homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The government, porn and censorship (Page 6)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The government, porn and censorship
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If anyone is worried aboutupsetting images on-line then go to YouTube (which doesn't carry prOn) and search for "Spain Train crash". If you really want to you can then see the moments in which dozens of people lost their lives.

Anything except "snuff" is pretty insignificant by comparison. YMMV, but I'd love to know why.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
David Matthias
Apprentice
# 14948

 - Posted      Profile for David Matthias   Author's homepage   Email David Matthias   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I like the concept of you have to opt in, rather than opt out.

I think that makes it more proactive to access.

If people want it, then it is not censored. But neither can your 14 year old son access free simulated rape within 10 seconds of opening a web browser. And by simulated rape I am not showing a prudish attitude to porn, I mean porn that actually deliberately simulates the forceful rape of women.

If that stuff gets hidden behind some sort of security cordon I don't see the problem. The fact it is currently freely available with no cost and no age restriction is just crazy.

Posts: 29 | From: Shrewsbury | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am really out of touch with developments in feminism today. Anyway, is this a fair assessment of currents view of porn in feminism?

1. Those feminists who see porn as objectifying and degrading women and want it banned.

2. Liberals, who don't like porn, but see it as a free speech issue.

3. Pro-sex feminists who want a pornography made by women for women, and see it as potentially liberating of female sexuality.

I guess there are many overlaps here and fusions, but any corrections gratefully accepted.

I would say that's a pretty accurate summary. The first group are loud but relatively rare - radical second-wave feminism has a lot of issues with transphobia so it has really fallen out of favour in most feminist circles. I would hesitantly put myself in the second group, but my objection to the proposals are more about the double standards (re Page 3 etc, which I object to rather more because it's seen as harmless) and also the fact that it won't work.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hawk wrote:

quote:
What if that stuff wasn't fictional simulations of such acts but recordings of real people being tortured, killed and beaten? What if the revenue from those recordings meant more and more people were being tortured, killed and beaten as a result since it is such big business?

Personally I'd want that censored.


In fact, there is currently a case in Canada in which the owner of a shock-website has been charged with hosting a real video of a man being dismemebered, made by the alleged killer himself.

Thing is, though, the only law the authorities could find to charge him under was some rarely used, creaky old statute about "corrupting morals".

All this has led to arguments about just how a gore website like that differs from a tabloid paper which splashes stuff like this on the front page. Or, for that matter, high-minded war photographers who earnestly endeavour to "bring the reality of war home to our readers".

[ 25. July 2013, 19:52: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am really out of touch with developments in feminism today. Anyway, is this a fair assessment of currents view of porn in feminism?

1. Those feminists who see porn as objectifying and degrading women and want it banned.

2. Liberals, who don't like porn, but see it as a free speech issue.

3. Pro-sex feminists who want a pornography made by women for women, and see it as potentially liberating of female sexuality.

I guess there are many overlaps here and fusions, but any corrections gratefully accepted.

I would say that's a pretty accurate summary. The first group are loud but relatively rare - radical second-wave feminism has a lot of issues with transphobia so it has really fallen out of favour in most feminist circles. I would hesitantly put myself in the second group, but my objection to the proposals are more about the double standards (re Page 3 etc, which I object to rather more because it's seen as harmless) and also the fact that it won't work.
Thank you for that. Would you really say that group 1 are rare? My impression 20 years ago, were that in the US, they were numerous, and 2 and 3 were smaller; in fact, group 3 were tiny in number.

But I think someone has already mentioned that possibly in the US group 1 began to shrink, once feminists appreciated fully that the religious Right not only wanted to ban porn, but also abortion and contraception, and wanted 'male headship' and so on. You might end up with no porn, but also with patriarchy triple strength espresso.

[ 25. July 2013, 20:09: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am really out of touch with developments in feminism today. Anyway, is this a fair assessment of currents view of porn in feminism?

1. Those feminists who see porn as objectifying and degrading women and want it banned.

2. Liberals, who don't like porn, but see it as a free speech issue.

3. Pro-sex feminists who want a pornography made by women for women, and see it as potentially liberating of female sexuality.

I guess there are many overlaps here and fusions, but any corrections gratefully accepted.

I would say that's a pretty accurate summary. The first group are loud but relatively rare - radical second-wave feminism has a lot of issues with transphobia so it has really fallen out of favour in most feminist circles. I would hesitantly put myself in the second group, but my objection to the proposals are more about the double standards (re Page 3 etc, which I object to rather more because it's seen as harmless) and also the fact that it won't work.
Thank you for that. Would you really say that group 1 are rare? My impression 20 years ago, were that in the US, they were numerous, and 2 and 3 were smaller; in fact, group 3 were tiny in number.

But I think someone has already mentioned that possibly in the US group 1 began to shrink, once feminists appreciated fully that the religious Right not only wanted to ban porn, but also abortion and contraception, and wanted 'male headship' and so on. You might end up with no porn, but also with patriarchy triple strength espresso.

Since intersectional feminism (feminism which recognises interlocking spheres of oppression based on gender, race, sexuality, class etc rather than only patriarchal oppression) has grown, group 1 has really shrunk - they are very anti-intersectionality. They're loud, but to be honest porn isn't on the radar much even for them, it's gender and LGBTQ issues. Porn has been an issue within feminism because of issues surrounding gay porn, and the LGBTQ community's links to the BDSM community, but protection of porn actors and other sex industry workers is the main isssue rather than porn itself being harmful to women.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was chatting with my wife about this, and she got very angry, and said that she thought that page 3 girls and the Daily Mail sleaze was worse than porn, as it normalized the regulation of female sexuality and female bodies. In other words, the fact that Cameron said, 'oh, this stuff is OK', is part of the problem.

This amused me slightly. I imagined a 'Mums for Porn' campaign with fliers and paraphernalia, attempting to liberate porn and censor The Sun and the Daily Mail!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I imagined a 'Mums for Porn' campaign
The Daily Mail is already on the case!

(at your own risk)

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What if that stuff wasn't fictional simulations of such acts but recordings of real people being tortured, killed and beaten?
... the acts are taking place in a jurisdiction where they are legal ...

Wow. Either you're claiming that assault and murder are legal in some jurisdiction, or the answer to your "what if" is "it ain't".

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cameron - tough on masturbation, tough on the causes of masturbation.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What if that stuff wasn't fictional simulations of such acts but recordings of real people being tortured, killed and beaten?
... the acts are taking place in a jurisdiction where they are legal ...

Wow. Either you're claiming that assault and murder are legal in some jurisdiction, or the answer to your "what if" is "it ain't".
[brick wall]

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What if that stuff wasn't fictional simulations of such acts but recordings of real people being tortured, killed and beaten?
... the acts are taking place in a jurisdiction where they are legal ...

Wow. Either you're claiming that assault and murder are legal in some jurisdiction, or the answer to your "what if" is "it ain't".
[brick wall]
I'm really not thick, but like Soror Magna, I don't know what you're trying to say.

The participants in making porn are as consenting as actors making a thriller (subject to the whole issue as to whether consenting to sex work is ever true consent)

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And the issue of whether consenting to anything is true consent. I don't think that we know the answer to that.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And the issue of whether consenting to anything is true consent. I don't think that we know the answer to that.

And the issue of whether one can consent to torture.

In the UK we know someone cannot, as evidenced by R v Brown

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
The participants in making porn are as consenting as actors making a thriller

Consent is not the issue. Employees may consent to work in harmful, unhealthy work, but that is no excuse for the employer. The Victorian social reformers cried out against workplaces where women and men were working in filthy, degrading, harmful conditions. The workers all consented to these conditions by entering the workplace, and taking the wages offered. That was no excuse.

From Gail Dines' blog:
quote:
The Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation, a non-profit organization that serves the sex industry, states that women in pornography are at risk for Chlamydia and gonorrhea of the throat and/or eye/and or anus, hepatitis B, and vaginal and anal tears.
I don't think actors making a thriller are at risk of that on a daily basis. Is this the kind of work where getting an employee to sign their consent is enough for us all to shrug and turn a blind eye? In employment law there is a long history of employee consent being no excuse for employee abuse. Yet in the porn industry this policy is ignored routinely.

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
California’s Condoms in Porn Bill

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have long argued that the porn industry should be unionized, with high rates of pay, excellent working conditions, and free and frequent health checks, all paid for by the employer.

To suggest that it should be banned, reminds me of Prohibition - it will just go underground, and will be run by the gangsters. Then pay rates will plummet, working conditions will be abysmal, and health checks non-existent.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Then pay rates will plummet, working conditions will be abysmal, and health checks non-existent.

So no change then.

I don't think anyone's campaigning for outright prohibition on all porn though. Its too big a market to stop altogether. People will, for better or worse, always want to pay for images of sex. It can be made cleaner, safer, and less degrading though. The Victorian social reformers didn't ban people from running mines or factories. They just passed strict laws to ensure that doing so didn't exploit, degrade, or harm their workers.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have long argued that the porn industry should be unionized, with high rates of pay, excellent working conditions, and free and frequent health checks, all paid for by the employer.

This will never happen while people are paying for and deriving pleasure from debasing those employees though. You can't spend all day degrading someone, yelling abuse at them, slapping them and treating them as sub-human, and then care about their worker's rights as well.

The only way to imporve conditions in the porn industry is financial sanctions on performing degrading acts through censorship of the market for them. If the only legal market is for clean, safe porn rather than derogatory, abusive porn, then it will be far more likely that anyone cares about the rights of the performers.

This obviously involves making value judgements about what constitutes degrading material. Most posters here I guess would refuse to make such judgements, or deny that they could be made. I think they can and should be made.

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But actors also spend a lot of time doing violent and abusive things to each other. Does that mean that they are not professionals, who deserve professional treatment?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Then pay rates will plummet, working conditions will be abysmal, and health checks non-existent.

So no change then.

I don't think anyone's campaigning for outright prohibition on all porn though. Its too big a market to stop altogether. People will, for better or worse, always want to pay for images of sex. It can be made cleaner, safer, and less degrading though. The Victorian social reformers didn't ban people from running mines or factories. They just passed strict laws to ensure that doing so didn't exploit, degrade, or harm their workers.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have long argued that the porn industry should be unionized, with high rates of pay, excellent working conditions, and free and frequent health checks, all paid for by the employer.

This will never happen while people are paying for and deriving pleasure from debasing those employees though. You can't spend all day degrading someone, yelling abuse at them, slapping them and treating them as sub-human, and then care about their worker's rights as well.

I can't believe that I'm actually defending this stuff, but Hawk, you do realize that those people are actors, don't you? What people see when they look at porn is primarily performance. It's real only in the sense that the sexual acts are not being faked.

Which, of course, is part of the problem. Porn presents an absurdly unrealistic picture of what sex is like, and raises expectations that in most cases can't be met by normal people. That, and the way that it turns us into voyeurs who prefer watching others having sex to real intimacy with another person, is the real tragedy here : an endless circle of desire with no real satisfaction.

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Although some people argue that therefore porn is a perfect reflection and symbol of capitalism itself - i.e. that it presents various images of desire, in a commodity form, which cannot really be satisfied; or if they are, we are immediately plunged into a new gnawing sense of dissatisfaction.

In other words, we sit in a sort of existential void, peering at these bright new toys, which a deranged capitalism shows to us in the shop window, and yet which deep in our hearts, we know are unreal and shadowy. What should we do, we have murdered God?

'What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?'

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hawk wrote:

quote:
I don't think actors making a thriller are at risk of that on a daily basis. Is this the kind of work where getting an employee to sign their consent is enough for us all to shrug and turn a blind eye?
List Of Film Accidents

I haven't gone through the whole list, and admittedly its a pretty tiny fraction of the films that have been produced in the 90 plus years covered.

Nevertheless, even some of our biggest crowd pleasers have listings for "seriously injured" "permanent brain damage", "left a parapalegic", and the ultimate notch on the bedpost: "killed".

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm beginning to think that Hawk thinks it's all real, and that porn actors are not really actors, so that 'middle-aged housewife porn' actually involves middle-aged housewives.

[ 26. July 2013, 16:59: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Um, I'm pretty amazed I'm discussing this too, but there's a supply and ways to market home-made porn - getting money for it, apparently, is more difficult.

I'm not googling further than asking the question, but I thought I'd overheard conversations about what was available along those lines from the teenage boys I usually work with (I do work with disaffected and dysfunctional kids usually) and putting "homemade porn" into google gets a lot of discussion on how to sell it and that there's so much available free that it's difficult.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm beginning to think that Hawk thinks it's all real, and that porn actors are not really actors, so that 'middle-aged housewife porn' actually involves middle-aged housewives.

Some of it does. But generally those video are the ones that the housewives have filmed and uploaded themselves - the real amateur stuff.

An analysis of exactly who is exploiting whom in such cases would be very interesting to read...

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643

 - Posted      Profile for Cod     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I found this Radio 4 programme interesting. It is presented by a feminist who dispproves of porn; she asked whether porn should be censored on the basis that it causes harm.

Her verdict? Not proven.

--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier

Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let's just make the K a theocracy, so that agreement can be found in simplistic answers to complex questions. Then we'll have total agreement on "I know it when I see it"

Bloody Mary proved the value of that.

Now, how do we determine WHICH theocracy will be in the ascendant? Will the BHA be allowed equal access with the Muslims, the Hindus and all the various permutations of Christian sects/denoms.

How do you determine the winner?

And what happens to the losers? Do they just submit placidly or do they demand their right to be heard?

Hey, come on, Mudfrog! You appear to know the answer. Is the SA any safer than the BHA at determining the standard which everyone else will follow rigorously?

I happen to think that the adulation of bankers and venture capitalists is pornographic, as well as unbiblical.

I'm not sure about the public discussion of the sex lives of the Royal Family, particularly the fetish for tampons.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Going back to page 1:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think the main motivation is against child pornography. The problem is that most accessors of porn seem to want their 'models' to look ever younger and it is sometimes (so I believe) difficult to ascertain whether some models just look young or are actually underage.

You don't search for 'child porn' through google, and any child porn sites are hidden away from google's all-seeing eye.

This is just a case of Cameron, being ineffectual in all other areas of politics (you know, the ones that actually matter), trying to sound like he's doing something.

But a 'porn block' won't work. Either it'll be too draconian, and sweep up an untold number of porn-free websites along with it, along with sites-with-porn-but-not-porn-sites, or it'll be too lax and therefore useless. Hopefully the experts he's said he'll now consult with (as opposed to talking to them first, duh) will tell him it simply can't work. (my bold)

Like the ship?

It seems the government's porn wall will reach far beyong porn and terrorist websites, but also include web forums. https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/sleepwalking-into-censorship

Plus there's the catch all of "Esoteric material" which is code for "anything else we hadn't thought of."

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crśsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm beginning to think that Hawk thinks it's all real, and that porn actors are not really actors, so that 'middle-aged housewife porn' actually involves middle-aged housewives.

Some of it does. But generally those video are the ones that the housewives have filmed and uploaded themselves - the real amateur stuff.

An analysis of exactly who is exploiting whom in such cases would be very interesting to read...

More relevantly, does the proposed law apply to sending a sexy pic or video to your spouse?

Interestingly, the largest current threat to the professional porn industry seems to be not government regulation or censorship, but the flooding of the market by free content from enthusiastic amateurs. When there's a camera in everything you own, the barriers to production are quite low. Ironically this proposed law would probably be a boon to professional pornographers since commercial enterprises usually find it easier to work around regulatory barriers than hobbyists.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On 'esoteric content', I can't remember if I've mentioned that a friend of mine has a blog, which is mainly about pagan ideas, and it is blocked by some filters.

I'm curious to know who has decided that pagan ideas should be censored. But it shows the obvious danger of mission creep, as can be seen with anti-terror legislation, which was applied to an 80 year old at the Labour Party Conference. He had committed the grievance offence of shouting 'nonsense' at Jack Straw.

Also, ironically, he was a refugee from Nazi Germany in the 30s.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
1. Those feminists who see porn as objectifying and degrading women and want it banned.

I would say that's a pretty accurate summary. The first group are loud but relatively rare - radical second-wave feminism has a lot of issues with transphobia so it has really fallen out of favour in most feminist circles.
My impression from skimming the Guardian Comments articles over the past year or so is that feminist opposition to porn is becoming more common again. Unlike David Cameron, it doesn't miraculously exempt Page Three, and does widen out to include more 'acceptable' depictions of sexualised female bodies. Whether it goes so far as legal banning is another matter.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, I think many feminists don't isolate porn as demeaning to women; they would argue that there is a whole industrial complex which regulates and degrades female bodies, female sexuality and female identity - it includes the fashion industry, the various newspapers which objectify women's bodies, cinema and TV, which often treat them as mutilated bodies, and so on.

For example, there is much concern today about the anxiety shown by young girls about their appearance, their attractiveness, their diet, clothes, sexuality and so on.

It seems unlikely that all of this can be dealt with by banning stuff. Rather, one must identify it, object to it, educate about it, debate about it, and make a huge fuss about it.

But of course, politicians are not interested in such a project, as they help to maintain this system.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Woman's Hour interview with David Cameron was challenging this, and referring to a Fourth Wave of Feminism.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, one of the tests is to use the word 'patriarchy', or if you want to be more explicit, 'the patriarchal oppression of women'. Watch the politicians' eyes glaze over, and their attention wander, as most of them don't want to go there, with a few honourable exceptions.

That's why Cameron immediately started to exempt various stuff such as page 3, soft porn, and the Daily Mail 'sidebar of shame'.

Yet as I said, ages ago, well, several days, it's possible that they are worse for women than porn, as they are the tip of a huge iceberg of the demeaning/degradation of women.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apologies if I've missed a reference, but I haven't seen anyone mention that Australia had this debate ticking along for 5 or 6 years.

Because that's how long it was our government's policy to implement an ISP filter system that would block really bad websites. NB This is a left wing government.

And they finally shelved the idea because it was deeply unpopular with anyone who had a clue about the Internet, including many of the ISPs that were supposed to implement it. Not only was it going to be an added expense, but it slowed the Internet down and fundamentally it achieved nothing.

The biggest nail in the coffin, though, was when a trial version of the secret blacklist was leaked. Of course, the blacklist HAS to be secret because otherwise you are providing free publicity to child porn and the like.

Unfortunately, the blacklist included such horribly offensive things as a small dental surgery in Queensland.

The most frustrating thing about the debate was that the Minister driving the idea would immediately paint anyone who opposed his plan as supporting child porn. Which is just bullshit. Child porn is already illegal. The opposition was driven by the sheer impracticality of the idea.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Quetzalcoatl wrote:

quote:
I'm curious to know who has decided that pagan ideas should be censored. But it shows the obvious danger of mission creep, as can be seen with anti-terror legislation, which was applied to an 80 year old at the Labour Party Conference.
When the PMRC(Tipper Gore's outfit) released their categories for labeling offensive songs back in the 80s, one of the caregories listed was "occult". Obviously, the "concerned parents" were meant to understand this as Ozzy Osbourne and whatnot, but a quick trip to any conservative Christian bookstore would reveal just how loosey-goosey the concept is.

And it's funny now to see Twisted Sister's We're Not Gonna Take It listed as "Violent" on the PMRC list. The slapstick carnage in the video is on about the level of The Three Stooges.

And now for another delightful Pond interlude...

In the USA, the term "occult", used politially, is obviously a dog-whistle to the Religious Right, and conjures up images of Ouija Boards, D&D, and heavy metal albums. Does "Esoteric" as used in the UK, reference the same sorta menu of concerns? Or are the fearful over there more worked up about upper-level Rosicrucianism and Kabbalistic formulations?

[ 27. July 2013, 17:00: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Orfeo wrote:

quote:
The most frustrating thing about the debate was that the Minister driving the idea would immediately paint anyone who opposed his plan as supporting child porn.
That's interesting. Because Vic Toews, Canada's Minister Of Public Safety(yeah I know; Robespierre's old job title), made made pretty much identical remarks when defending similar legislation proposed by his Conservative government.

This hardnosed stance came back to bite the government in the bottom a few months later, when Tom Flanagan, a leading Conservative ideologue and former advisor to the Prime Minister, expressed fairly heterodox opinions on child pornography. The Safety Minister's previous remarks certainly enjoyed a second-round of mocking publicity.

[ 27. July 2013, 17:15: Message edited by: Stetson ]

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm beginning to think that Hawk thinks it's all real, and that porn actors are not really actors,

I believe it because it's true. They are really having sex, not pretending. They are really doing everything they are doing, not simulating it. The situations and characters are fake but everything else is really happening. The porn industry has convinced everyone to call their employees actresses rather than sex workers as a propaganda tool and most people have fallen for this hook, line and sinker.

In terms of what its really like to work in the industry rather than the glamorous myth the industry likes to portray here is an interview with two ex-performers. Its quite shocking in places but important to listen to.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On 'esoteric content', I can't remember if I've mentioned that a friend of mine has a blog, which is mainly about pagan ideas, and it is blocked by some filters.

I'm curious to know who has decided that pagan ideas should be censored. But it shows the obvious danger of mission creep

Filters can be set to block anything the user wants to block. Mine has the option of blocking occult websites, among many other categories. I don't bother doing so but the technology is available. Just because its available doesn't mean it will be used though.

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
In terms of what its really like to work in the industry rather than the glamorous myth the industry likes to portray here is an interview with two ex-performers. Its quite shocking in places but important to listen to.


Interesting interview, from what I've listened to so far.

But let's be honest here. If it was a male porn star recounting his bad experiences in the biz, he would not likely be getting much sympathy from anyone, even if he came from a broken home and had lived in mental hosptials. The general attitude would be "Oh well, if he didn't like getting paid to have sex, why didn't he go do something else?"

And I couldn't help but notice that once again, someone who(from what I can understand) entered the porn industry as an adult is referred to as a "young girl".

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
1. Those feminists who see porn as objectifying and degrading women and want it banned.

I would say that's a pretty accurate summary. The first group are loud but relatively rare - radical second-wave feminism has a lot of issues with transphobia so it has really fallen out of favour in most feminist circles.
My impression from skimming the Guardian Comments articles over the past year or so is that feminist opposition to porn is becoming more common again. Unlike David Cameron, it doesn't miraculously exempt Page Three, and does widen out to include more 'acceptable' depictions of sexualised female bodies. Whether it goes so far as legal banning is another matter.
I wouldn't consider the Guardian Comments section to be a hotbed of actual feminism (pop culture 'feminism' like Caitlin Moran yes, but not actual informed feminism). Feminist opposition to the sexual exploitation and objectification of women, yes, but objection to advertising and lads' mags is more of an issue than porn IME. With porn, the entire purpose is getting off. What I and other feminists object to is the objectification of women in areas where people don't want to get off, areas like journalism.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Heh. Bit off topic, but I've been checking out Shelley Lubben's Pink Cross website. Their Recent Articles section includes the following...

quote:
The Pornography Pandemic - A Message for Christians
quote:
The Pornography Pandemic - A Message to Catholics
Looks like they got their own Dead Horses forum!

EDIT: Contrary to what I implied above, the Pink Cross blog contains testimonials from male porn stars. I also notice that they supported the Measure B mandatory condom-law in LA.

[ 27. July 2013, 18:37: Message edited by: Stetson ]

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
re Esoteric Material. If you read the link that Balaam posted, there is a comment that points out that this probably is an import of Orange's French filtering operations, which would cover -
quote:
Sects: Websites on universally acknowledged sects. Within this category URLs are included on organizations that promote directly or indirectly: (i) group, animal or individual injuries, (ii) esoteric practices, (iii) content that sets a bad example for young children: that teaches or encourages children to perform harmful acts or imitate dangerous behaviour, (iv) content that creates feelings of fear, intimidation, horror, or psychological terror, (v) Incitement or depiction of harm against any individual or group based on gender, sexual orientation, ethnic, religious or national identity.
To be honest it's so vague it could cover anything.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Honest Ron:

Thanks. The definition of sects covers all the subcategories listed, but Esoteric as a subcategory remains undefined. I guess I'll just concur with you and Balaam that it means something like "Okay, they're not telling you to kill animals or attack minorities, but darn it, we all know they're bloody weird, so let's give them their own category anyway."

[ 27. July 2013, 19:40: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think some heavy metal albums used to have lurid 'Parental Advisory Warning' labels on them, didn't they? I suppose they were worried about lyrics about skulls and masturbation and bondage. My memory is that the warning labels attracted kids, and were like a badge of honour. Kids, eh?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I think some heavy metal albums used to have lurid 'Parental Advisory Warning' labels on them, didn't they?
Yep.

quote:
My memory is that the warning labels attracted kids, and were like a badge of honour.
That may very well be true. Though since the recording industry opposed labelling, we can probably surmise that they, at least, thought the labels would take a bite out of their profits, notwithstanding the appeal of the forbidden.

Anyway, it seems there is controversy around the company that runs the filter praised by Cameron.

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Surely, Mr Cameron will welcome Chinese involvement in filtering systems - after all, they have long experience in blocking the internet. Who better to block our view of it?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just noticed that Huawei (the company which runs TalkTalk's filter system), has a blacklist of 65 million websites. Gordon Bennett, can I just have a quick look at it?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185

 - Posted      Profile for Sighthound   Email Sighthound   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I just believe censorship is bad in principle. Sorry if that makes me a bad person. Allow government to start censoring stuff and there's no end to it. They begin with something many agree with, and then go on from there, until you end up with stuff being censored that the government finds inconvenient, or that some random minority finds distasteful.

People with children really ought to be making their own arrangements. This is the equivalent of expecting the government to send a man round to everyone's house to check that the pills and sharp knives are all kept on high shelves.

--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/

Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes. Or it's like banning cars, so that kids can cross the road safely. Well, yes, that would work.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cars are possibly not the best analogy. There are other reasons: pollution, overuse of resources, traffic problems, for banning cars over and above the risk to pedestrians.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
... This is the equivalent of expecting the government to send a man round to everyone's house to check that the pills and sharp knives are all kept on high shelves.

Actually, it's worse: it's the equivalent of the government banning the purchase of knives and pills, unless we have asked for and been given permission to buy them.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools