| magicalfreddiemercury 09.03.2013 10:02 |
So, this Tuesday, the European Parliament is going to vote on a report to ban pornography as (supposedly) one way to promote gender equality. They say this vote is non-binding but, depending which way it goes, it could have a huge effect on free speech rights, especially if some aspects of it are made into law. Some articles referred to internet providers possibly taking an ‘up vote’ as a sign that it's okay for them to start policing their users - since the ban now stands to include all media forms. It's like big brother AND little brother are now watching. Here are a couple of articles about it - link link link I get the effort to stop the sexualization of girls and women. I do. And if this was about stopping sex trafficking and other abuses, it would make perfect sense. Unless I've got the whole point of this wrong, I don't see how women who choose to enter this profession are being hurt by it. If anything, they must feel empowered by their ability to make this type of choice - for themselves and for their own bodies. Not to mention their bank accounts. And if it is about stopping the sexualization of women, then will they ban Hooter waitresses next? Or Victoria’s Secret models? Gentleman’s clubs? Bikinis? Part of the discussion centers on male sexual aggression and how it's enhanced by porn. Now, I've never done a study on this… but I would think a rapist is a rapist regardless how much, or how little, porn he watches. This reminds me of comments pundits had about women and the (IMO horrible) book, 50 Shades of Gray (the one they obnoxiously called “Mommy Porn”). Because so many women were reading this book that contained strong elements of BDSM (a topic for another discussion), suddenly, all you had to do to please a woman was beat her. I don’t mean to go off on a tangent, but it seems to me that there are those who refuse to see sex as a normal and healthy part of our existence and feel the need to squelch what they perceive to be a perversion of it. Like former US presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, who said contraception ‘allows people to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be’, and Mitt Romney who suggested he’d ban all forms of pornography if elected. I guess I expect such controlling crap from right-wing US politicians, but I’m kind of surprised by the EU. I know. This post went all over the place – too much coffee this morning. Point it, there’s a vote being held this Tuesday that, depending on the outcome, could have some serious ripple effects. Opinions? |
| Donna13 09.03.2013 10:54 |
I haven't read up on the EU proposal or the Icelandic one, but I would assume it has to do with the protection of women, rather than the denying of men's rights. So I would guess that there has been a weighing of the pros and cons, the rights of the individual vs. the harm or potential harm to victims of the lifestyle or job. Probably the same things considered when making prostitution illegal. Or certain drugs, or driving while drinking. Second hand smoke. Banning ads for cigarettes or hard liquor on TV, and the latest proposals to ban ads for junk food during children's programming. So I would say that even though a person gives their consent for certain activities (say, an 18 year old girl wants to be in porn movies), if society believes those activities are harmful, then there is a precedent for society being able to put limits on damaging behaviors. Similarly, an 18 year old boy might think it is a good idea to drink 6 beers and then drive in a car race at 3 a.m. He doesn't have the experience or brains to realize or care that this could have negative and long term consequences. |
| pittrek 09.03.2013 12:31 |
There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG about pornography, in the case that 1) the viewers are adults 2) the actors are adults 3) the actors are doing it voluntarily The so called "gender equality" is of course complete bullshit |
| magicalfreddiemercury 09.03.2013 14:22 |
Donna13 wrote: I haven't read up on the EU proposal or the Icelandic one, but I would assume it has to do with the protection of women, rather than the denying of men's rights.I don't believe this is about denying men’s rights – every adult male or female has the ‘right’ to view porn, and thought it’s often billed as a man’s thing, plenty of women enjoy it, too. Beyond that, by banning porn, what are they protecting women from? Themselves? Their own poor choices? It implies that women are incapable of making their own decisions. So I would say that even though a person gives their consent for certain activities (say, an 18 year old girl wants to be in porn movies), if society believes those activities are harmful, then there is a precedent for society being able to put limits on damaging behaviors. Similarly, an 18 year old boy might think it is a good idea to drink 6 beers and then drive in a car race at 3 a.m.I'm not seeing the connection between a person choosing to become a porn star and one choosing to drive drunk at night. One is a matter of personal choice while the other is about public safety. Since drunk driving has been proven to be a harmful activity, limits of that damaging behavior should be put in place. However, the choice to participate in porn is a personal one about which society should have no say. It’s like society deciding that since running into burning buildings is harmful and dangerous there should be a ban on firefighters. Or that since many people regret getting piercings or tattoos, those should be banned as well. Where does it stop? It might seem logical to try to control what others choose to do with their lives or their bodies if you hold negative views about those choices, but it’s simply wrong. The ban on sugary commercials during kid’s programming makes sense, however. Poor nutrition has a direct impact on individuals as well as on society. He doesn't have the experience or brains to realize or care that this could have negative and long term consequences.Does anyone at 18 realize or care about long term consequences? :-) They can vote at that age. They can enter the military. They choose college majors… We all make stupid choices at times. That’s how we learn what’s right for us as individuals. I don't know, I'm still seeing this whole thing as dangerous overreach. pittrek wrote: There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG about pornography, in the case that 1) the viewers are adults 2) the actors are adults 3) the actors are doing it voluntarily The so called "gender equality" is of course complete bullshitWith this, I agree. |
| Donna13 09.03.2013 16:14 |
I'd say that many laws are just for protecting the not so bright among us - or for protecting the vulnerable or the disadvantaged. The laws regarding the advertising of cigarettes is a prime example. Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to make it illegal to sell really large sugary drinks is another. If we could go back in time, the same "everyone is an adult" argument above could be made about the gladiators. A percentage of the gladiators were volunteers (they chose that lifestyle as young men for personal reasons), so in those cases, they were all consenting adults: those fighting to the death, those managing and training the gladiators, and those watching. And it was all legal and considered a valid and normal form of entertainment (kind of like how American football violence is considered "normal" by most people today). And I think people developed an appetite for seeing people getting killed in those days. And the majority would have probably also said that there was nothing wrong with it, especially if it was something they really enjoyed. |
| inu-liger 09.03.2013 17:46 |
Seriously, the EU is actually debating something like this?? One of the dumbest moves and waste of time I've ever seen from their side of the pond lately! Whether you agree with the material content or not, this is definitely going to affect free speech on some levels, and drive a whole load of activity underground. My dollar is on the Vatican secretly funding this move big time. |
| mooghead 10.03.2013 04:32 |
Completely unenforceable. |
| Holly2003 10.03.2013 08:26 |
This would be a disaster for me ;) |
| waunakonor 10.03.2013 11:09 |
^^^ |
| tero! 48531 10.03.2013 15:53 |
Holly2003 wrote: This would be a disaster for me ;)Personally or professionally? ;) |
| Hangman_96 10.03.2013 17:25 |
tero! 48531 wrote:Both :-)Holly2003 wrote: This would be a disaster for me ;)Personally or professionally? ;) |
| catqueen 11.03.2013 14:19 |
It's not a ban on porn!!! It's a ban on porn IN ADVERTISING and media. Which is extremely different! Yes, women choose to get involved in porn (some are coerced, but that's a different issue -- many get into stripping/porn for money and know what they're doing). But porn in advertising is a totally different issue. It's commercialising women and using women's bodies to sell stuff. It makes it acceptable to view women as commodities, and advertising is public and kids can watch it. There are ads that are totally rediculous -- there was an ad for club orange that out last summer that was bordering on porn, and there are always some on that are flat out degrading. If it isn't blatant, it encourages people to think that it's ok for women to be seen in that light. It's not ok, and it means young girls are growing up in a society where they have to be pretty and they have to use their bodies to get ahead. And sure, people can learn to be ruthless and do what they have to do, but girls shouldn't have to flash to get ahead. And it also makes women seen (albeit in a subtle and unconscious way) as less serious then men. We're here to be looked at, and that's all we can really manage, rather then men who are portrayed in media and advertising as intelligent, powerful, etc. And down to kid's tv -- look at how the women are portrayed compared to the men. The women in High 5 are gorgeous and in small clothes, and that's aimed at very young kids (other programmes escape my mind right now, but it's not uncommon). I can't imagine that men would be too happy if there was a half naked brad pitt or aston cooper shoved under their noses all the time, advertising milk or crackers or cleaning products. Maybe i missed the point of the vote, but i thought it was aimed at advertising and mainstream media, not at the porn industry. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 11.03.2013 15:01 |
catqueen wrote: It's not a ban on porn!!! It's a ban on porn IN ADVERTISING and media.It's all in the details. Article 17 of this report starts by stating it's a call "for the EU and its Member States to take concrete action on its resolution of 16 September 1997 on discrimination against women in advertising..." However, it continues with - "which called for a ban on all forms of pornography in the media and on the advertising of sex tourism." The words "all forms of pornography in the media" do not stipulate porn in advertising but rather suggest a much greater reach for control. Regarding advertising, though, I agree completely with your comments. |
| GratefulFan 12.03.2013 12:41 |
So, ultimately predictably and perhaps properly rejected. I say 'perhaps' because we can't now know how this otherwise might have wound itself through the many layers between a general call to action and any eventual legislation. I say predictably because it seems to me the alarm bells were rather strategically rung just enough in advance to allow only general outrage, nervousness and scoffing to settle in the public consciousness. A more thoughtful approach from the time the text was first available last year might have resulted in a better draft and a productive discussion. Still possible of course, perhaps even likely, but deferred for a while at least to settle around predictable and boring poles. Pornography is a bit like religion in that it is not universally anything. Porn is at times pleasurable, positive, freeing, relieving, benign, awakening, irrelevant, deadening, destructive, dangerous, degrading, viciously addictive, depressing and on and on in both directions and in no direction at all. And it can be any or all of those things to any individual or group creating, consuming or absorbing it by osmosis at any life point depending on endless concurrent factors. That people are adults is a simplistic answer. Adults need information and experience and instinct and a measure of self awareness and self regulation to be healthy adults, and they benefit greatly from having had a fair shot at being healthy children first, and none of those things are particularly well served by electing to see a complex and extremely broad issue like pornography primarily or exclusively through principles of freedom and expression. I think almost all of us would agree that there is only a very limited role for government in the regulation of pornography and attendant industries and that restrictions should be few and intelligently targeted. I don't think the strategic spinning and likely overreaction to what was contained in the EU resolution was necessarily key to achieve that. I get tired and bored of endless slippery-slopeism on the one hand and moral panic on the other crapping all over the potential for public discussions that are truly interesting, truly intelligent, honest and informed rather than agenda driven, and uniting rather than dividing. Generally, yawn at this tempest in a phallic spouted teapot. |
| pittrek 12.03.2013 12:58 |
So these bastards did it :-( |
| Saint Jiub 12.03.2013 19:15 |
pittrek wrote: So these bastards did it :-(What did the bastards do? I am glad I live in the USA where we are not so uptight about sex ... ;) |
| magicalfreddiemercury 12.03.2013 19:40 |
Panchgani wrote:Update here - (with the headline "EU Votes to Reject 'Porn Ban' Proposal")pittrek wrote: So these bastards did it :-(What did the bastards do? I am glad I live in the USA where we are not so uptight about sex ... ;) link |
| waunakonor 12.03.2013 20:25 |
Panchgani wrote:I think I'm going off on a bit of a tangent, but here I go...pittrek wrote: So these bastards did it :-(What did the bastards do? I am glad I live in the USA where we are not so uptight about sex ... ;) In some cultures long ago, people weren't uptight about sex or nudity whatsoever. In ancient Mesopotamian cultures (around the area of Iraq and such) the temples would have a bunch of female "priests" who were basically spiritual prostitutes. Read the epic Gilgamesh; it's fascinating. Now, that area is dominated by Islam and that sort of thing would never be acceptable either, and it's pretty much that way in most of the "civilized" world. I really wouldn't have a problem if I lived in a world where people didn't feel much of a need to cover up or treat sex as a taboo subject, and for more reasons that just to see attractive women walking around with little to no clothes on. |
| pittrek 13.03.2013 02:17 |
The strange thing is that all our media report that pornography was banned |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.03.2013 07:29 |
pittrek wrote: The strange thing is that all our media report that pornography was bannedOdd. Maybe they're (purposely?) confusing the issue since, although that clause was removed, the rest of the report was voted up. ??? |
| Mr.Jingles 13.03.2013 17:37 |
mooghead wrote: Completely unenforceable.They can't even fight the war against drugs, and now they want to fight porn? |
| GratefulFan 14.03.2013 01:05 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Not so odd perhaps. It was essentially my point that the way we talk about ideas in this culture too often results in concepts so narrowed and ideologically filtered that they obscure both fact and purpose . Substance traded for the assurance that we're absolutely right. The new media landscape is so often a race to the bottom and too many have concluded that this is exactly how we like our editorial news: skewed, dumbed down and ideally righteously angry. Who can blame them? Looking through just this thread I see "there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG about pornography if people are adults", choosing a career in porn is "empowering", gender equality is "complete bullshit". I respect the intelligence and engagement of people on this thread. Full stop. But these statements surely must be recognized as imbalanced and incomplete? There is never anything wrong or harmful about porn? The porn industry whose mainstream could not be more open or more consistent with the fusing of sex and female degradation is a reliably empowering career choice? Gender equality is not a fuzzily defined social challenge that's been met with a mix of success and overreach, but "complete bullshit"? In this internet and infotainment age we have collectively bought into an awful template for thinking and talking about things, and like a funhouse mirror it warps and reflects back at us thorough our media and our politics. The slow and unresponsive political process we have is the one we deserve when the shrill default message on most things that make us even remotely uneasy is to do nothing in the name of liberty rather than risk getting a little messy and maybe getting it a little wrong before we get it mostly right.pittrek wrote: The strange thing is that all our media report that pornography was bannedOdd. Maybe they're (purposely?) confusing the issue since, although that clause was removed, the rest of the report was voted up. ??? Most see the striking of the proposed action plans on pornography in the media as a victory of common sense and democracy. I don't know what it was. Certainly a reinforcement of the sense that government intervention in this realm is above all intrusive. Maybe a belief both spoken and unspoken that concerns are just so much hung up feminist or religious screed. But the radical changes in the character, ubiquitousness and accessibility of pornography in the digital age are, as one researcher put it, "one of the fastest moving most global experiments ever unconsciously conducted". It's unlikely that the inevitable leaks into our society, our relationships and our private worlds have been uniformly positive. There are not too many of us I don't think who wouldn't acknowledge that consumption sometimes edges into darker places that are not necessarily a net gain in value in all the things we collect in our heads over a lifetime. We're probably particularly vulnerable when we're lonely or depressed or angry. From a scientific perspective more and more emerging information seems to confirm that the spike in men in their 20's and 30's suffering erectile dysfunction is related to neurological processes involving dopamine and reward paths that have been short circuited by specific and common practices in porn consumption that grossly over stimulate the normal response system in the brain. Counter intuitively, men in their 40's and 50's with porn related ED can recover normal function significantly more quickly than younger men, making this of particular concern to those who may have had their entire neurological sexual circuitry primed on internet porn. Most fascinating, use by young men was so common that they could not initially put together an experimental control group to study any of the physical and psychological effects in that standard way. Again, fascinating and thought provoking given the unknowns. Their control groups now are made up of ex porn users who now abstain because of the harmful effects they experienced with their specific consumption patterns. Anecdotally the stories are sad. Young men on Viagra who still struggled with erectile dysfunction for years who now expect years more to unlearn what they learned from contemporary porn. Now of course that is just one bit of information affecting only some people and not a broad statement on pornography or a case for a "ban". It may be along with some of things the EU resolution wanted to address however a canary in a coal mine. It is I think an argument that pornography and a culture increasingly saturated with it is fact very much like those sugary drinks referred to earlier in the thread. It's like cigarettes, and like gambling. The manufacture of vice. The people who make it make it deliberately with the knowledge that they are creating an addictive product and they want you to want their version and ideally more and more of it. They ramp up the number and character of the stimulants to that end, and they do that for profit. Some will be hurt by that and its addictive potential means it should perhaps be considered that it shouldn't be relegated entirely without qualification to the realm of adult choice. It is exactly these factors that have historically justified information campaigns and government regulation and a demand for responsibility and accountability from industries in the form of warnings and limits and contributions to education and assistance programs. Few want cigarettes and gambling and junk food banned, but fewer than that would think of them first in terms of empowerment and freedom. |