Philosophy Discussion Forums

Universal Alien wrote:

conclusion I would say that the word pornography, because it has a negative connotation to many, is hard to define as art BUT when we magically change the word to Erotica suddenly it is art

When nothing but evaluative connotations are the intent of the transmitter of some sexually explicit material the words 'pornography' and 'erotica' are interchangeable. Indeed 'erotica' has been so often misused as spin for pornography that is it now practically a snide word for pornography.

**********************

Regarding sexually explicit material, Misty compared medical illustrations with popular pornography. I would like to align medical illustrations and artistic pictures because both of those attempt to tell truths about some limited but real aspect of life. By contrast the intention of the pornographer is to sell sensational material regardless of whether or not it is true: it usually isn't because its entire purpose is profit.

Supine asks me if I think that being a pornographic model is demeaning to women. I think that pornography demeans both men and women equally unless the men and women are using it sceptically and purposefully without sexism for ethical sexual stimulation.

When pornography lies as it does, scepticism is absent both because the maker of the pornography is a lier and purveyor of part truths, and because the consumer is a child or other gullible person. This is why pornography has to be controlled because gullible people need protection. Of course, the gullible should be educated in scepticism, but this is a distant ideal unfortunately. Pornography is a particularly clever lie because pornography gives immediate rewards to its consumer. Pornography is so remunerative that it is used to confer a spurious image on other, unrelated, consumer products.

The woman who is the pornographic model, even when well paid and respected by colleagues, is compicit in the lie and is earning her money from selling part truths. Life in the round is not airbrushed.

Belinda,

Correct Belinda, thank you for clarifying my meaning.

Lying and complicity permeates the world of commercials by selling partial truths, usually sexual in nature, and just as damaging as the pornographic as they are more subtle, and blast the public constantly by TV, movies, newspaper, magazines and even everyday language, etc..

UniversalAlien wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


There is an old expression: "one man's medicine is another man's poison".

Here is an new expression: "One man's {or women's} art is another persons pornography.

That actually may be true.

I have seen films considered pornographic {Devil in Miss Jones, Deep Throat, etc., etc.}. Some were {and they tell me still are} more artistic than others. To me none that I saw were pornographic. BUT every time I watch a 'Soap-Opera' so popular with the mass audience, I see pornography...

You may have a point (from my point of view) about soap operas. Although I'm told in Brazil just about everyone loves their "novelas." (Just a different name for soap operas).

To me negative interactions exposing the negative side of human emotions is obscene.

Which would be more than a few genres of porn. Including but not limited to the faked snuff films. While I don't get into snuff films most of the porn I enjoy is on the very "hardcore" side of things that tends to completely objectify a person into an object. Slapping, hair pulling, name calling kind of thing.

Other forms of so called Cinematic Art, say "The Exorcist" for example, or those films about chain saw murders and/or any of the garbage composing the Horror film genre is obscene. degrading to human consciousness and, to use the term formerly reserved for defining obscenity, 'has no redeeming social value'.

Then apparently you share those sympathies with the Catholic Church because they do not recommend or subscribe to horror films either. I was surprised when the priest that use to be my confessor told me he never watches horror films. As for myself they are one of my favorite genres of film. I like slasher to vampire flicks. But the scariest "horror" films to me are those that have either happened in real life or are more likely to happen (e.g., home invasions with torture).

If you want to define pornography as obscene then I suppose you would agree with the viewpoint of some religions that all human life is conceived in sin. That viewpoint to me is an abomination. On the other hand in Eastern religions you have such philosophies as Tantra Yoga where sex is a way to the devine.

Religion is not necessary to object to porn - or rather to dismiss it as art. As I've stated many militant feminist opposed to the religion you apparently despise (Christianity) object to porn. Really, they only seem to object to porn in which the female is dominated. I've never heard them object to porn in which a "shemale" or male is dominated. No, I take that back. Many of them object to any image that casts a woman as "erotic" such as swimsuit pictures. There are male feminists that feel the same way.

And no... Christian, Jewish, and Islamic religions do not regard sex as sin. In Catholicism marriage - which requires sex to seal the oath and vows - is regarded as sacramental. Celibacy is not sacramental.

Hinduism is pretty conservative towards sex and gender roles - even by Catholic standards. You're evidently unaware about East Indian culture towards film. And Buddhism - of which I've read some of its sacred literature - is even more pessimistic about the human body (and Buddhist sacred literature regards the female vagina as vile, and boasts celibacy as the best way to enlightenment) than Christianity. This might be why when I briefly considered conversion to Buddhism, I had one hell of a time finding any female Buddha, Dali Lama (a god reincarnated on earth), or anything equivalent of the Virgin Mary or the enormous numbers of female saints found in Catholicism. In short, because Buddhism possibly regards the vagina as a road block to perfection and wisdom.

But that is getting into a religious discussion. And this is not the board for that. Plus, I don't want to talk to Westerners about "Eastern" religions completely unaware the Dali Lama's publicly stated Buddhist objections to Western secular values towards sex.

But perhaps it's worth noting some of the pre-Colombian Amerindian societies of the Americas had much loser attitudes and practices towards sex and nakedness than the advanced civilizations of the East such as in India and China. Which seems to have shocked the Europeans to some degree.

In conclusion I would say that the word pornography, because it has a negative connotation to many, is hard to define as art BUT when we magically change the word to Erotica suddenly it is art

Well... I think you make a very good point about that.

By the way... I was once reprimanded on a online forum by an openly gay male that was liberal and atheist, for posting some picture of some paintings of naked angels or bodies in some centuries old Cathedral in Italy. He took the image down and admonished me that it was pornographic and harmful for children. He and liberal females on that board had no problem posting photos of shirtless men though.

I just found it funny because secular Americans - atheist or feminists - tend to be more puritans than many of the religious in Italy and Mexico (and Mexico has topless women on TV). So, I think maybe perception also has something to do with nationality and national culture. I hear in Germany their "porn mags" are visible on stands even for kids. I also hear that in some of the parks in Germany people strip nude and sun bathe. I can tell you that in Milwaukee - run by Democrats - that would not be allowed. Even Michelangelo's "David" would be censored as inappropriate for children to see.

But even in the United States some cities are less puritan than others. I think Milwaukee's Democrats are probably more liberal than New York City's Democrats but less liberal than L.A.'s or Miami's. I can't imagine a Brazilian style Carnival occurring in Milwaukee where women literally naked but with painted bodies are walking down the street in a parade. But the bathing suits on the beaches of Miami I think may already rival what one sees on the beaches of Rio.

But I suppose I digress even from the topic of the thread I started.

I've viewed a lot of porn. And the amount available on the internet was shocking to me when I first encountered it. More shocking to me were the sheer numbers of different genres of porn. Some of it, like Mapplethorpe's, seems evident to me its of a high artistic quality. Why that is I'm not sure. Some of the images I find beauty in. But in others of Mapplethorpe's I don't see beauty, yet some expression in it still speaks to me as fine art. What that expression is I don't know.

With cinematic porn I'm not sure I've come to a conclusion. The Red Shoes Diary series has always struck me as very artistic. Some other forms of filmed porn not really.

-- Updated December 9th, 2012, 12:57 pm to add the following --

Belinda wrote:
Supine asks me if I think that being a pornographic model is demeaning to women. I think that pornography demeans both men and women equally unless the men and women are using it sceptically and purposefully without sexism for ethical sexual stimulation.

What is that?

No, I think I get a vague idea what you mean by "ethical stimulation." Though one could argue that is a subjective opinion.

When pornography lies as it does, scepticism is absent both because the maker of the pornography is a lier and purveyor of part truths, and because the consumer is a child or other gullible person. This is why pornography has to be controlled because gullible people need protection. Of course, the gullible should be educated in scepticism, but this is a distant ideal unfortunately. Pornography is a particularly clever lie because pornography gives immediate rewards to its consumer. Pornography is so remunerative that it is used to confer a spurious image on other, unrelated, consumer products.

What "lies"? What "lies" are present in S&M porn given the actors and actresses are consensual and it reflects the real desires of and the real play lives of the S&M community?

And if porn is depicting rape I see it as no more of a lie than gangsta rap or any of the many movies coming out of Hollywood. People object to children playing violent video games too. We regulate neither in the same fashion of porn - in hopes to stop mass shootings or daily violence. Even though some people argue these things seduce some people into committing violence.

Ask yourselves these questions:

How many people were raped or attacked because of pornography? We might find occasionally this has occurred.

But the second question is: How many people were murdered because of the endless glorification of murder and mayhem in Hollywood films many of which are viewed by children. Latest example is the Holmes case where a deranged individual in Colorado went on a killing spree in a movie theater after watching a Batman film. Or how about your magical James Bond films where the immortal Bond remains unscarred while he kills off 100s of bad guys - how many people are dead or in jail because they found out the hard way that guns are not the magic toys they thought they were, people die when shot, and you are not the invincible James Bond you thought you were after watching the movie?

WHOSE REALLY GIVING YOU THE BIG LIE? PORNOGRAPHERS OR MAINSTREAM HOLLYWOOD

UniversalAlien wrote:Ask yourselves these questions:

How many people were raped or attacked because of pornography? We might find occasionally this has occurred.

But the second question is: How many people were murdered because of the endless glorification of murder and mayhem in Hollywood films many of which are viewed by children. Latest example is the Holmes case where a deranged individual in Colorado went on a killing spree in a movie theater after watching a Batman film. Or how about your magical James Bond films where the immortal Bond remains unscarred while he kills off 100s of bad guys - how many people are dead or in jail because they found out the hard way that guns are not the magic toys they thought they were, people die when shot, and you are not the invincible James Bond you thought you were after watching the movie?

WHOSE REALLY GIVING YOU THE BIG LIE? PORNOGRAPHERS OR MAINSTREAM HOLLYWOOD

Actually, UA, I don't see how one could compile accurate statistics on either one. But it is the complaint of many female and male feminists that pornography - even softcore porn - is a cause of women being raped.

I'm not necessarily one to connect porn or TV and Hollywood movies to rape or gun violence. Not in any statistically significant extent anyways. The person of Holmes I would say is an anomaly out of a U.S. population of 300 million people - especially considering all the daily movies that occur yearly.

Perhaps the most statistically significant connection between a viewers potential to carry out a criminal fantasy is between child porn and those that view child's porn. Of course, there was the recent case of a New York City cop being accused of plotting to rape and eat 100 women. He had some sexual fetish of eating women and apparently was a consumer (or viewer) of porn or online discussion boards related to this fetish. He's accused of using police files or computers to pick out women too. So, maybe that fetish has a high incidence rate of View X and you are likely to criminally carry out Y. I don't know.

Though, in the philosophy of science I learned about the error of creating ad hoc hypotheses to rescue an original hypothesis one really likes and wants to maintain. The result is one's hypothesis is forever irrefutable, unfalsifiable. And with that in mind I think I can see people in life - or online in discussion - create ad hocs to always rescue the view points they like. These view point might not be scientific hypotheses but I think the points of "ad hocs" and "rescuing" are still applicable.

A Mapplethorpe black and white photograph of a male laid back nude on a couch, may well be homoerotic in intent, but very artistic in my view. I suspect there is not much objection from a feminist on this issue as the subject shot is a male. However, if the subject shot is female some might claim it is not art but violence done to women through sexual objectification. Frankly, I think the real issue has to do with peoples sensibilities, but people like to sound intellectual and morally self righteous at the same time, so, come up with ad hoc hypotheses to explain why one is okay and is art and the other not okay at all.





(Bear in mind sexual abuse and even forcible rape go statistically unreported at a greater rate than victims of gun violence, if for no other reason most victims shot with bullets end up in hospital emergency rooms)

If pornography is art, would anyone care to see the Mona Lisa naked? I have seen some art in my life, and I have seen a lot of pornography; some of it was nude, and some of it was landscape. When we make nude art; are we reflecting what is inside ourselves? I have never seen an ugly soul, only tortured souls; only angry souls, must the unwilling feminine be on the receiving end of our fears, anger, hate, and mental depravity? I sincerely believe there is porn-art for all souls; some artists cut off their ears willingly and some unwillingly, when does it become wrong, and who can stand to see the blood? Van Gogh cut off his ear in his basement, but now people are beheading themselves on cell phones and the internet for even children to see.

Whitedragon wrote: When we make nude art; are we reflecting what is inside ourselves?

Now that is an interesting question, or point, depending if you meant it to be rhetorical or not.

I'm more and more persuaded that what we see depends on our formation. However, that still does not answer any question about is or can there be any objectivity over any incident or thing observed or known. But it does acknowledge that 2 or more people can look at the same thing and , or that is to say interpret, completely different things.

One or more philosophers of science has suggested all seeing is theory-laden. I think this idea of seeing being theory-laden can be applied to the issue of what is or isn't art and how one person might conclude all porn is art, another some porn is art, and yet another no porn is art. Still further what constitutes porn might differ between two people.

Here is a definition of theory-laden: http://www.the-philosophy.com/theory-laden-definition

Now, there is a genre of porn called bukkake originating in Japan but has been enthusiastically picked up by the Germans and the rest of the West like the United States. One can look on Wikipedia for more info on bukkake, but it essentially is several men ejaculating on a person's face (usually a woman). The intent is to express the submission and humiliation of the receiving subject.

The United States is the worlds largest producer of porn (Brazil comes in second). Now, unlike Brazilian or Latino porn U.S. porn due to some of its racial history, has genres of specific porn involving racial antagonisms. Such as... white men that are humiliated by their wives being sexually devoured by well endowed black men. Or like one called "Ghetto Gaggers" that is a bukkake, and involves white men with Confederate flags and shirts doing their thing to black women, who as the story line goes, are getting back at their black boyfriends for sleeping with white women.

The question is then: Is Ghetto Gaggers art?

Is bukkake theory-laden?

Does this question of art come down to beauty and ugliness? I wrote this musing before I read the blog.

Beauty is a long lost relative, waiting at a train station to be picked up; ugliness is a doppelganger, who gets picked up instead. qq_00085

I know that this might seem like I'm not answering the question or evading the question; and I have been accused of changing the parameters in the past, but please bare with me and see if you can relate to this musing, even if its more a moral/spiritual conscience thing than anything else.

Just because it is beautiful, or enchants us, doesn't mean we should embrace it. The Bible tells us all other sins happens outside our bodies, except sex. I don't want to sound like a party pooper for bringing the Word of God into this, but somewhere, someone long ago was just as immoral as us; they had the same emotions, lusts, hopes, and dreams, and they decided to write down their experiences. I do believe that some nudity can be art, and can even be associated with religion. But it all depends on the intent. I don't know if any of you know tarot cards here, but if you look at the lovers card, VI, you get Adam and Eve in paradise with an angel. When you look at the Devil card, XV, you get more or less the same picture, only Adam and eve are in chains, with the Devil perching above them. The Devil card stands for many things, but it stands for addiction, and bondage. The two people in the picture can remove the chains any time they want, but they don't choose to do so. The Devil card stands for lust, the lovers card stands for love, relationships, and communication. Interesting if you take 15 … 1+5 = 6, back to lovers card; a clear message of correlation.

I know by now your saying, “what kind of crackpot is this?!” Well, I have traveled far and wide, and I say, though lust seems beautiful, she is an imposter, posing as beauty; and if you feed her, she will devour you. Some people don't like going to the dentist and say he is not nice. Sweets are nice, but they send you to the dentist.

Some kinds of nude art, is not art; it is vulgar porn. It is not vulgar because it's ugly; it is because it is beautiful and manages to open doorways in the minds of people, leading them to places where they lose themselves. When they come back they expect this world to look and work the same; they expect people to act the same, and they no longer know what beauty is; she was never picked up at the train station. Now they can no longer talk to their children about sex, because they don't remember what it is any more; maybe no one told them too. There is a nice song sung by Evanescence called Going under where they say: “Blurring and stirring the truth and the lies / so I don't know what's real and what's not / Always confusing the thoughts in my head / so I can't trust myself anymore.”

Supine wrote:

What is that?

No, I think I get a vague idea what you mean by "ethical stimulation." Though one could argue that is a subjective opinion.



When pornography lies as it does, scepticism is absent both because the maker of the pornography is a lier and purveyor of part truths, and because the consumer is a child or other gullible person. This is why pornography has to be controlled because gullible people need protection. Of course, the gullible should be educated in scepticism, but this is a distant ideal unfortunately. Pornography is a particularly clever lie because pornography gives immediate rewards to its consumer. Pornography is so remunerative that it is used to confer a spurious image on other, unrelated, consumer products.


What "lies"? What "lies" are present in S&M porn given the actors and actresses are consensual and it reflects the real desires of and the real play lives of the S&M community?

And if porn is depicting rape I see it as no more of a lie than gangsta rap or any of the many movies coming out of Hollywood. People object to children playing violent video games too. We regulate neither in the same fashion of porn - in hopes to stop mass shootings or daily violence. Even though some people argue these things seduce some people into committing violence.

The ethics of sexual stimulation are subsumed happily under The Golden Rule, brought up to date in its details, of course.

The lie that is part of the definition of 'pornography' is that it is a part truth. Not all of a human being's activity is sexual even although in the throes of passion this may temporarily seem so. Pornography however, unlike real passion, is crystallised in the artefact (the picture or the text), and this is why the artefact is pornographic and not true to life and real passion. I don't know enough about sado masochism to have an opinion of whether or not it reflects the truth of sexual passion, or how dangerous or harmless sado masochistic pornography is.

What I can say is that sado masochism is far from being the whole of sexual life even for its most enthusiastic devotee . No human being is separated from other human beings, and from his own basic survival needs, except when in the throes of passion, or when engaged in sociopathic activities such as exploiting others for personal profit.

Representations of violence may be either true or false according to whether or not they are balanced reportage of real life. Sentimentality is another style of artistic artefact that tells lies.

You are saying that porn and erotica are the same thing? If so, I disagree.

Of course we can change any words we want to in order to come to any conclusion we wish. I can change the word guilt to ignorance, or I can change hope to expectation, freedom to democracy. We can obfuscate any position or argument by doing that.

Amazing post, fleetfootphil

Whitedragon, your post #23 was just awesome. But I have to admit some bias for your appraisal as I have some sympathies for your views. However, I like the literary artistic way in which you expressed yourself. So, on that basis alone, even if were unsympathetic to your views, I would highly rate your commentary.

I would take a slight disagreement with you on one point however. The issue of addiction and bondage. I would argue that the addict in fact can't necessarily free themselves any time they wish. In principle yes the addict can. However, that in some ways is an oxymoron to addiction. Philosophers of political liberty are fond of using the addict as the example of the concept of positive liberty (opposed to negative liberty). The addict is not free because they lack self realization they would say. They go further and say addiction causes first, second, third and so on... desires.

The first order desire may be: "I want to stop using or doing X."

The second order desire would then be: "I want to use or do X."

Consequently the third order desire would be: "I want to stop using or doing X," or, "I wish I could stop desiring and doing X."

Addict itself I'm told is a word that comes from a very similar Latin word that denoted the slaves Roman soldiers honored in battle for exceptional courage or performance were given as prizes. The slaves being chosen from out of the conquered population.

I like that tarot card example you gave. Nakedness and sexuality without chains being proper but with the introduction of chains (lust) comes bondage. This reminds me of the Buddhist concept of "cravings." Cravings for love, sex, money, possessions etc. being at the root of suffering and bondage. Ending cravings releases one.

I know something about addiction so it's conceptual framework and results are fresh in my mind. And ironically political philosophers have grasped its dilemma better than most addiction therapists or medical professionals (applied scientists).

But what does that have to do with art? I don't know.

However, an interesting inquiry might be: Does art free us where "porn," if we may call the "non-artistic" forms of nakedness that, deliver us into bondage?

One might even say I have an addiction to pornography. If I do it is "functional addiction." And apparently from statistical studies most men use the internet for pornography. So, I wouldn't be alone. One of my favorites is the Bukkake - again, increasingly popular with more and more men. I had no idea such a thing existed until viewing free internet porn. An enormous amount of free porn I might add. Makes my pre-internet childhood days look like Mayberry.


**********

Belinda, the Golden Rule says "Do unto as you would have them do onto you." That applied to "ethical sexual stimulation" would make most heterosexual men against sodomizing their female lovers, unless of course the guy himself want to have a woman sodomize him.

I'm am slightly familiar with the BDSM world as I've briefly interacted with it. The vast majority of "submissive" are females their doms are females or males (in the case of males they fulfill the role of sexists in feminist conception). There are male submissive but I was told by far more experienced females and males involved in the BDSM community that they are much rarer.

Some only "play" while others live the roles for real. Meaning... their submissive live with them. Some are "pain sluts" and others just more into humiliation. Some of it is rather softcore and other of it is rather hardcore. So, it spans degrees.

Some men are "switchers" but many are not. But one thing they all share in common is a self righteousness that BDSM is morally superior to all the "vanilla" sex and people living in the world with their evil and judgmental moral judgements. The community prides itself on being full of open minded people.

I think your attempt to cast the sexism involved in much of BDSM life - and pornography - as immoral or in need of regulation is an attempt to rescue you personal views regarding sex and pornography. Larry Flint was gunned down over fairly softcore porn that some did not want to become apart of mainstream American culture. They failed. (And much more violent and hardcore porn has increasingly become part of mainstream American art and film)

I also can't find myself agreeing much with your appraisal of the lack of truth in porn being what diminishes it from theater or some (not all) Hollywood movies. In fact, it might interest you but that is one reason Jews (to a lesser extent Catholics) are disproportionately represented in Hollywood compared to Protestants. Early Protestant morally objected to both theater and Hollywood on the grounds that it both failed to accurately present real life and that people acted out through play "sins." Now, you seem to be raising a similar objections to porn and the porn industry (one of the United States greatest exports to the world like Hollywood films - with the U.S. having the largest porn industry in the world).

I'll hazard a guess you're feminist (I don't say that meant as an attack on you) and that motivates your appraisal of both sex and pornography?

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

There are all types of cinematic art showing all types of human behavior. Say we are talking about horror films which have to be considered as part of the genre. If watching more and more gruesome ways of death {some horror films are quite gruesome} can be considered art and considering much of this gruesomeness is very contrived, why would watching the very real acts of sex be considered as less of an art form? - in fact isn't the sex film genre more reflective of a natural and less contrived form of art? Same could be said about almost any cinematic art including adventure, sci-fi, mystery, romance, etc., etc.

And is it addictive? Sure it is - but to some so is sci-fi {I'm a sci-fi addict, can't get enough of it} sci-fi is addictive, for others its romance films. Where do you draw the lines? You draw the lines with censorship and censorship is based upon society and governments values. And who gives society or government the right to decide what is art and what isn't. Back in the 1960s the Supreme Court made a ruling on this and soon after that porn was being shown in theaters all over the country. In rather conservative area all over the country you could see porn. I suppose this may have led to more people than ever developing an interest is sex including more adventuresome forms of sex. And some purest are still upset by this. But the argument could be made that horror and murder films give some more interest in horrorbile ways of death and those individual with weak or unbalanced minds might be so led to carry out their twisted fantasies often derived from such cinematic art. What would you rather have a porn sex addict looking for sex OR a horror/murder film addict looking to assuage their desire for murder and death

THE PRICE YOU PAY FOR FREEDOM OF ARTISTIC EXPRESSION IS YOU CAN'T PLEASE EVERYONE; OR WOULD YOU RATHER GO BACK TO CENSORSHIP AND LET OTHER DECIDE FOR YOU WHAT IS ART

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.

Hello Supine and all

Thank you for your compliment, and I do agree with the way you laid it out. I'd like to ask a question, however. Let's assume anything can be art, including porn and all it's forms; I'd like to come back to the tarot cards, this time using the moon. The moon can also refer to art and brilliance; but the moon inverted means art is being used for destructive purposes. The question then becomes: “If art damages or destroys you, should it be undone by justice?” A lot of paintings have been burned in the past; the question is is it some times necessary to burn a painting?

I live in South Africa. Some of you who watch the news, may have seen that there was a painting of our president, which was destroyed. The painting depicted the president raping justice. I don't have a problem with that. I also wouldn't have a problem with justice raping a person. These are symbols depicting truths about the world and people; that is what makes it art and what gives it substance. The word angel means messenger, and I believe true art always has a message; can any body here tell me what his the message of porn and all its forms?