Your opinion on pornography.

[Kurska]

I'm trying to gauge DU's opinion on pornography. So I've created a poll.

If you have anything to add or would like to comment on the options, I'm open to suggestions.

Definitions:

Protected speech is speech that is covered by first amendment.

49 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Pornography is protected speech and is not harmful to society as a whole.
	44 (90%)
	Pornography is protected speech, but it is harmful to society as a whole.
	3 (6%)
	Pornography is not protected speech, but it is not harmful to society as a whole.
	0 (0%)
	Pornography is not protected speech and harmful to society as a whole.
	2 (4%)
	i liek 2 vote
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. My added option - not all pornography is created equally.

The courts decide what is protected speech, and so far, have said that pornography is covered. That could change in future, depending upon the SC makeup.

But pornography is a diverse field, and we know, from decades of experience, that media does shape and alter society. I'm far and away from one of the folks who proclaims 'all pornography is harmful or degrading to women'. I'll listen to various viewpoints, including those such as come from Nina Hartley, a long time porn star, ex-registered nurse, and sexual health advocate, who is vocally happy with her time in the industry, and continues to promote sexual expression. But, as we saw from posts elsewhere, porn has a far darker side in deliberately and overtly misogynistic and violent 'films' (I don't know what to call them, now that actual 'film' has disappeared and everything is done on digital...) that most assuredly promote harmful messages. Or even the equally disgusting 'crush' videos, in which animals like kittens are brutally murdered by people walking on them, that were endorsed in a horrific 8-1 ruling by the Roberts court in 2010 or so that overturned a 1999 ban on filming animal torture and snuff films and selling them for profit.

So my vote is mixed. Some pornography is indeed harmful, just like some television is harmful. You can watch Rachel Maddow or Rush Limbaugh. Watching Rachel will enlighten you about serious issues. Watching Rush will make you more likely to spout stupid drivel and vote in ways that harm the country. I'd say pornography is the same. Some may actually be empowering, much is probably fairly neutral, but there's also harmful stuff out there.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

2. I think you are 100% right

But as was pointed out below, animal rights laws should prevent videos that kill animals on screen, just as assault laws should protect any non-consenting adult.

[Kurska]

3. Protected speech means you're not allowed to discriminated based on legal content.

Banning crush films would require us to pass laws that make it illegal to crush the animals in question. Those are laws that I support (I consider myself an animal rights activist). Frankly though, I think it would be highly hypocritical to say "you can do it, but you can't point a camera at it".

Even degrading or horrific messages fall under the realm of protect speech. I'm jewish and while I may disagree with Triumph of the will or Mein Kampf and the evils that it represents, it still falls under the realm of protected speech.

The restrictions you want to put in place would only be possible if pornography was not protected speech, hence I think your option is already covered by the poll.

Or you could say you don't want those things to be restricted, but still believe that they make pornography as a whole have a negative effect on society.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. Those actions already are illegal.

But usually have very low penalties that can be paid back out of petty cash after the producers make a 'killing' selling the product to sleazeballs who get their kicks off of watching kittens get stomped into goo. There are very few places (if any?) where cruelty to animals extends to even brief jail time.

[Kurska]

6. I just looked up the law.

The law was struck down for being too vague (did not just apply to crush videos), hence it was struck down.

A new law was introduced.

Because crushing is illegal, it is not considered protected speech to film it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Crush_Video_Prohibition_Act_of_2010

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. Yay!

I somehow missed the fact that they put together a new law and actually got it passed in the wake of the court case that struck down the prior one. Kudos to Congress for actually doing something right back in 2010.

[Eleanors38]

11. Aye, there's the rub: Vagueness. Would even a workable definition of "crush"

be left well enough alone, or would someone seek to ban videos of hog-baying dogs, shooting deer, or cleaning & scaling still-live fish?

I've see videos as evidence of a crime rather than a crime itself. And the higher up the food chain you go, the greater the will and amount of money to prosecute.

So much of what we want outlawed, we really want hidden; it seems efficient and bureaucratic.

[gollygee]

13. There are laws

that say you can't have someone take a job that requires them to be physically injured as a part of that job, regardless of whether they consent to being injured. If I have a fast-food restaurant and want people to pull food out of a deep-fryer with their bare hands, it would be illegal, even if they consented to putting their bare hands in the deep fryer. In fact, there only has to be a potential for injury for it to be illegal. If I have a construction site and workers sign consent forms that that they don't want to wear helmets, I'm still required to make them wear helmets.

I am not bothered by sex on film. I admit to not being an expert on porn, but my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that some porn scenarios are damaging to the women in porn - they cause physical damage. Like they aren't potentially dangerous, but simply create injury.

If porn was just filming of sex, I would not be bothered by it at all. But I do worry that a popular medium where women being injured is intended to sexually stimulate creates a culture where injuring women is sexually stimulating.

I agree that if something is legal, it's also legal to film. I do have concerns about our culture - like what in our culture makes harming women seem sexually appealing. But not every concern I express about pron means I want porn banned. In some cases I'm just concerned about why it's appealing and what messages it sends to people who watch it, particularly younger people like teens and college kids.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Which porn?

Everything from bra ads to Miley Cyrus to rape and snuff flicks are being called porn and not all of them are bad. Or good. Or even porn.

At this point, we can depict fictional rapes and murders, but can't put out a video of a real rape or murder. Fine-- one's fiction, the other one is an actual crime.

But, we can simulate sex in a movie, but can't show real sex. Why not? Sex is not a crime and just about everyone does it, so why is showing real fucking worse than showing pretend fucking?

[Gravitycollapse]

17. Because we cling to legal technicalities as a means of expressing or repressing...

Latent desires, concerns and prejudice. It's deeply passive aggressive.

For instance, rape porn. Saying rape porn should be legal is a socially healthy and accepted way of condemning the legal act of rape while at the same time endorsing the viewing of rape.

[Raine1967]

7. What is porn?

I have a personal definition, but I'm not sure everyone else agrees with it.

[Kurska]

8. And that is the problem when talking about pornography. n/t

[Raine1967]

10. That's why I passed on your poll.

I will say that I abhor watching anything that makes me feel uncomfortable. A very good example for me is True Blood.

That is not porn.

I would rather watch people engaging in acts of sex when they have given consent, rather than something like True Blood.

(actually, I would rather watch Seinfeld and listen to Barry White… )

It's a good question. The answer I wanted give wasn't there.

[Javaman]

12. I forget to check my watch. It's porn time on DU!!! Yay!!

[Agschmid]

15. Links are allowed...?

Unless your spamming it.

[Gravitycollapse]

16. I prefer to speak of the prevalence of different types of acts and themes in pornography...

Rather than pornography as a monolithic concept. Which it isn't. It is infiltrated with all sorts of violent, disgusting stereotypes and actions, all of which do not condemn the very idea of pornography but the way we as a culture have endowed it with a purified forms of sexism that pervades society.

Therefore, it would be ridiculous for me to say that ALL pornography is protected speech.

[LittleBlue]

18. If they're over 18 and consent

and it's legal to do off camera, it's fine with me. Definitely protected speech in its online format.

[Kurska]

19. Well

That was a blowout.

[seaglass]

20. Yes, because the desire for porn is more important than the people harmed by it.

This is Belle Knox, the Duke porn performer who was lauded on DU for days:

Weeks started watching porn at 12, was raped in HS, suffered from depression and was a cutter. She described her first consensual porn experience (with Facial Abuse - one of the worst):

While Weeks maintains that everything that happened at the shoot was consensual, it was not the best experience. "They try to figure out what makes you tick and fuck with you. I remember getting naked, and the guy said, 'You have cuts on your legs. You're a cutter.' He could tell I had written the word 'fat' in my thigh, so he started calling me fat." Once they called "action," she was pushed to the ground and slapped. "And I said, 'Stop, stop, stop. No, no.' And then they stopped, and they were like, 'We have to keep going.'

"And I was like, 'Just please don't hit me so hard.' But it went on like that, me getting hit, pushed, spit on. I was being told I was fat, that I was a terrible feminist, was going to fail all my classes, was stupid, dumb, a slut. But I got through it. You know how you kind of zone out sometimes? I just disassociated." It wasn't until she got back to Duke that she felt the weight of it all. "I remember just being a wreck, like, 'Oh, my God, what have I done? This is the most embarrassing thing ever. What if somebody finds it?'"

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-blue-devil-in-miss-belle-knox-meet-duke-porn-star-miriam-weeks-20140423#ixzz327lW3iwU
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

I personally don't watch porn, I wouldn't care about non-violent porn where people were treated with respect as humans. But this? This makes me sick and any male or female who gets off on watching this, defends or ignores it makes me sick. I don't care how it's excused - consensual adults, non-vanilla sex, kinks, - it's vile.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. in another thread there is a DUer that says they could take a lot of objectification for 10K ...

wonder if this is what they have in mind ....

[seaglass]

22. I have never been poor and probably because of that money is not the be all end all to me.

So it is easy for me to say I would never let someone treat me like that for any amount of money. I certainly wouldn't do it for tuition money. I might do it if my family was starving and I had no other options.

I feel sad for Miriam Weeks. It was her decision to make but the consequences have been harsh and she is very young.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. it was male poster that said that they would put up with a lot of objectification for 10k

they said it in the nude sports figure thread.

actually they use the word exploitation not, objectification.

[Nye Bevan]

24. They kept on slapping her when she told them to stop?

Sounds like assault to me. And there are already laws against that.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. would you like to help support her legal defense? or do you think she made enough money off this

to pay for her education and her legal fees?

I think she got more education than she bargained for.

[Nye Bevan]

26. What "legal defense"? Is she being prosecuted or sued? (nt)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. if she took out charges I imagine she would ... don't you? of course -

I have a pretty vivid imagination, do you?

[seaglass]

35. She accepted it as part of the job. n/t

[Kurska]

43. Actually no, if she wanted to stop she is legally allowed to demand it to stop at any point.

She would probably void her pay, but she can quit at any moment.

[seaglass]

44. What do you mean? I think she is clear that she finished the job so that would mean she went along

with the beating and humiliation as part of the job.

[Kurska]

48. You can quit a job at any moment.

And if they keep beating you after you quit, that is assault.

[Kurska]

42. I don't judge people based on their sexual interests.

That is where we differ, I suppose.

Known plenty of good people who were into sexual degradation, both having it done to them and doing it.

It isn't their fault if the industry treats their workers like crap, most do anyways.

[seaglass]

45. Yep, we differ. I don't intentionally associate with people who get pleasure out of degrading and

beating living beings, whether a child, an animal or an adult.

[Kurska]

47. Apparently the fact that it is consensual adults and that both parties are into it is irrelevant.

I find your prejudice toward them far more disturbing than their sexuality.

Oh and I'm sure you associate with people like that. They just don't tell you about it. You've probably had doctors, teachers, so on and so forth into BDSM and other exotic sexual interests. It is a big fascinating world out there if you can ever open up your mind enough to actually be tolerant of it, even if it ain't your cup of tea.

[seaglass]

49. Yep, I admit I am prejudiced towards violent sadistic people. I find it disturbing that you aren't

so I guess we're even. I'm betting not all BDSM is degrading and violent.

[Kurska]

50. Some of the most caring and wonderful people I've ever met have been into BDSM.

Great humanitarians who would give their leg for you if it helped you get ahead in life. Most human beings are capable of distinguishing between fantasy that involves consensual adults who want it and actual violence and degradation. Just because you apparently aren't capable of it, doesn't mean you should be pushing what is frankly closedmindness on other people.

Real life lesson on the way here, just because you have violent sexual fantasies that you exclusively restrict to willing participants, doesn't make you a violent person. You can whip your partner in the bedroom and still having a loving and mutually respectful relation the other 99% of the time. I know cause I've seen it.

In the future, please keep your prejudices to yourself.

Thanks

[seaglass]

53. I don't think I'll take you up on your suggestion. If you don't want to hear it, don't bring up the

subject.

I'm sure the guys who beat, spit on and humiliated Miriam Weeks were great humanitarians. Are you familiar with Facial Abuse? Even many people who enjoy rough sex porn think these guys are crossing ethical boundaries.

[Kurska]

54. You offered dismissive and derogatory opinions on people's private sexual lives.

If you want to be willfully uninformed on this matter, then by all means. But don't object to someone trying to educate you when you offer a sweeping generalization of millions of people you've never met simply on one aspect of their person. Especially when that opinion was entirely unsolicited in the first place.

Maybe the next time you try and shame people over their private sexual interests, you'll think better of it and just keep it to yourself.

Lets not pretend you're talking about just these guys, who are porn actors btw getting paid to do their job. Somehow I doubt they had any more real affinity for it than Miriam Weeks did. Porn companies rarely actually employee fetishists in fetish productions. Your generalizations were clearly aimed at anyone who enjoys sexual degradation or violence in their private sexual matters.

[seaglass]

55. Your words aren't having the effect you were hoping for unless it was to encourage me to

lose interest in this conversation, which I am. Let's just leave it here.

[Kurska]

57. Say something awful, get confronted

"Oh I'm sorry I'm losing interest in this conversation"

I don't suppose you can summon the interest to apologize to all the people you insulted with your statements? No? Alright.



Well at least you have the good sense to give up defending such words.

[seaglass]

60. You're not getting this at all. I'm not apologizing to anyone who enjoys how Miriam Weeks

or others like her are treated. I am not apologizing to anyone who watches this type of porn which ensures there is more of it.

There is no sense in going forward with this conversation because we are at an impasse.

[Kurska]

61. Nah, I get it.

I'm just disgusted that you'd talk this way about the loving couples I know who make this exact kind of amateur porn that you would consider "violent and degrading". That you would shame them for sexuality or say there is something wrong with them. Maybe you know nothing about them and or never met anybody like them, if so you attempt to wound out of ignorance. So I suppose that is somewhat better.

But, nah buddy there ain't nothing wrong with them.

You're the one going around yelling you won't associate with people, because of their most private thoughts and interactions with their partners.

Draw from that situation what you will and how much I would really care about your apology.

Peace out.

[Aerows]

27. I think SOME types of pornography are harmful to society as a whole

But the thing about pornography is the pesky "I'll know it when I see" aspect to it. It has to be protected speech because what I think is pornography (MUST be consenting adults) someone else might think is not pornography. Heck, I remember last year a story about a woman that tried to throw a sheet over a painting where a woman's breasts were exposed calling it pornography.

That said, my concern is that there are some folks involved in that business that aren't exactly consenting or even capable of consent because of desperation, exploitation, human trafficking, drugs, etc.

I'm not going to even get into the violent porn or how porn can cause out of kilter images of what consent actually means, body images, or other psychological effects, because I think that varies on a case by case basis. It's sort of like the "I'll know it when I see it" deal where no two people are affected or view it in the same way.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Definitely protected speech, probably not harmful but I don't think we have the data to be sure. N.T

[Lancero]

30. Pornography is pretty much legalized prostitution.

Unless the 'actors' are willing to forgo pay ofc.

[Orrex]

32. Just like boxing is legalized assault

[bravenak]

31. If you ever saw porn being filmed.

It would make you sick.
They treat them like meat machines, do this, do that, turn here, put your leg up, cut, put more lube in there, stop making that face, harder, you're blocking the camera, ten minute break. Ok here three grand. Test on Friday, film again next week. They do not appear to be having fun.

I still think it's protected. Even if i don't like it.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

36. That sounds like me job.

And it doesn't involve sex. Definitely doesn't pay $3k an hour.

[bravenak]

39. Are you joking?

Went over my head if you were.

It involves painful sex with multiple partners in every orifice.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

40. Yes I was joking.

I'm a mechanic. A porn flick staring me would be like a 30 second commercial break.

[bravenak]

41. I get it now.

I was like, who uses a bunch of lube at work? Mechanics.
Belated

[Humanist_Activist]

33. Pay is ok.

[ladjf]

34. Pornography is dangerous for the psychological development of children.

The raw imagery distorts attitudes and in so doing, disallows healthier processes.
For mature adults, it's not likely to be harmful.

[Nye Bevan]

37. Explicit violence is probably worse (nt)

[ladjf]

46. I don't disagree with you. Lots of experiences are worse.

But, pornography is a voluntary activity. One is free to use it or not. It's difficult enough for young people develop into
caring individuals, who are able to see the virtues of those around them. Pornography can serve as a "false beacon" of sexual
reality.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

38. I think violence

In movies, TV and video games is far more dangerous to children's developing minds. Inlaws won't allow grand kids to watch MTV but they'll encourage old westerns with good ol' Indian killing.
Nudity is porn enough for me. The shower scene in Porky's was great! Like posted above, the making of hardcore porn is disgusting. Watching hardcore porn for me is a turn off. An up shorts shot at the park if far more arousing. But it's all protected under the 1st and I'm not about to start chipping away at our Constitution.

[randys1]

51. Porn is protected and only harmful if the people making it are being used

Men tend to get addicted to it, so it can be harmful in that way

[KG]

52. I'll post my comment in 9-12 minutes...I'll be in my bunk...

[Prophet 451]

56. Both protected and, in and of itself, not harmful

For the sake of argument, let's define "porn" to be the explicit depiction of sexual intercourse. Now, to start with, that leaves aside softcore porn (which outsell hardcore by a very large margin) and includes people producing porn for it's own sake (such as exhibitionists).

The question becomes, is the act of viewing people having sexual intercourse inherently harmful to the viewer (assuming the viewer is an adult)? No, I don't think it is.

But that's not to say that all forms of porn are harmless. I think there are forms of porn which are inherently harmful to the viewer and degrading to the actor/actress. "Rape porn" is one example. Whether that includes porn which contains violence is one of those "know it when I see it" situations. There's a fine line between porn depicting consensual BDSM and porn depicting outright abuse.

I must also add that the porn industry (as distinct from it's product) needs a hell of a lot of cleaning up. It's grossly under-regulated and pretty much everyone is underpaid.

[KentuckyWoman]

58. This poll is useless without pictures.

[Louisiana1976]

59. ,...