So ... Billie Eilish ...

[PureX]

I don't take issue with regulating nor banning stuff when it is downright harmful. But on this case we are talking about harm caused by humans mistaking entertainment for education. At best we could ask the following disclaimer to be shown on porn movies: 'This is a work of fiction'.

We have to accept people for what they are, and be willing to alter our for-profit enterprises accordingly. It's not the (young) people's fault if they mistake this "entertainment" for reality. Especially when the "entertainment" is doing all it can to present itself as 'real'.

I am an artist, myself, so I understand the value and need for representation, and for story-telling, and for fiction and fantasy and so on. But art is still just art. And in this instance it's not really even that. It's just fantasy-for-a-profit. It's not a necessary enterprise in a healthy society. So if it wants to exist in a healthy society, it has to be made to do so appropriately, and without doing harm. If it can't do that, it doesn't belong in a healthy society.

And I would say this about ANY business or commercial enterprise. Not just "entertainment". Serving some people's desire at the expense of other people's well-being is not a logically acceptable trade in a healthy society. It's really as simple as that, to me.

 

[PureX]

@PureX

By the way, it should be pointed out that being famous at a really young age did more harm to Billie than exposure to porn could ever accomplish.

She has spoken at great length about that. And written songs about it. She has only in the last few years managed to reconcile with the absurdity of celebrity in the age of the internet. And yes, it has done her harm, but it has also provided her with great opportunities besides those that come with wealth.

The real point I would make, however, is that if you have to defend porn by claiming that other things do even more harm ... like massive celebrity and earning 30 million dollars by the age of 19 ... you have a very poor defense.

 

[PureX]

I have to add this clip from the same interview just for the fun of it ... it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but I got a good laugh from it.

 

[Koldo]

We have to accept people for what they are, and be willing to alter our for-profit enterprises accordingly. It's not the (young) people's fault if they mistake this "entertainment" for reality. Especially when the "entertainment" is doing all it can to present itself as 'real'.

I am an artist, myself, so I understand the value and need for representation, and for story-telling, and for fiction and fantasy and so on. But art is still just art. And in this instance it's not really even that. It's just fantasy-for-a-profit. It's not a necessary enterprise in a healthy society. So if it wants to exist in a healthy society, it has to be made to do so appropriately, and without doing harm. If it can't do that, it doesn't belong in a healthy society.

And I would say this about ANY business or commercial enterprise. Not just "entertainment". Serving some people's desire at the expense of other people's well-being is not a logically acceptable trade in a healthy society. It's really as simple as that, to me.

The complete absence of any harm is an unreasonable expectation. For anything.

 

[Koldo]

She has spoken at great length about that. And written songs about it. She has only in the last few years managed to reconcile with the absurdity of celebrity in the age of the internet. And yes, it has done her harm, but it has also provided her with great opportunities besides those that come with wealth.

Same with porn.

The real point I would make, however, is that if you have to defend porn by claiming that other things do even more harm ... like massive celebrity and earning 30 million dollars by the age of 19 ... you have a very poor defense.

Does money and fame excuse harm?

 

[PureX]

Same with porn.

How do you figure that?

Does money and fame excuse harm?

No, but it sure helps one recover from it. (I'm guessing, as I have never experiences either.)

And this isn't just about Billie Eilish. It's about the many, MANY other young people out there that have a very twisted view of sex and sexual interaction, now, because they "learned" about sex from pornography that isn't about sex at all, but is about sexual exploitation and abuse for money.

 

[Koldo]

How do you figure that?

Pornography allows oneself to explore sexuality in different ways.

No, but it sure helps one recover from it. (I'm guessing, as I have never experiences either.)

And this isn't just about Billie Eilish. It's about the many, MANY other young people out there that have a very twisted view of sex and sexual interaction, now, because they "learned" about sex from pornography that isn't about sex at all, but is about sexual exploitation and abuse for money.

What many MANY people? What twisted views? Like hers? How commonplace is it? Where is the data?

 

[PureX]

Pornography allows oneself to explore sexuality in different ways.

No it doesn’t. It’s just a lot of phony imagery.

What many MANY people? What twisted views? Like hers? How commonplace is it? Where is the data?

How many have to be hurt to matter to you?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Ignorance does not protect from punishment.

It's the parents fault that their children run around with smartphones without restrictions.
Simple as that.

Well it isn't as simple as that. Particularly when it is almost impossible to exist socially and as to information these days, apart from convenience, without such technology. It is virtually being forced upon us (I've resisted but perhaps not for long), and this affects children as much as adults - more so since they will have to deal with all this in the future too.

I'm sure many parents do try to keep their children safe, and no doubt do, but unfortunately there will be the many who either lack the necessary interest and/or ability to have good dialogues with their children so as to know what they are doing or just don't have the necessary skills and/or knowledge to understand the technology. Saying they should doesn't help.

As I mentioned, there are no doubt ways to keep what one does away from the prying eyes of parents if such is required. I do have sufficient knowledge of this even if I don't own a smartphone. And such can be passed around in schools - away from the prying eyes.

 

[Flankerl]

Again: So called "parental locks" exist on literally every single smartphone and tablet on this planet.
Furthermore they exist on Smart TVs and in specific apps like Prime or Netflix.


Parents simply do not care.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Again: So called "parental locks" exist on literally every single smartphone and tablet on this planet.
Furthermore they exist on Smart TVs and in specific apps like Prime or Netflix.


Parents simply do not care.

This is still a catch-all approach, and one that just can't exist in reality - which is what we have to deal with unfortunately. This is worth a look:

Children and parents: media use and attitudes report 2019 (ofcom.org.uk)

Parents continue to find these content filters beneficial; nine in ten who use either of these filters say they are useful, with more than seven in ten saying that they block the right amount of content. However, parents also recognise that content filters are not completely failsafe; 14% say their child is able to get around the filter, increasing to 20% of parents of 12-15s. This older age group endorse this belief; 15% of 12-15s who go online say they know how to unset these filters, and half say they have done so. (Page 32)

 

[PureX]

Again: So called "parental locks" exist on literally every single smartphone and tablet on this planet.
Furthermore they exist on Smart TVs and in specific apps like Prime or Netflix.


Parents simply do not care.

It's not the parent's responsibility to guard their kids against the gross dissemination of pornography any more than it'd be their responsibility to guard their kids again people giving them free samples of recreational drugs or alcohol away on every street corner in town. It's society's responsibility to guard all children against such harmful substances and behaviors.

You seem to be presuming that porn is some sort of God-given right that can't be denied or infringed. It's not. It's a serious public nuisance and should be treated as such.

 

[Flankerl]

I am sorry I am not naive enough for this.

 

[Revoltingest]

I
You seem to be presuming that porn is some sort of God-given right that can't be denied or infringed. It's not. It's a serious public nuisance and should be treated as such.

The greater public nuisance is the threat of prudes who
want more power given to government to censor us.

 

[PureX]

The greater public nuisance is the threat of prudes who
want more power given to government to censor us.

Not censor, control. Human behavior needs to be controlled for us to live together successfully. Porn is just another human behavior that needs to be controlled. Welcome to reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not censor, control. Human behavior needs to be controlled for us to live together successfully. Porn is just another human behavior that needs to be controlled. Welcome to reality.

Just change the name of "censor" to "control", & all is good, eh.

 

[PureX]

Just change the name of "censor" to "control", & all is good, eh.

It is what it is. Call it whatever you want, but we don't get to do whatever we want whenever we want for whatever reason we want. That's not how societies work. That's how societies fall into chaos and destruction.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is what it is. Call it whatever you want....

I use the term "censorship" for censorship.

That's not how societies work. That's how societies fall into chaos and destruction.

I've often heard people decry the destruction of
society caused by....
- Taking the 10 Commandments out of the classroom.
- Government not following the Bible.
- Secular humanism.
- Marxists controlling the hippies.
- Porn.

The last item is new to the list.
It seems that society is very fragile. It'll soon be destroyed
by gays, trans, atheists, commies, libertarians, etc, etc.

 

[PureX]

I use the term "censorship" for censorship.

I've often heard people decry the destruction of
society caused by....
- Taking the 10 Commandments out of the classroom.
- Government not following the Bible.
- Secular humanism.
- Marxists controlling the hippies.
- Porn.

The last item is new to the list.
It seems that society is very fragile. It'll soon be destroyed
by gays, trans, atheists, commies, libertarians, etc, etc.

Yep, we have to debate many of these behaviors to determine the extent to which they need to be controlled.

So, go ahead and explain the positive value to society of porn, and keep in mind that paying people to abuse and humiliate them sexually and take photos of it is not a positive social value just because money is involved. Also keep on mind that the very fact that people have to be paid to allow themselves to be abused and humiliated in this way negates any delusional claims of valid consent. Also keep in mind that a total ban is probably not necessary, and is not the only solution by a long shot.

OK, go ...

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep, we have to debate many of these behaviors to determine the extent to which they need to be controlled.

So, go ahead and explain the positive value to society of porn, and keep in mind that paying people to abuse and humiliate them sexually is not a positive social value just because money is involved. Also keep on mind that the very fact that people have to be paid to allow themselves to be abused and humiliated in this way negates any delusions of valid consent. Also keep in mind that a total ban is probably not necessary, and is not the only solution by a long shot.

OK, go ...

The main positive value of legalized porn is that
making it illegal has worse consequences.
Secondarily people enjoy & profit from it.