advanced search

Username:    Password:   

Turk's Porn Discussion    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LS-ultimate.com Forum Index -> Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
xaja



Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 1968

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JHess wrote:
... no one really wants to be raped...


Josh, if an army of hotties kidnapped you, tied you up, and had their way with you that would be rape b/c you would not willingly cheat on the Bush-Carter(Josh's girlfriend), but you would find this rape pleasurable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
evan mcb



Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 1951

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.hulu.com/watch/41358/picket-fences-unlawful-enteries?c=1481:1547

cued for pertinence
_________________
social networking
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JHess



Joined: 02 Oct 2003
Posts: 1462
Location: Fort Collins, CO

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jon,
You're right. I probably should have filed charges last time that happened.
_________________
Hug it out, bitch.

Ari
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
trisarahtops



Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 827
Location: in my island

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JHess wrote:
trisarahtops wrote:
Also please refrain from saying things like the sole purpose for "putting on make-up and wearing tight jeans is to stimulate sexual desire"
I will maintain this until someone gives me another valid reason for make-up and tight clothes.
trisarahtops wrote:
because lord fucking knows we don't need a conversation about how women who dress in a "sexy" way are asking to be raped.
I don't think that this is really in the line of logic I've established at all. I'm trying to point out that women who wear make-up and tight clothing and call porn a sin are hypocrites.

No one really asks to be raped and no one really wants to be raped no one deserves to be raped. But...you should really start your own thread.

Aw c'mon, you've never heard someone say "dressed like that, she was asking for it"? Or, "she was drunk and therefore asking for sex"? Any discussion that insinuates that the way a woman presents herself is "solely" for male sexual stimulation--and stimulation is the operative word--removes agency and therefore responsibility from men and their actions. You're saying that they are passive recipients of sexual stimulation, that they have no control. I don't think you want to be saying that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
RandomHero



Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 1479

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My dick is golden and turk should see it before she decides what she likes and what she doesn't... I'm calling either utter astonishment and immediate turn on OR herpes, eye herpes!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Supafunky



Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 1085
Location: Bentonville

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JHess wrote:
turk wrote:
I know that girls wear makeup or tight jeans for reasons other than to be sexually stimulating.

What would these reasons be? Comfort, social commentary? No, I'm pretty sure it's to be sexy.


Just because it's the only reason you can hypothesis doesn't make it true.

JHess wrote:
turk wrote:
And guys should be able to appreaciate their physical beauty and even be attracted to them with it meaning sexual stimulation.

That's how girls work. Guys don't work that way. Again, for guys attraction = sexual stimulation


Actually there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. Girls and Guys actually "work" much the same way, but cultural norms condition our behaviors. Some of the proof of this is actually porn consumption. With the advent of internet porn and the ability to order porn anonymously, more and more women are purchasing and viewing porn.

In short, keep your gender stereotypes to yourself.

JHess wrote:
turk wrote:

No, I don't look at Playboy or Cosmo. I don't think I have to be an expert in looking at porn to be able to talk about this subject in the same way that I don't have to be raped to be able to talk about rape.

Actually, in order to know what you're talking about, to be an authority on something, this is the case. You can talk about physics all you want. But that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about untill you read the books or take the courses. I'm not an expert in porn. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument.


Knowing what you are talking about is not the same as being an authority. There are plenty of topics that can be intelligently discussed by non-authorities. Equating the ability to discuss physics with the ability to discuss porn is an extreme stretch, but let's continue it anyway.

A person who knows what sex is and understands that porn by just about any definition depicts people engaged in various sexual activities knows enough about the subject to have an intelligent discussion without being an authority. Just like a person who has been taught Newton's laws knows enough about physics to have an intelligent discussion about physics. In both cases, the amount of knoweledge is small and thereby limits the extent to which the people can speak.

It only discounts their speach if their comments extend beyond what they know or what can be logically inferred from their knowledge.

Just pointing out the flaws in your argument.

JHess wrote:
turk wrote:
Do you think the majority of guys that look at Playboy do so solely for the articles? The way you talk about physical attractiveness equalling sexual stimulation I would guess not.
Most people are too complicated to break down actions into one motive. I think if Playboy didn't have the nudes it would still be one of the best selling magazines in America, like Maxim. Again, you are not being considerate of the fact that men and women are wired differently. You really shouldn't be so judgemental.


Again, men and women aren't wired that differently. We are culturally conditioned very differently.
_________________
YOU CAN DO ANYTHING
as long as you have a safe word.


Last edited by Supafunky on Fri, 03.06.09 9:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Supafunky



Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 1085
Location: Bentonville

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JHess wrote:
trisarahtops wrote:
Also please refrain from saying things like the sole purpose for "putting on make-up and wearing tight jeans is to stimulate sexual desire"
I will maintain this until someone gives me another valid reason for make-up and tight clothes.


I think in many ways this statement validates what Sarah Fine is saying. Even though there are two women who are providing at least anecdotal statements that there are other reasons for wearing tight jeans and make-up, you maintain that you have to be convinced. And worse, until you are you will maintain that these ladies are only trying to stimulate sexual desire. This is the exact line of (ill)logic that results in the rape justification she's talking about.

JHess wrote:
I'm trying to point out that women who wear make-up and tight clothing and call porn a sin are hypocrites.


Don't think you made this point at all.

But, porn is not a sin.
_________________
YOU CAN DO ANYTHING
as long as you have a safe word.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jwillgoesfast



Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Posts: 1397

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Supafunky wrote:


But, porn is not a sin.


???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Supafunky



Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 1085
Location: Bentonville

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jwillgoesfast wrote:
Supafunky wrote:


But, porn is not a sin.


???


Sorry J-will. I meant to say Butt Porn is not a sin. Does that clear things up?
_________________
YOU CAN DO ANYTHING
as long as you have a safe word.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turk



Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Posts: 300

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Supafunky wrote:
jwillgoesfast wrote:
Supafunky wrote:


But, porn is not a sin.


???


Sorry J-will. I meant to say Butt Porn is not a sin. Does that clear things up?


"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:27-28
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sitton



Joined: 26 Aug 2003
Posts: 671

PostPosted: Wed, 03.04.09 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From my person as a Christian, I believe pornography is completely a sin. Though, we have to think back to pornography's genesis. As Hess has stated, Michelangelo formed what in antiquity, and still is today, art. The word pornography was certainly not around then, but the concept surely was. There were no magazines or videos of course, but the Renaissance certainly kept these ideas alive through painting, sculpting, and many other mediums. These ideas came even before the 14-17 centuries however, even to what is called the classical period. So we have a sort of concept that humanity has always indulged in such pleasure...this is a given. But what really is pornography then? It is merely lust.

It is not the sole form of lust. A girl (or guy if you prefer) does not need to be nude to be sexually attractive. As Hess has also stated, she can have tight jeans and makeup on as well. Is lust a good thing? I guess it depends upon your perspective, which is why things like this may never be resolved...but one can certainly be hopeful. Let's take a different approach. Is lust enjoyable? Sure, it can be. But for which side? Solely for the 'eye of the beholder.' But this brings us to the next issue, love vs. lust.

The best way I can differentiate the two in this setting is the following: Love is two-sided, lust is as has been stated, is one. But this brings up problems. You might ask, "but cannot a man lust for his wife?" This would be a snag if there wasn't a mutual agreement, a sort of bond, this epitome of two sided attraction we call marriage, in other words, love. What of a man looking at these 'items' during a bond of marriage? You could say he is attempting to get ideas for him and his wife. It is true that married couples look at pornography together for such a cause, but where is the creativity in this? It could be argued that they are inspired by nude images just as new musicians are inspired by other artists for their songs, but there is a problem in that one can only plagiarize in the former.

So while we can argue about one belief or another, it is only up to what the person viewing the pornography is thinking at that time, whether they are sinning or not. The only reason the Dude I believe said this was wrong is that ultimately this more often then not leads to lust, not admiring artistic beauty, not love...plain, old-fashioned lust.

I'll end with where most believe the statement "beauty is in the eye of the beholder' came from...and yes, it was from the classical period.

"Remember how in that communion only, beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities (for he has hold not of an image but of a reality), and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may." -Plato
_________________
"I'm Marty Stauffer, and until next time...enjoy our Wild America"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joel
Site Admin


Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 845
Location: varies

PostPosted: Thu, 03.05.09 12:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark, I disagree with a lot of what you said, but I'm just gonna stick with what I take to be your central argument which is, and correct me if I'm wrong:

lust is bad because a) it's one sided, and b) it's not as good as love

many porn stars are in porn because they make a lot of money and/or they like being lusted after, so it needn't be one sided. even if it were, if one person enjoys something and if another isn't harmed by it, that's ok right? one-sidedness isn't the best but that doesn't make it bad. similarly, lust isn't as nice as love, but that doesn't make it bad.

"all occurences of lust are bad" is a really strong claim, and while I appreciate the attempt to use something other than "because it says so in the bible" I can't help but feel like that's your real justification. I just can't imagine anyone, yourself included, being convinced by the argument above.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jacob



Joined: 13 May 2003
Posts: 1714

PostPosted: Thu, 03.05.09 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joel wrote:
This makes me wonder what % of posts on this board are trolls aimed at me.

Lol.
_________________
Bitches, Leave.
Robocop
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JHess



Joined: 02 Oct 2003
Posts: 1462
Location: Fort Collins, CO

PostPosted: Thu, 03.05.09 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

trisarahtops wrote:
Aw c'mon, you've never heard someone say "dressed like that, she was asking for it"? Any discussion that insinuates that the way a woman presents herself is "solely" for male sexual stimulation...removes agency and therefore responsibility from men and their actions.
Please don't mistake me. All individuals are responsible for their actions. I think the reason women wear certain items of apparel is solely to be attractive/sexy. I point this out only to say that if porn is a"creative activity (writing or pictures or films, etc) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire" then wearing make-up is porn. Personally, I think this definition is Bull$hit. I think you can offer a valid definition of porn. But, I don't think being sexy/attractive/slutty is asking to be raped.
trisarahtops wrote:
Also please refrain from saying things like the sole purpose for "putting on make-up and wearing tight jeans is to stimulate sexual desire"
JHess wrote:
I will maintain this until someone gives me another valid reason for make-up and tight clothes.

Supafunky wrote:
I think in many ways this statement validates what Sarah Fine is saying. Even though there are two women who are providing at least anecdotal statements that there are other reasons for wearing tight jeans and make-up, you maintain that you have to be convinced. And worse, until you are you will maintain that these ladies are only trying to stimulate sexual desire. This is the exact line of (ill)logic that results in the rape justification she's talking about.
Neither woman has offered any evidence that there are other reasons. They both pretty much did what Evan said; denied it without reason or changed the subject to something emotionally charged. Turk knows I'm wrong but doesn't give any reasons.
turk wrote:
I know that girls wear makeup or tight jeans for reasons other than to be sexually stimulating, therefore it does not fit within the definition of porn.
And Sarah thinks I'm close to condoning rape.
trisarahtops wrote:
lord fucking knows we don't need a conversation about how women who dress in a "sexy" way are asking to be raped.
Please, someone, give me another valid reason for make-up and I'll give it up. Come on Professor Frink, I know you've got something.
How do you get from wearing make-up is trying to be sexy to women who wear make-up are asking to be raped? I dunno. Maybe some people do make this leap, but I don't think that it is the logical conclusion.

Moving on,

JHess wrote:
That's how girls work. Guys don't work that way. Again, for guys attraction = sexual stimulation
Supafunky wrote:
Actually there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. Girls and Guys actually "work" much the same way, but cultural norms condition our behaviors.
So is it ok if I retract that bit about "That's how girls work"? I really don't know if men and women are hardwired the same way. I know that my discussions with alot of guys and my personal experience has lead me to believe that attraction=sexual stimulation. Do you disagree with this?


Thirdly,

Supafunky wrote:
A person who knows what sex is and understands that porn by just about any definition depicts people engaged in various sexual activities knows enough about the subject to have an intelligent discussion without being an authority
You can have an intelligent discussion without knowing what you're talking about and it's just a bunch of jibber-jabber. You can say that Bethoven's Fifth is a good piece of music, but until you've experienced it, it's not a very informed opinion. Similarily, you can say Playboy is porn, but untill you've flipped through it, you really don't know what you're talking about. Most people believe that humans have an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Sin vs Righteousness. If you believe this, then it's ok to check Playboy for porn. So, I urge you. Flip through it. See for yourself. Get back to me.


And finally,

When in doubt, pound that 2,000 year old work of fiction:
turk wrote:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:27-28
I'm pretty sure Matt is wrong about this. Adultery is an act and you can't committ an act internally. However, rather than argue scriptures with a Christian let me quote another dead guy:

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Mohandas Gandhi


Sitton wrote:
But what really is pornography then? It is merely lust.
Is the feeling of lust porn or is it the object of lust? If it's the feeling of lust than is reading Playboy a sin if it doesn't turn you on?
_________________
Hug it out, bitch.

Ari


Last edited by JHess on Thu, 03.05.09 1:14 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RBill



Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Posts: 1572
Location: home

PostPosted: Thu, 03.05.09 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. that post was long.
_________________
Homey don't play that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LS-ultimate.com Forum Index -> Forum GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 2 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Designed by: Powered by: © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group