|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 12/10/2005 : 13:13:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Robb...quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert...
If 70% of all people do something, wouldn't that be evidence that the behavior is "normal?"
[...]
Would you conclude that belief in god is normal from these statistics?
I might be wrong here, but I think H. Humbert was making fun of the ridiculously high percentage rate, a clear (and completely unsupported) exaggeration on the part of the guilt-and-shame monger who tossed out that number in the quoted interview.quote:
Originally posted by Robb...quote:
Originally posted by me...
Here's a thought. If you're scared that looking at pornography might make you feel so good you'll want to do it over and over again, don't look at it, Robb!
That would be great if I could! When I go to a mall I see innapropriate clothed women on billboards, in stores, on TV, I get adds sent ot my house with mostly naked women in the adds. You cannot just say don't look when it is everywhere in public places.
You've made it clear that you have a problem with pornography, if only in your lack of understanding what pornography is. I was kidding when I suggested counseling earlier in this thread, but if you can't look at a billboard or an underwear or swimsuit advertisement without becoming sexually aroused and feeling shame, it seems likely you do need some help. In your case, counselors not affiliated with a church would probably be just as capable of recognizing that as a problem, and might be more inclined to actually help you without heaping on more shame and guilt.
To accuse me of being what I am speaking out against is the usual tactic from the mianstream media, Hollywood and politicians, but I thought I would get better here. Its the same ploy as when someone speaks out against the homosexual lifestyle, you get accused of being somehow secretly gay.
What I have a problem with the billboards, suggestive ads of TV during Charlie Brown etc., is that they portray women as nothing more than eye candy. The women in these ads are made to look better than they really are. They effectivly say that showing your body is the only way to be sexy and desirable. Girls can never look like these models because the models do not even look like themselves. And boys get a very wrong attitude toward women at an early age.
I do not feel shame, only sadness when I see these ads, that our society values sex over the well being of women and young girls. Guilt and shame are what Jesus takes away, he does not give them.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
| Edited by - Robb on 12/10/2005 13:27:08 |
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2005 : 13:21:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Why did god make naked women look so good if he didn't want you to look at them? 
God wants men to look at women and get sexually arroused, this is how men were created. Women are very beautiful. But he did not make them for everyone to look at or to lust over. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2005 : 15:09:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Robb:
What I have a problem with the billboards, suggestive ads of TV during Charlie Brown etc., is that they portray women as nothing more than eye candy. The women in these ads are made to look better than they really are. They effectivly say that showing your body is the only way to be sexy and desirable. Girls can never look like these models because the models do not even look like themselves. And boys get a very wrong attitude toward women at an early age.
I pretty much agree with the above paragraph…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2005 : 17:39:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Robb:
What I have a problem with the billboards, suggestive ads of TV during Charlie Brown etc., is that they portray women as nothing more than eye candy. The women in these ads are made to look better than they really are. They effectivly say that showing your body is the only way to be sexy and desirable. Girls can never look like these models because the models do not even look like themselves. And boys get a very wrong attitude toward women at an early age.
I pretty much agree with the above paragraph…
Sex is definitely a commodity in our culture, but I don't see that as a problem. Good looking people have been glorified throughout the ages. I wonder if the Greeks ever complained that all those marble statues of the gods make them feel inferior and give them eating disorders?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/10/2005 17:39:56 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2005 : 18:26:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
H. Humbert:
Sex is definitely a commodity in our culture, but I don't see that as a problem. Good looking people have been glorified throughout the ages. I wonder if the Greeks ever complained that all those marble statues of the gods make them feel inferior and give them eating disorders?
Perhaps if it was you who was on the receiving end of most of the objectification, you might feel differently. In fact, I see this and other social constructs as legitimate targets for skeptics. Baloney is baloney, no matter how it is wrapped…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2005 : 19:33:19 [Permalink]
|
In regards to what Robb has been saying:
It is not irresponsible, certainly not very irresponsible, for adults to be trading pornography to other adults. Porn is not inherently dangerous, and it can be quite enjoyable. Even if porn can be addictive to some, most people who use pornography use it in moderation to enhance their sex life.
I think your associating commerical porn with sexy ads is a big mistake. The reason the ads are problematic is because we know they have an affect on the self image of people who don't have any choice whether to look at them or not, especially that of teenagers. I completely agree with you that the quantity of shallow-sexy imagery in advertising has got out of control in our society. But that has nothing to do with commercial pornography.
I challenge anyone who says enjoyment of pornography is immoral. I find that idea ridiculous. I've had great fun shopping for porn and sex toys and even watching porn movies with close friends. I'm not ashamed in any way of anything I've purchased, nor do I think porn has in any way negatively affected my happiness, productivity, or romantic relationships. Keep in mind that while our society may get too much exposure to unrealistic sexual images in ads, we also have a problem with sexual repression and guilt, which makes that sort of imagery all that much more titilating.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/10/2005 19:33:55 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/10/2005 : 23:06:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Sex is definitely a commodity in our culture, but I don't see that as a problem...
I can't see how it is, and frankly- if it were a problem- since most Americans are raised in an environment saturated in it, I'm not sure we'd be in a position to objectively recognize, or judge whether it was, or wasn't. A vast majority of those most certain that it is a problem appear to base their assessment on religious dogma... and considering the track record of people basing assessments on things like that, the more stone-cold absolutely iron-clad dead-sure they are of something, the more nervous I get, and more I think "Hey, wait, let's just put the brakes on, and carefully (re)consider all of this."
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
... In fact, I see this and other social constructs as legitimate targets for skeptics...
I don't, at least not that particular social construct, by virtue of response above. Most of us have been born into and raised in an environment where attractive people are central to everything in media (except the comical), it's statistically demonstrable that they go farther in business and politics (good-looks aren't the "say all, end all," but they definitely don't hurt.) Sexual attractiveness- directly, or more often indirectly- pervades almost everything around us. Is this just a very natural, and incidental offshoot of what we are, or is it a problem? I don't know. Unless someone can demonstate to me that it's a problem, and not just one of many facets of being human that undeniably has it's occassional and various negative aspects- I see no reason for a crusade to suppress it.
Demonstrate how? I don't know. Find a cultural environment- maybe the Amish, Mennonites, or something- and show how the deliberate exclusion of overt sexual explicitness has benefit them, as opposed to a "control group" (easy to find- that's virtually everybody else.) Until then, I'm not sure which side I should be skeptical of. |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 12/10/2005 23:24:30 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 01:02:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
H. Humbert:
Sex is definitely a commodity in our culture, but I don't see that as a problem...
quote:
ronnywhite:
I can't see how it is, and frankly- if it were a problem- since most Americans are raised in an environment saturated in it, I'm not sure we'd be in a position to objectively recognize, or judge whether it was, or wasn't.
You know, that is something I struggle with too. I was, after all, brought up in this culture. But really, there are ways to sort this stuff out. There are good studies that support the view that there is a problem with how girls and woman are portrayed in the media.
quote:
ronnywhite:
A vast majority of those most certain that it is a problem appear to base their assessment on religious dogma...
I base my assessment on studies that have “no dog in that fight.” While some studies may be cited by those with a religious agenda, that does not invalidate the studies. Others interested are psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and pediatricians, just to name a few.
quote:
ronnywhite:
… Sexual attractiveness- directly, or more often indirectly- pervades almost everything around us. Is this just a very natural, and incidental offshoot of what we are, or is it a problem? I don't know. Unless someone can demonstate to me that it's a problem, and not just one of many facets of being human that undeniably has it's occassional and various negative aspects- I see no reason for a crusade to suppress it.
Demonstrate how? I don't know. Find a cultural environment- maybe the Amish, Mennonites, or something- and show how the deliberate exclusion of overt sexual explicitness has benefit them, as opposed to a "control group" (easy to find- that's virtually everybody else.) Until then, I'm not sure which side I should be skeptical of.
I am sitting here with several studies on the media and girls on my desk. And If I need to I will find a way to access at least some of the abstracts on the Internet. They are in peer reviewed journal sites and I have no direct access to the full studies that I can link you to. There may be a way that I haven't figured out yet. Very quickly though, I googled up the following summaries of some of the studies. I did not include anything that was without source…
Perhaps these will help you to see where I am coming from:
Body Image and Advertising
Media's Effect On Girls: Body Image And Gender Identity
Beauty and Body Image in the Media
Media and Girls
Exposure to the Mass Media and Weight Concerns Among Girls
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 12:36:13 [Permalink]
|
How has this discussion turned from the morality of pornography to how mass media images are damaging to young peoples' (especially girls') self images? (I'm not saying it's a bad change of topic, but I find it curious.) Body image and sex, while often related, are not the same thing. We have connected mass media imagery to eating disorders and other body image issues in girls (and boys too) from across the economic spectrum, and found that the only demographic not or less influenced is ethnic groups (particularly blacks and hispanics) that either have strong customs or unique pop culture imagery that shows women with different body types. But if we look at SEX and harmful sexual behavior such as abusive relationships, high rates of divorce, teenage pregnancy, and spread of STDs, we find a corolation with economics, not exposure to mass media imagery or porn.
I have yet to see anyone here demonstrate how porn is harmful. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/11/2005 12:37:02 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 13:38:51 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, marfknox, for bringing up some good points. I was trying to figure out how to say almost exactly what you've said.quote:
Originally posted by Robb...
To accuse me of being what I am speaking out against is the usual tactic from the mianstream media, Hollywood and politicians, but I thought I would get better here. Its the same ploy as when someone speaks out against the homosexual lifestyle, you get accused of being somehow secretly gay.
Oh poor little persecuted you. Let's run it once more since you seem to have misinterpreted what you said...quote:
Originally posted by Robb...quote:
Originally posted by me...
Here's a thought. If you're scared that looking at pornography might make you feel so good you'll want to do it over and over again, don't look at it, Robb!
That would be great if I could! When I go to a mall I see innapropriate clothed women on billboards, in stores, on TV, I get adds sent ot my house with mostly naked women in the adds. You cannot just say don't look when it is everywhere in public places.
You've obviously equated "inappropriately clothed" women in billboard ads, in stores, and on TV, with pornography. In my reply I said, "You've made it clear that you have a problem with pornography, if only in your lack of understanding what pornography is."
And really, whether the contemporary depiction of women in advertising is "appropriate" or not (a separate issue, as has been pointed out by marfknox, and probably worthy of at least some concern as Kil has suggested), if you consider that type of imagery to be pornography, either you have a problem with what sort of things get you off, or you have a distorted perception of how society currently defines pornography.
You said it would be great if you could ignore it, but, like it or not, those images that sexually excite you (certainly not all of us, by the way) are part of our contemporary culture. There are cultures on Earth where women wear next to nothing, all the time, and it doesn't seem to cause the men in those societies to be in a constant state of arousal. There have been many times through history when nudity, both in art and in public, has been commonplace and not looked upon as something disgraceful, as it seems to be by our current crop of religious morality police. And in those times, as well as today, the various natural human parts that might be seen in public don't seem to be especially detrimental to society in general. Considering it to be pornography seems quite an extreme position.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 14:03:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
marfknox:
How has this discussion turned from the morality of pornography to how mass media images are damaging to young peoples' (especially girls') self images? (I'm not saying it's a bad change of topic, but I find it curious.)
Some threads go where they go. Sorry…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 14:03:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
How has this discussion turned...
It's one related issue, and although it's not specifically what I had in mind when I made my comments, there's merit to Kil's point. Thanks for the links, and I agree that this can be one negative aspect, or offshoot of our sexuality. The question of "line drawing" and whether the issue should be directly addressed at all, or whether it might be best left alone with youth education and/or counseling being the preferred (attempted) remedy.
You see, although I likely agree with Kil on major issues RE these matters based upon his posts, my problem was with the broad (implied) sense in which he made his initial statement... I was "half-joking" when I made the Amish suggestion (of course) but I feel that as skepticism does or might apply to issues, they need to be defined specifically enough, with exactly why skepticism is warranted explained. If things are left too general as stated, critics of skepticism (of which there are many, in the religion frontier, as one example) will find fertile ground to paint skeptics as angry, disillusioned individuals of "sour grapes" who are ridiculously idealistic by taking their intended meaning out of context.
As a quick example, maybe, I'm as much against sexism in many senses as anyone else- as in a supervisor at work groping a woman, or using his position to harrass or pressure her into sex- which should be dealt with severely. But there are some who'd extend the lines so as to oppositely discriminate. For example, given the same context (employment) considering that a high percentage of married couples (over half) met their spouses through some employment-related association or function, is it reasonable to create circumstances where if a man casually and respectfully asks a woman out at work, if he happens to "float her boat" she's happy about it and will perhaps brag to the other secretaries (whatever) but if she doesn't like him, she can complain to personnel and have his job threatened? It sounds stupid, but I've actually witnessed this happen to someone (thankfully, personnel was able to sort thigns out, but I'm sure this wasn't an isolated instance, and it surely doesn't always work out "for the best".)
Gonna hit chat for a few minutes now as it's one of those rare days when I have the bandwidth at hand... hope quick response wasn't misleading. |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 12/11/2005 14:06:19 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 14:46:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Why did god make naked women look so good if he didn't want you to look at them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God wants men to look at women and get sexually arroused, this is how men were created. Women are very beautiful. But he did not make them for everyone to look at or to lust over.
How, exactly, do you know this? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 14:49:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
God wants men to look at women and get sexually arroused, this is how men were created. Women are very beautiful. But he did not make them for everyone to look at or to lust over.
Does anyone see any contradiction in this statement (besides the fact that men weren't created) ? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2005 : 19:48:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
... contradiction ...
I'm not sure which contradiction most amply fits, but I immediately seem ta' recall something about "All Men are equal in the eyes of God"??? Maybe some are just more equal than others??? Or perhaps He just wasn't making any implications about "the eyes of women" so it doesn't apply??? |
Ron White |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
