Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

There are some levels of pornography that are more....Obscure than what the average person would want to see.

Take for instance, swap.avi

Funk. How anybody could enjoy it makes me wonder where our society has gone.

_________________

Has anyone thought it was ever wierd that some people are more offended with Violence than Pornography, I know some pornography out there is some of the wierdest stuff around, however Pornography is amusement while violence is people harming each other.

EDIT: Just ignore what I just said, it's idiotic. The only reason it is still around is if anybody wants to refer to it, which I do not recommend

_________________
Click this link unless you hate Homestar Runner & Strong Bad. You like Homestar & Strong Bad, don't you?

Then why bother to go to church at all? Isn't that essentially living a lie? But from my perspective, if the Bible is indeed a record of God's interaction with humanity (and I have reason to believe it is), then it stands to reason that whatever God says about the nature of homosexuality is true, regardless of whether you are willing to accept it or not.

I'm having a hard time understanding your question, JAU. At first, you seemed to be asking why people are more offended by violence, but later, you seem to affirm that you believe violence to be more offensive.

I will answer from my own perspective: sex and violence are both realities of the world in which we live. As such, I think there can be adequate portrayals of both, but in my own estimation, there is far too much gratuitous portrayal of both. I like a good fight movie, like LOTR or Star Wars. But I have always found things like Friday the 13th to be just plain ridiculous. Violence can be portrayed in a way that contributes to the story, but it can also be portrayed in ways that appeal to baser feelings of people, to make them revel in the violence and gore.

So let us now relate this to pornography. While there can be adequate portrayals of love in a movie, the vast majority of pornography is entirely gratuitous. In fact, pornography by its very nature is intended to be gratuitous, to appeal to baser human instincts, to promote lust and fantasizing. While I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert on the subject of pornographic cinema, I would challenge anyone to put forth any pornographic movies where the porn was there simply to engage the story, and not to appeal to lust.

So there it is: violence can be a part of the story-telling, but gratuitous violence appeals to baser feelings, to blood-lust if you will. In the same way, love can be portrayed in a movie in a way that is tasteful and contributes to the story, but pornography appeals to baser human feelings of lust.

_________________

So? What else is it supposed to do? Tell an intelligent story of two love-struck friends who end up cheating on each other but still going back together after realizing that what they wanted is right infront of them?

No, then that would make a crappy romantic comedy. Pornography isn't supposed to be a crappy Romantic Comedy, its supposed to be a Crappy Pornographic Comedy.

Case in Point: The Bodacious Spider Babe.

Seriously, what the heck is going on in this film? We don't know, but its hot and the bad effects make me laugh.

_________________

Not exist? I might have to go out on a limb and say that.

If we're going to compare violence and lust and base feelings, I think I'll just bring up things like the Colosseum and gladiator battle that existed to satisfy people's lust for blood. Just because people wanted to see it, didn't make it right, you know? Same applies here.

_________________

Cola, if you prefer humanity being driven by all its basest instincts instead of by decent, reasonable, moral behavior (i.e., you prefer everyone to be a bloodthirsty sex-crazed maniac), then I suppose that's up to you. Me, I actually prefer human beings tempering their lusts with rational thought.

_________________

So you're saying that anyone who watches porn is obviously a Sex-Crazed maniac who cares nothing more than to satisfy his most primal need(Or should I say WANT)?[size=0]See? I can build a bigger strawman out of yours.[/size]

_________________

What I think Didy is going at is that someone who watches porn is a person who does not have good self control over himself in that realm of his life, a realm that really needs to be carefully looked over.

_________________

Pornography serves no other function than to magnify lust and lustful behavior, both of which are spiritually unhealthy, and if left unchecked, can become mentally unhealthy. Pornography also promotes the objectification of women as well as men - though typically the former more than the latter - which is a socially unhealthy attitude, and is ultimately a contributing factor behind human trafficking and prostitution slavery.

_________________

But the men and women consent to it, they allow it to happen, they sign a release, and they get paid for it!

And what do you mean "If left unchecked"? Do you mean anyone who watches porn should go to a therapist and tell them "I watch porn, I am a naughty naughty boy for watching two people create passion, please help me"?

I understand that you've studied it, and helped around 4 or 5 porn addicts, but those were ADDICTS, they spent ALL of their time watching porn a masturbating. Not all people who do watch porn end up like that.

And yes, it may be "Spiritually" unhealthy, but what would you rather do? According to christian text, you can't have sex unless you are married, and then only with your spouse, and we all know how many times a wife puts out three months after the honeymoon,(Wink Wink), so whats a guy to do? Hold it all in, and eventually become a Frigid man? Are they to force their wife to consent? Are they to go out and pay for a harlot? What are they do that won't get them in trouble with the law?

_________________

1. Divorce and have sex with someone else.
2. Have sex with his wife when they both want to.

Actually, you're making an awful huge assumption about the nature of the addiction, Cola, one which paints a picture of them as the worst of the worst. Fact is, their addiction was compulsive in nature, but it wasn't like they were giving in 24/7. Still, the addiction bore a heavy negative impact on their lives, one which they were not pleased with.

And Cola, without even realizing it, you just proved my point. Porn objectifies both men and women as mere sex objects. Your description of the male sex drive demonstrates that you've already bought into the lie. Men may have heightened sexual urges on account of their biology, but we also have brains, and if we'll use them instead of letting our hormones do the thinking for us, we can get by. People have lived celibate lives before, and to my knowledge it hasn't killed anyone - may have prevented a few births, but that's about it.

As for the different biological sex drives between the two sexes, that's what you have communication for. Husbands and wives can talk to each other and communicate their needs, and work together to find a solution. But I would suggest that, if a man isn't willing to work at his relationship with his wife, and has to turn to porn, he already has a problem.

And as for the Bible, Jesus says that to look at a woman with lust makes you just as guilty as an adulterer. Granted, you might have to worry about the legal, biological, and/or relational consequences, but you're still polluting your mind.

And Ian, that first option you offered is actually forbidden as adultery.

_________________

Yeah, but I'm just giving our hypothetical person another option, since he isn't a Christian, apparently.

Porn is not required to do that. Instinctively, men and women see each other as tools of reproduction and are drawn to each other for that purpose.

And that, my friends, is where Love was created.

_________________

It is true that men and women are sexually attracted to each other, but that's not the same as objectification. Objectification is when someone thinks of and treats others as if they are MERE sex objects, and not complete human beings, and when that attitude is promoted.

_________________

Before we created this concept of being more than just meat bags that's all we were. We sat around, used/stored energy and sometimes used that stored energy to find a mate to reproduce with.

What "concept" of being more than meatbags? We ARE more than meatbags. The fact you're typing on a computer pretty much demonstrates that.

_________________

What I'm saying is when you have a barebones human male and a barebones human female with no culture or language then they will see each other simply as another item or creature to have reproduce with.

But when have human beings ever been "barebones", as you say? In order for the human species to survive, there are many other things that must be in place for that survival to take place. For example, caring for the young, ensuring their survival. That in itself would have to be at least as important as the act of reproduction itself.

But MY point is, regardless of what you may think about "barebones" human sexuality, the fact is we have progressed far beyond it. I do not concede that we have ever been MERELY sexual creatures (because if we had been, we wouldn't have survived this long), but even if it were the case, we most certainly cannot be now.

Earlier, you said that the concept of humans being more than meatbags was a construct. But on closer examination, I can't help but feel, on the contrary, that your "barebones" human sexuality is the construct.

_________________

On the note of objectification, I've never really seen "real" people (i.e., people I can interact with as opposed to who I see on the screen) as mere sex objects. Seeing them as sex objects means that if they're not going to have sex with me, I'm wasting my time. I don't feel that way about anybody. Oh, sure, I do get lustful feelings, even strong ones at times. But I never get deeply attracted to anybody without actually caring about them as a person.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Remember that blonde haired pageant queen that kicked off the plane a while ago?

Well, I guess she's now on Playboy to show off what her Daddy gave her for her 19th birthday.

I still don't get the mentality of someone that likes to pose naked for perverted old men and prepubescent kids.

_________________

Here it is: "I want money."

_________________

I finally moved the AbuGrape45/COLA argument to the Spam Vault. You guys behave now, all right?

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Well there goes a whole threads worth of valid arguments.

_________________

I'm doing this experiment again throughout the month of December, starting from the 1st. I didn't bring it up before because at first I was thinking I'd completely forget and not realize until it was too late, in which case posting about it would have been a waste of time. So far that hasn't happened, so I'm probably safe there.

Again I would be remiss if I didn't mention the times I bent my own rules: I did deliberately subject myself to pornography three times so far this month, but not for the usual reasons. One time I was curious if "rule 34" of something existed on this website dedicated to rule 34 (I already forget what it was I was looking for) -- which, amazingly enough, it didn't -- a second time I wanted to find an old, old pic I came across years ago because I figured I'd probably forget to look for it after the month was over, which I quickly found and then I moved on; the third time I wanted to look at one of the pics I had because I kinda forgot what exactly it looked like. Didn't want the curiosity driving me nuts, heh.

I'm going to make sure I don't bend my rules too much, but so far I don't think it's been a problem. I don't feel that I'm just making excuses to see dirty pictures. (If I am, it's not very effective. Hasn't satisfied me terribly much.)

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Eh, there are worse things in the world than some people Funk in front of a camera, and porn never did me wrong, so I can't say I have direct problem with it. So long as the subjects in the pornography are either nonexistent (e.g. simulated/drawn) or consenting, I don't ethically find issue with pornography. Sometimes porn can be stimulating, and I'm not going to hold my instincts to contempt by ignoring or glorifying sexuality.

I'm thinking about terminating my experiment or changing the rules. I keep bending them and I realized that I didn't really set clear criteria or goals for the experiment. I don't know how I'd judge my success, or even what success would really mean. So I could argue that the experiment isn't really valid, but of course that could also be seen as a too-convenient way to chicken out on the deal. Hmm.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Kef, why don't you terminate the one you have going, then formulate one with clearer and more defined rules and start the whole thing over again?

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

Ehh, I don't really wanna start over from scratch. If I do that I'd have to do it over the course of another month, and I don't really want to. I guess in that sense my experiment has already produced a result: I don't like going without naughty pictures for extended periods. That doesn't really tell me whether or not it's a problem, though -- not that I think I have a real problem, but it's nice to test for regardless.

I think where my experiment broke down, though, was the exception where I allowed myself to draw it. (Hey, should I even be talking about drawing naughty pictures here? >.>) The problem is that it's difficult to draw from the imagination alone, especially if you're inexperienced, so artists need reference pictures, which creates a problem: I need reference pictures which I can't look at. That's no fun.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found