a guilt by association argument, which you do just dandy. Bob and weave, duck and cover, and shift them goal posts. No one can touch ya... then zoom out with a nice juicy "but you NEVER CAN KNOW."
My position has been consistent through-out.
By which you mean to say you will be right no matter the truth. The rest of your arguments have had the consistency of a weather vane... whichever way the wind blows.
What is the reason for thinking that porn, as a subset of sex work, is uniquely free of the problems that plague other sex workers?
There is a huge difference between different fields of sex work. While I never said uniquely free, your trying to pass stats off from one to another is ridiculous.
at the very least we can be confident that some paedophilic images were coerced. Can you provide any reason at all for ruling this out? If not, you must concede it is relevant to the topic of internet porn.
Huh? And huh? I like how you tell me not to talk about the content of porn stores, yet are able to bring in sex workers and childporn because they are relevant to internet porn?
Anyhow, I am trying to figure out how anyone mistakes buying childporn online, with buying adult porn from a legitimate business (indy or not).
Its pretty obvious when you start crossing lines. And if someone wants to stay clear of any possible coercive content THE MECHANISMS ARE THERE.
Hell you don't even need the 2257 stuff.
the solution is to make porn legal and bring out into the bright light of day where it can be regulated like any other industry and, among other things, suppress such hate speech as is propagated through this medium.
Funny thing is, and maybe you should check it out, in the West it already is legal and is regulated. Overregulated in fact.
That's why when you go to get that black market shit you keep talking about, you know when you crossed the line.
About the only exception to this is FREE content which can hit you with mass popups and blindlinks. Then again, you are not feeding any industry by receiving free content they force into your computer.
No childrape pornographer said I think I'll keep up this site and round up more girls and boys because so many people are seeing my popup page.
Heck, it doesn't even encourage an industry in trades of such images. An industry (what your articles were discussing) was human trafficking and sex WORK. That is money and the people involve have no illusions they crossed legal limits... unless they live outside 1st world countries?
And the reason this is relevant to porn and sex work in general is becuase manifestly, human trfficking provides the PRODUCT - that is women - these industries sell.
See what I'm saying. Conflation and vaguery and indictment of PORN. Porn sells women. Wrong. Porn sells sexual entertainment.
You will note that human trafficking is more than just women. You will note that porn is more than just women. And there is no MANIFEST connection between human traffickers and the porn industry at large.
Who said anything about mainstream porn? Did I? Does the thread title read "mainstream porn"? No, it reads "internet porn".
Mainstream is the majority of porn, including internet porn. Thus it has relevance... much more so than sex workers and child slave rings.
And that's the key. You say there is a reason to be concerned and that there are NO MECHANISMS for one to know whether any image is coerced or not. Well that is patently untrue. There is a great amount... mainstream porn... for which there ARE MECHANISMS, and so free of this CONCERN of yours.
People should not be concerned about the porn they consume, until they start deviating from the mainstream. Just as it is pretty fucking obvious that picking up a street prostitute where such things are illegal, is worlds apart from hiring an independent escort where sex work is legal.
if you found a relationship between any sex worker and organised crime you'd be suprised?
Now we're moving in to organized crime and sex work? I hate to say it, but by definition anywhere sex work is illegal, sex workers are a part of organized crime.
Maybe you should let me know when you've decided where the goal is too.
If you mean between human trafficking (actual slavery) and any sex worker, then the answer is still yes. According to your own stats you should know this is true. Look how many were trafficked in the US. Then think of the number of sex workers. Then do the math.
And that's ASSUMING all trafficked people go into sex work which is also patently untrue.
Again, a person getting a slave sex worker can't be too shocked. Normally they don't speak the language to well and are in surroundings that suggest hiding. They aren't in the phone book advertising as independent escorts.
Persistent and organic. Find me some data, especially with the mainstream.
I have no idea; its inherently unkowable where a picture was taken. I cannot in any sense verify the sourcing and origin of such material when it is so closely linked with the black- or grey-markets.
Now remember I was talking about porn stores in this case, and you say unknowable. They better all have labels and those labels better all have 2257 notices and inside the tapes (when you watch) you will see 2257 compliance notices.
That's your guarantee ignoramus. And indeed you don't even need 2257 (which personally I hate).
If you find a store selling grey and especially black market material, why don't you just call the cops?
There is no REASONABLE CONCERN for the white market, certainly not at this point in time.
"buy"? Thats only a subset. But yes, its entirely easy, becuase you cannot know the circumstances under which the material was shot.
Buying is the only thing fueling a market in human trafficking. And as for yous second sentence, that is the third time in this singular post you make a statement which proves your ignorance entirely.
Yes, I know for certain I cannot tell. Because the black market was the the conjoining medium that brought porn and the hackers together. And I know that hackers can put together a web site that will in every detail be as good as one designed by a professional outfit. It is entirely possible for any site to be wholly illegal, andf no punter would be able to determine that. And if it were hosted oput of a data haven, there wouldn't be any way to find out either.
Fourth. How can a hacker fool you into believing their business registration and 2257 compliance material?
And again, you can always choose to buy white market stars... then you know for sure don't you?
So if you think you could tell, would you advise me as to what tools you would use to dinstinguish them? And while you're about it, can yuo explain whaty difference it makes if its consumed accidentaly or deliberately?
I just did, and my point was not the affect of accident/deliberation on a person who has been abused to make some porn. My point was regarding the fueling of the market. That is NOT accidental.
And so without DELIBERATE customers, there is no trafficking in the material you are discussing.
You can certainly bump into it accidentally through free content, but then I pose the question to you how that leads to a market in human trafficking? Seeing something for free never put money in anyone's pocket.
porn serves as a VENUE.
You mean grey and black market ends of porn generally serves as a venue for gray and black market activity in general?
If this is where the goal post is settling then I guess I will cross it. Yeah. And a more mundane and noncontroversial point it is. I certainly never fought it.
Of course if that is supposed to drive some sort of CONCERN or ALARM about porn outside those markets (which are not as large as the white market) and allow people to believe they have no way of knowing if ANY image involves coercion or not... then you're way off.
I guess this means you finally and belatedly concede everything else, regarding misogyny and racism. At the very least that you have nothing but your own hot air to try and fly that lead balloon. Good.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by contracycle, posted 07-02-2004 9:50 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by contracycle, posted 07-07-2004 8:26 AM Silent H has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 249 of 295 (121282)
07-02-2004 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
02-24-2004 11:31 AM


"Deep" Arguments by Holmes: Deep as a Toilet bowl
1. Can kids be adversely affected by internet porn? I think the answer is yes.
The answer is resoundingly, if not 100% definitively NO!
You want a study? Go out there and look for them. There have been many studies done and the effect seen in every single one is zero, zilch, nada.
It doesn't matter what you say or claim OR if ten thousand studies assert that porn does not adversely affect kids. It is not a matter of a opinion - all intelligent and honest people know it does - this is a brute fact.
Kids are impressionable - they are walking sponges.
Holmes has no argument or case, whatever he or she is - they are whitewashing black to be something other. Holmes is probably a pedophile but he or she probably would never admit it.
This entire question answers itself IF honesty and integrity exist.
Does porn adversely affect kids ?
Merely asking the question reveals an answer of nonsense to follow.
It is not a matter of opinion - porn is evil to kids. Only completely amoral perverts without any character argue these things, while hiding behind First Amendment rights which is not the issue.
If ten thousand persons with Ph.D.'s say porn does not harm kids this means they are secret pedophiles and brazen liars. I wish I knew what this Holmes creep looked like - I bet he is a life long customer of prostitutes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 02-24-2004 11:31 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Silent H, posted 07-02-2004 8:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 251 by crashfrog, posted 07-03-2004 12:54 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 250 of 295 (121340)
07-02-2004 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Cold Foreign Object
07-02-2004 6:04 PM


if ten thousand studies assert... It is not a matter of a opinion - all intelligent and honest people know it does - this is a brute fact.
Willow, studies don't assert. And if something is not just an opinion, but a brute fact, then studies should end up supporting your position.
That is a brute fact.
Kids are impressionable - they are walking sponges.
Yes, kind of. They suck up all sorts of things, hopefully more than JUST porn.
Here's your problem, kids must grow up to be sexual beings. By nature, they will explore their body (and bodies of others) before puberty, and more aggressively as hormones kick in during puberty.
Sex is natural and seeing it will do what exactly? If you want to argue moral harm then that is something I think you should be able to claim as a parent for your child. Certainly if you have certain morals regarding sex they should be respected.
But if you want to move beyond that and say real harm, like they WILL become maladjusted, they WILL dislike girls, they WILL become addicts, they WILL lose their eyesight and grow hair on their palms... it just is not supported by any data. And that should not be surprising as sex is part of the natural human condition.
Does nudity count? Certainly just nudity is a major part of porn, yet there are children in nudist families who live or vacation in nudist areas. That means they see what most kids try very hard to get a look at all the time in porn. Yet these nudist kids do not show any harm... some are even quite religious (and so argue there is no moral harm to seeing nudity).
If you believe kids are sponges, then perhaps you should be more concerned about violence. Not only is that less natural (as an everyday thing) than sexuality, but it actually has evidence to support that it leads to a temporary influence on children's behavior.
Holmes has no argument or case
Well I'm not the only one who has said this, even if I was the first here on EvC. If you want to rebut this, go right ahead, but please use some facts and definitions.
Holmes is probably a pedophile but he or she probably would never admit it.
Yeah probably, you certainly got me on that one. By the way I'm a he.
It is not a matter of opinion - porn is evil to kids. Only completely amoral perverts without any character argue these things
Well now I never did address evil. That is a moral or religious argument. I have stated that I support parents in their ability to raise their children with the sexual mores that they believe in, not me. If parents felt sex is evil, because of their religion, then I think they have every right to teach their kids that and society should NOT be forcing them to tell their kids otherwise.
I may very well seem amoral to you because I am not a Xian. But I do have a morality. I view sexuality as a good. It can be used in an unhealthy way if one forgets moderation, but otherwise cannot be defined as evil.
So whose morality is supposed to be right? Yours? Why not fundamentalist Islam? It's coming from the same position as far as I'm concerned. But then that would be too far for you in the other direction I'll bet. Do we force society to hold the lowest common denominator's sexual mores?
Moving beyond the question of good and evil, there is no real psychological or physical harm done to minors (and if you want to start with a definition start with that one) by viewing porn.
If ten thousand persons with Ph.D.'s say porn does not harm kids this means they are secret pedophiles and brazen liars.
That's just beautiful. Do you have any concept of not lying yourself? Judge not Willow, especially when it involves this much lying on your part.
I wish I knew what this Holmes creep looked like - I bet he is a life long customer of prostitutes.
What difference does it make what I look like? Oh yeah, but you got me on the lifelong customer of prostitutes thing too. Right out of the womb I was macking on the nurses.
Which of course goes in great with the pedophile charge you hit me with earlier.
But let's say for argument's sake that I was a pedophile... what does that have to do with results of studies on the effects of porn? I'm not the one making the studies.... Oh wait, but they are all pedophiles too.
Have you ever heard you shouldn't shoot the messenger? Or not to judge others?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-02-2004 6:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 251 of 295 (121464)
07-03-2004 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Cold Foreign Object
07-02-2004 6:04 PM


If ten thousand persons with Ph.D.'s say porn does not harm kids this means they are secret pedophiles and brazen liars.
Right, because WT has never, ever been wrong...
Of the several ways that exist to know what is true, "the word of some anonymous dude on the net" isn't even in the same state with "a number of independant, methodological surveys of the subject."
Morever, WT, all you have to do to prove us wrong is show us the example of a few kids who were fucked up my porno exposure at an early age. I've never heard of any. Of course, it's just easier for you to call your opponents pedophiles, I know.
Me, I don't know anybody who didn't see some porn as a kid. As far as I can tell, it's a lack of exposure to pornography as a kid that fucks you up sexually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-02-2004 6:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by apple, posted 07-03-2004 6:45 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
apple
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 295 (121576)
07-03-2004 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by crashfrog
07-03-2004 12:54 AM


quote:
As far as I can tell, it's a lack of exposure to pornography as a kid that fucks you up sexually.
I never understood how parents can let kids watch war shows and killing and even the news and yet go ballistic if a movie has a love scene. Maybe someone on here can let me know the rationale?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by crashfrog, posted 07-03-2004 12:54 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Silent H, posted 07-03-2004 6:55 AM apple has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 253 of 295 (121578)
07-03-2004 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by apple
07-03-2004 6:45 AM


Maybe someone on here can let me know the rationale?
Yeah, they're afraid if they don't move with the pack this way, they'll be labelled pedophiles.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by apple, posted 07-03-2004 6:45 AM apple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by apple, posted 07-03-2004 8:35 AM Silent H has replied

  
apple
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 295 (121582)
07-03-2004 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Silent H
07-03-2004 6:55 AM


I figured it must be some weird reason because it certainly doesn't make any sense.
Do you recall a couple of years ago there was a newscast showing a little Arab boy trying to hide behind his father and the boy was shot to death? It was replayed over and over on the 6 PM news.
Why society believes something like that is suitable to show during family hours yet rant about a love scene is proof some folks are not right in the head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Silent H, posted 07-03-2004 6:55 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Silent H, posted 07-03-2004 10:02 AM apple has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 255 of 295 (121584)
07-03-2004 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by apple
07-03-2004 8:35 AM


Why society believes something like that is suitable to show during family hours yet rant about a love scene is proof some folks are not right in the head.
Yeah I remember the kid and his father getting blasted. But at least that had some NEWS behind it.
I'm more puzzling how a bunch of people watching men brutalize each other, in between commercials including horses farting in people's faces and impotence drugs, get thrown out of whack when a girl's nipple appears.
A nipple. The human body is that taboo now?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by apple, posted 07-03-2004 8:35 AM apple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by apple, posted 07-04-2004 4:17 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024