Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belinda]

I would think that good pornography wouldn't exactly care to be associated with the high brow of academia. Porn's true audience is not the voyeur but the engaged -- intrusive social institutions are left dangling outside in the cold. The voyeurs, however, are those passing by with eyes askew wondering how porn might suitably fit-in.

As I wrote, pornography is a popular genre. This is not to say that' highbrow' persons cannot and do not indulge in popular genres. However 'highbrow ' persons are more likely than those who unthinkingly follow fashion to be selective as to the best occasions to use pornography, and to see it for what it is, only a smallish part of human experience.

I suppose that pornography is not emotionally engaging only for those who are so accustomed to explicit material that they are not turned on by it. Or for those who are ill,old, or very young. Sex and its skilful portrayals is naturally very engaging. Also I think that voyeurism is a sexually motivated activity.


It is regrettable but necessary that social institutions interfere in sexual behaviours but, as with all sorts of other activities, some sexually active individuals do harm others because of their sexual activities . Therefore most people believe that harmful sexual behaviour should be illegal, or at least discouraged.

Uses and misuses of pornography is a departure from the original question which is about the parameters of art and not-art.

Pornography may be comapered with for instance the officially approved pictures of Nazi Germany , which were not untrue as part-truths, after all, there were German heroes. What pornography shares with Nazi Germany pictures is the exloitative motives of the makers, and the gullibility of the target audience.

[Whitedragon]

Thank you for that post, Belinda.

You depict and explain the subject fairly for all parties, keeping them true to each other, which I believe was an indifference from all parties. However, I have another question; why are we forced to wear seat belts; is our lives not our own? How can that be compared with harmful porn, which should be withheld from the creator and consumer, regardless their tastes and preferences? Why is the body valued more than the mind, when it is mind moving the body?

[Fleetfootphil]

The last two posts leave me confused. It's as if you are blaming porn for the deliberate harmful actions of conscious human beings. In relation to art, porn is not much different from a statue of the Virgin Mary in a church. People go there, absorb it and come away with the need to be responsible for their life decisions unchanged.

[Whitedragon]

Some of my posts, have been skipped; I received no comment on my previous two posts, which I think should be answered first, please. Save the last one, which has been answered, by side stepping a vital question in it: “Why is the body valued above the mind, if the mind moves the body?” The virgin Mary does nothing for my body, as much as she does something for my mind/soul. Ergo, what does porn do for the soul? Art's purpose is to elevate the spirit and soul; to answer complex questions of the world, which can otherwise not be understood, or which people are blind for. What questions does porn answer, or how does it make us rethink life? I will admit that some nudity clarifies questions, and can be used as powerful tools, even religious tools, but can all porn do that? Nudity and porn is not the same thing to me; I know you think I'm splinting hairs, but please bare with me. Some nudity can be art, but no porn can be art; it is vulgar. It is vulgar not because it is ugly, but because it is beautiful, (please refer back to my previous posts to understand the context.) It is vulgar, because some beauty elevates and some beauty is empty and deprived of any substance, destroying our own good substance; all art has substance, thus porn is not art.

Men and women having sex, is not a depiction of art; although sex in wholesome contexts is beautiful, and uplifting; but it has no message or artistic tang, which makes you think about life. At best all forms of sex, is a celebration of life, but when you do it amorally you can get sick with STD's and AIDS. It can make life much less of a celebration and joy. The mind drives the body/person, but this humanism, which is being proposed here is deprived of realism, ethics, morals, and love. Sin is being advocated here, but it is called “art” instead. I actually do wish, some artist would conjure up true nude art, which will have this defense of lust and selfishness in derision … perhaps an old porn star dying of aids, swinging and contorting her body round a stripper's pole in the hospital with a sad relative peeping round the corner.

[Fleetfootphil]

Whitedragon: I don't accept that there is a soul so, to me, your argument about art elevating it falls apart. Research over the past few decades has shown that the mind does not move the body, the body moves itself and the mind makes excuses and plays catch up afterward.

Vulgar things can certainly be art (See H. Bosch). Both porn and the Virgin Mary give the viewer a sort of buzz. To me it's an empty and hollow one but it makes their relationship to art almost identical. If the porn viewer goes off and harms someone, it's his or her fault. If the Mary viewer goes off and denies medicine to his or her dying child because the buzz from the statue told her to, it's her fault again.

I need a definition of sin before I can know if I am advocating it.

[Supine]

So basically there are two questions. Is it art and is it addictive

Actually, UA, I think the question was more like: does art free us whereas what we might regard as non-artistic pornography deliver us into bondage? Addictions.

I don't think philosophy should just be about rebelling against conservatism or tradition for the sake of rebellion. Likewise, I don't think liberalism ought come to define itself through rebellion against conservatism and tradition for the sake of rebellion. In my mind if either did - or does that - they are stuck in perpetual adolescence. While I'm not a parent in real life there might be a reason why as a parent I slap my infants hand as he or she continually tries to stick his or hers fingers in electrical outlets. The child may come to tears due to the forced restrictions I (authority) impose but that may be due the child's lesser inability to understand. Likewise, there might be prudent reasons I don't allow my teenage daughter or son to sleep over the house of her or his boyfriend or girlfriend. It may anger them and seem as "stupid conservatism" and that age may inspire a lot of rebellion for the sake of rebellion.

Having said that. One - as adults - has to confront the fact there are different genres of pornography. For example, Japan, something like 99% Buddhist, invented the patriarchal genre of porn who's intent is to humiliate women and derive sexual arousal from humiliating women, and exported it to the world. Germany has enthusiastically picked up and successfully marketed the world famous German Goo Girls. The Germans and Japanese have always had similarities in cultures in some respects. I heard one person refer to the Germans as the Japanese of Europe. Perhaps that is why they fell on the same side during WWII.

Not all pornography has been legalized in the United States. Full story: jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/m ... 13821.html

Man who police reports say possessed child porn not yet charged

Louie Flowers told police he will be a "child predator for the rest of his life" and "would go to hell" for his sins, according to a June arrest report.

Police found pictures on Flowers' computer of girls who appeared to be as young as 6 years old being sexually assaulted, according to the report. He admitted to a Milwaukee Police Department detective that he viewed pornographic websites, depicting adults and children, and masturbated to the images.

I for one empathize with this man. Although I do not sympathize with him. I can't imagine what hell it must be like to be in bondage to such a type of sexual desires.

Perhaps this is an example of "unethical sexual stimulation" as Belinda might put it. Today most people would not regard child porn as art, if for no other reason than they don't want to be perceived as on the wrong side of what is politically cool.

Out of all the world perhaps Japan is an interesting subject when it comes to the Western worlds anti-sexualization efforts and pro-age discrimination practices and prejudices. While I'm not certain, I doubt even Korea or Thailand shares the same history or traditions of sexual fetishes as Japan. The Japanese culture has always had some prominent streams of it where adult men had a thing for underage girls (and boys). Japanese monks used to compose poetry about adult monks taking young boys as lovers and initiating them into the world of sex. This was an amoral issue for them. And I've been told recently - though I'm not sure how true it is - this was not confined to the Japanese monasteries but was embraced holistically by the whole of Japanese society at one time. I do know the samurai were one of the most bisexual institutions on earth (17th Century Italian culture as well) but that is a different issue - however interesting - for another thread.

I might agree with you, however, that "normal" porn, even if "hardcore," and even if viewed by persons having functional addictions (like functional alcoholics - e.g., it does not get in the way or work family etc.) to it is not a directly dangerous thing for society. I don't think I would advocate criminalizing it. (I'm pro decriminalization of prostitution and marijuana and cocaine and heroin).

But a porn site like Ghetto Gaggers which I mentioned earlier, a very American kind of thing, has indirect cultural roots in more classic American non-pornographic cinema as the film A Birth of a Nation. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the socio-psychological bases of Ghetto Gaggers is "natural" and universal to Homo sapiens across the globe. The socio-psychological bases of it would be foreign to the cultures and instincts of Brazilians and Italians for example. Now, whether or not Ghetto Gaggers is art or "smut" is open to debate, but currently my mind tells me it;s no worse than that world famous Brazilian porn clip Two Girls and a Cup.

-- Updated December 11th, 2012, 2:25 pm to add the following --

Pornography may be comapered with for instance the officially approved pictures of Nazi Germany , which were not untrue as part-truths, after all, there were German heroes. What pornography shares with Nazi Germany pictures is the exloitative motives of the makers, and the gullibility of the target audience.

Those same part truths (propaganda) were used by the United States to emotionally motivate young U.S. men to enter World War II. I saw a film about this in an art appreciation class (which by the way regarded propaganda as art) in community college. The film interviewed the German man in charge of producing Nazi propaganda films and then the American from Hollywood paid by the U.S. Government to work with a U.S. military officer to develop and produce American anti-Nazi propaganda films.

The American from Hollywood said when he saw the Nazi films he thought they were of such high propaganda quality that he could not successfully counter them. Then he got the brilliant idea! Use the Nazi's own films against them. So, with selective editing they made German Nazis look like militant, robotic, thugs. They used only selective cuts of Hitler that woulds make him appear obviously crazed out of his mind.

I can only conclude this is why we get the images of Nazis and Hitler today that usually only depicts them as robotic.

That said... prior to the part truths produced by U.S. propaganda films most U.S. males were apathetic about the European war and had no desire to go fight the Germans (they after all largely agreed with most of the Eugenic beliefs of the German Nazis).

-- Updated December 11th, 2012, 2:45 pm to add the following --

The last two posts leave me confused. It's as if you are blaming porn for the deliberate harmful actions of conscious human beings. In relation to art, porn is not much different from a statue of the Virgin Mary in a church. People go there, absorb it and come away with the need to be responsible for their life decisions unchanged.

The traditional art of the Virgin Mary is Talibanesque. I angered some conservative Catholics by mentioning that online when some of them were is discussion over modesty, yet all the women wore jeans and high heels (apparently the dress style they had - in keeping with the contemporary, national, customs of the time). As I pointed out to them, as a rule of thumb, conservatives always follow behind liberals and eventually adopt their mores.

The Virgin Mary is depicted dressed like young girls dress in Afghanistan today. And that is in no way equatable to pornographic images. The concept of modesty - in relation to loss of innocence - is a direct contradiction to the concept of nudity (nudity is a term that can carry a more negative connotation to the more neutral an amoral term of "nakedness").

On an interesting note, the French intellectual Fernand Bruadel told us (the world) that fashion trends are one element that distinguish "progressive societies" from "stable societies." As he pointed out... you have some stable societies were the fashion of dress has not changed in several thousand years.

Afghanistan is an example of that. More prosperous nations like Dubai and Qatar are partly examples of that (there are more serial rapists - and psychopaths - running around the single city of Milwaukee than there are in Dubai and Qatar combined).



-- Updated December 11th, 2012, 2:49 pm to add the following --

Some of my posts, have been skipped; I received no comment on my previous two posts, which I think should be answered...

I'll answer to them, WD, once another person posts, so my current post won't expand in length any more enormous that what it already is. Your views tend to be very sober in my opinion.

-- Updated December 11th, 2012, 3:22 pm to add the following --

Whitedragon: I don't accept that there is a soul so, to me, your argument about art elevating it falls apart. Research over the past few decades has shown that the mind does not move the body, the body moves itself and the mind makes excuses and plays catch up afterward.

Vulgar things can certainly be art (See H. Bosch). Both porn and the Virgin Mary give the viewer a sort of buzz. To me it's an empty and hollow one but it makes their relationship to art almost identical. If the porn viewer goes off and harms someone, it's his or her fault. If the Mary viewer goes off and denies medicine to his or her dying child because the buzz from the statue told her to, it's her fault again.

I need a definition of sin before I can know if I am advocating it.

Catholicism does not deny the use of modern medicine. There are after all how many numbers of Catholic hospitals across the United States . You stated to WD that the soul does not exist thereby indicating (not explicitly) that his premise is false. Even assuming that is the case it does you no better to then construct a false premise about Catholicism and the Virgin Mary statue. I think you're looking for the Jehova Witnesses when it comes to denying loved ones medicine or blood transfusions.

But more on topic... I've pointed out in an earlier response how images of the Virgin Mary (or a clothed President of the United States for that matter) are not equatable to nudity and pornography.

The locution "pornography" is a value-laden and theory-laden concept who's meaning contradicts the term "modesty."

But I have to cede that Universal Alien makes a good point - one I can not deny and agree with fully - that what constitutes pornographic can differ from one person to the next. In general most of us have a general idea, at least a point of demarcation most of us agree with, what for certain is "pornographic." I doubt many of us would oppose the idea that Two Girls and One Cup is a pornographic film.

I know from experience there are Catholics, atheists, and agnostics that think some images are pornographic or inappropriate that I don't.

I was reprimanded on a Catholic board for posting this image of Argentinian actress Mia Maestro. Apparently they thought it was inappropriate. I assume because the images focal point includes the side of her backside. I know for a fact there is atheist women in England (from a different site) that would agree. The latter being motivated by "non-epistemic" values like political correctness that often proposes all women are equally beautiful, young boys should be indoctrinated with this, and society should censor any and all images that glorifies one females beauty or sex appeal over another.



This is why I think there is something to the idea that all "seeing" is theory-laden (and "value-laden") and that is a conditional of one's upbringing, culture, politics, and education etc.

Art is not without using symbols (carrying cultural messages) after all.

[Whitedragon]

I need a definition of sin before I can know if I am advocating it.

The problem is, what is right and what is wrong looks exactly the same sometimes; however they are comprised of a different essence that cannot always be seen with the eyes, or discriminated by the mind. Thus, what is wrong may be embraced now by us all, but it insidiously works inside us, and in the end takes our money, our health, and our loved ones, (either their lives or their respect). The evil one would not present something ugly to us, who would embrace it then? By the way I'm not catholic, I'm protestant. Yet I believe most churches, (despite their politics), are merely trying to protect us against these dangers. As I say somewhere someone have come to stand before the same questions that we did; don't think the ancient Greeks, Hebrews, or Romans were stupid. Look at their language, it surpasses ours in complexity and intelligence. Tell me, on whose shoulders are we standing, our own or our ancestors'? Let us read the bible, and take it a little seriously even if we are atheists; there is some good ethical guidelines in there, which will teach us to see, what men usually shun.

God created heaven and earth, and the method he/she chose to continue that life, was sex; but not without love. Do the math … though our sexuality must be very powerful for this reason, it can also be the most vulnerable point of attack, because it is tied to our ego and identity. I say again, some nudity is wholesome and constructive, and CAN be art, but porn is sin, because it endangers the identity, the ego; our sanity, and our health. Ergo porn is sin, because it is based on selfishness and lust; thus the nudity has lost it's art, and is now without purpose and being driven by selfishness, which doesn't care for the persons involved. The greatest attack you can ever launch against a man is to attack or make him doubt his identity; that is why psychiatrist ask manic and psychotic people this first question, “What is your name.” At the same time it brings you back to reality, but at the same time it is an attack on your identity. Sex is more closely tied to identity than you can ever know; therefore it is tied to sanity and insanity; dare we toy with this? Even psychologists would disagree with certain forms of sex and porn. If there is not a God out there weeping for our sins, it is a mother, a wife, or a child; who are either losing their parent through shame, sickness, or divorce.

[Belinda]

Supine's phoso of Maria Maestro would n't be pornography to anybody I know, as far as I know. The sheen on her green dress does not accentuate any primary sexual organs, but only the litheness of her joints and muscles. There are , I know, people who believe and feel that a woman is to blame for displaying any of her body that any man might be sexually aroused by.

What in Earth were you writing to such a forum for? I can only imagine you to be exploring the convolutions of their prejudices.

[Fleetfootphil]

Supine: I was talking about the relationship of porn and religious iconography to art, not equating them in the sense that you portray. And I did not say there is no soul, I said I don't personally accept that there is one so any argument that requires one does not work for me. It may for you and others.

[Whitedragon]

I don't have a problem with nudity, as I said; I even don't have a problem with certain forms of porn. But if the people involved in porn, neglect their own well being and the well being of others that is a problem. Take for example the movie, “As it is in Heaven” where the woman walks nude into the river with the musician. They also slept together in the movie. That is not porn, it is nudity. It was very beautiful to me, because it depicted the love between a man and a women. My problem with porn is when the content becomes harmful; (as I said in my previous post). Sex is connected with the identity and ego; thus also with sanity. If the porn stars are endangered with STD's and AIDS, and their movies and pictures fall into the hands of children, whom are not mature enough to handle or to understand or to apply the content responsibly … that is a huge problem. The nude body is art, it becomes porn when it serves a single minded purpose, at the cost of all parties' mental and physical well being. No one can tell any one what is beautiful, but time taught me that all forms of porn are not elevating to the mind. Why hide behind the word art? Two people having sex is beautiful; it is their bodies that is art, (take the golden ration: 1.61818), but the deed is not art, especially if it is based on indifferent and selfish agendas and motives. Some men and women are indeed a work of art, but there is no art in taking Art and exposing it to that natural artistic function in a way that will eventually cause that Art pain, sickness and shame. Is there ANYONE here that would be comfortable to have their mothers or fathers as prostitutes, strippers, and porn stars? The question is: can we damage or destroy Art (person) in an artistic venture? And that's the rub.

[Supine]

What in Earth were you writing to such a forum for? I can only imagine you to be exploring the convolutions of their prejudices.

I think I posted that photo in a thread about men on the board that weren't getting any sex from their wives (the women asexual or no longer interested in sex) but remained committed to their marriage. I think one gentleman stated that even after counseling failed and his wife remained adamant she no longer wanted to have sex ever again, he chose to still love his wife regardless. That he would rather be married to her and never have sex than be married to another woman and have sex all the time.

To understand that one has to be cognitive of the Catholic view of fidelity in marriage, vows honored, and the received view of the sacramental conception of marriage.

I responded that there isn't that much love in the world. Not for me. Unless my wife was built like a stick. Absent of that and if she was curvaciously built like Mia Maestro (which photo I provided) part of the reason for marrying her because there are things I want to do to her. I went on to say that if that didn't happen their would be objects flying in the house and I'd come home a belligerent drunk.

Their prejudice if anything were against divorce or extramarital affairs or in the case of the photo I posted of Mia Maestro, immodest dress. However, I suspect more than a few participants of that board (perhaps none that might have objected - and possibly some that might have) that are conservative females, wear dresses like that for special occasions in public.

If the porn stars are endangered with STD's and AIDS...

Does good art result in STD's or AIDS?

Two people having sex is beautiful...

Eh... I hate when people say that. No it's not. No more than a canine raping another canine. Or cockroaches copulating.

The English speaking world over uses the words "beautiful" and "love" to the point of almost rendering those terms meaningless. Maybe we need to create more than one word for those two words like the romantic languages have more than one for the word love? Or like the Eskimos (I forget their proper Amerindian name) have several for the descriptive word "white."

A woman - or man - being bent over and banged in their rear is not beautiful. It is what it is. Just because we derive physical pleasure from it - like is had by IV heroin use or cigarette smoking - does not de facto make it "beautiful."

[Whitedragon]

I'm getting the impression here that I'm being quoted out of contexts. I thought I made it clear that some forms of nudity is uplifting. I didn't say all nudity or even porn leads to STD's and AIDS, those were merely subsequent possibilities, reserved for certain scenarios. I thought my main emphasis was that sex, ego, and sanity is connected. I also didn't say that sex in itself is beautiful; sex is beautiful when you can see the love between the man and the woman. And my most important statement was sidestepped, which I also felt like putting a smilly face behind, but I didn't. Answer this question PLEASE, I think it is put quite eloquently, since art is the question here … Can Art, be lost, damaged, or destroyed in a venture of art? And let me add to that, is it ethical? There are some forms of porn, which doesn't endanger our identity, but others do, causing our identity and expectations to be incongruous with ethics, and the rest of society. It is like soldiers who go to fight a war, but return and struggle to live among civilians again. But people overdoing porn is not soldiers, they letting the animal side of their brain rule them; we are humans because of the fact that there is balance between our lizard brain and our more sophisticated part, which is suppose to stand against our animal impulses. That is what separates us from animals. And now shoot me for throwing this into the spokes; but if you don't have The Holy Spirit in you, you won't understand the value of controlling, (not suppressing), your animal side. Ethics and religion teaches our identity to be responsible. It is a question of Temperance, which I fear is absent all over here. 7, 14, 21. In tarot terms those are the Chariot, Temperance, and The World. The Chariot stands for will power, but also for the fact that humans beings are more than just human beings. 7 follows the lovers card; thus if you were successful in love you move on to 7. 14 Stands for balance, and to know what works well together and what doesn't. It does not do well to be biased either in ethics or in lust. 21, the World, stands for completion. So it would seem the goal of the tarot is to teach us how to control ourselves. Take elven the mystery or magic number, or in some decks it is 8. Strength or lust; you'll find a women taming a lion; this means inner strength and control. Can this refer to the different parts of the brain? Now ask yourself, are you in control or is the lion in control? If the lion is in control, go one step back; 10, the ultimate number of completion and also a very religious card, the wheel of fortune. Now ask yourself, is there a problem with your religion. Divide 10 by 2 and you get five, the Hierophant. The moral card of the deck, standing also for tradition. Now ask yourself am I religiously or traditionally doing unethical things? And if you solve that problem you can move unto 6, the lovers card. Oh I love the tarot, it's so in your face. And if you have a problem with bondage/addiction/over confidence/ego, the devil 15, go back to 14, Temperance … do you have temperance?

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

I guess it depends on your definition of pornography as well as on your definition of art. Last month I walked into a museum and there was (literally) a mountain of dirty, used underwear piled up in the middle of the museum. That was supposed to be one of the artists "pieces" and it was quite expensive too.

The month before there was an artist hanging little plastic sacks filled with garbage on the trees of the museum's front lawn. And that was his exhibition entry.

Personally I don't think such things should be regarded as art, so I don't think pornography is art either. But, there has always been nudity even in classical paintings like the Venus etc.. I think that is art. Some people argue that pornography is anything where a person is portrayed naked. So in that case pornography could be art... but I think especially nowadays pornography doesn't usually refer simply to paintings with nude subjects and much less to paintings of Greek Gods.

[Belinda]

Emmanuel Goldstein has not made it clear to me what he wants. A definition of pornography? A definition of art ? What posh art galleries should and should not buy? If we are agreed on what pornography is, do we agee on whether it is good or evil, and why? In each case, I hope to read an argument for or against.

EG is not the only poster who fails to be sufficiently explicit or objective regarding descriptive and evaluative criteria.It matters that we can argue beyond our personal likes and dislikes to general principles, because the art which we consume, and which we make, is our business in life.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

I don't WANT to make a definition. Everyone has to make their own definition and come up with their own views. I am just HINTING at how I view it and then everyone is free to agree or disagree with it