# Nine Songs!



## moneypenny (14 Feb 2005)

Anyone out for the film festival on sat? Enjoy Nine Songs?.....i disagree with the negative comments on nine songs.....spotted a review on the film back in October and put it in my brain diary as one to watch!....it popped up at the Jameson film festival and so an opportunity arose to see what all the fuss was about.......thoroughly enjoyed all 65 minutes!......thought the film was beautiful at times,sad at others but basically real....was blown away by the piano music....yeah the film did begin and end with zero character development but so what, that wasn't the aim of the film...it just lets u wonder ...(and want to go to the antarctic!!).......an artistic film well worth a watch in my opinion....agree?.....


----------



## extopia (15 Feb 2005)

*9 songs*

Would be surprised if you found many festival types in here! I missed it, hope to see it on a wider release soon.


----------



## moneypenny (15 Feb 2005)

*Re: 9 songs*

What makes a festival type?.....enjoy when it does come your way....


----------



## sinead76 (17 Feb 2005)

*9 songs*

Never heard of it until I saw a letter in today's indo titled "This porn should be banned"


----------



## wavejumper (18 Feb 2005)

*9 tongs*

yea, read that letter on the indo too, classic.  Harold's cross, no less.  I bet they make those letters up.


----------



## purple (18 Feb 2005)

"Pornography" I hear you say! 
If society is to collapse then I can think of no better means to bring it about....I had better go and see this film before a riotous mob reduces the place to ashes.


----------



## onekeano (19 Feb 2005)

Amazing to hear the censor on teh Late Late last night taking about this film. Certainly cheered me up to see that at last we are coming out of the dark ages with a guy like him.

I wasn't sure who was the more irritating, the old fogey who hadn't seen the film but was fascinated at learning two new words that sounded good ie. PENIS and VAGINA. Or perhaps it was the young one behind who kept giggling at the most inappropriate moments to her friends. How come the Late Late seems to attract only people who have never seem themselves on camera before. And how come the producer never thinks to tell the cameraman to move or focus on the person who is talking rather than the person doing the waving?

Roy


----------



## rainyday (19 Feb 2005)

> And how come the producer never thinks to tell the cameraman to move or focus on the person who is talking rather than the person doing the waving?


They did - They brought in a different camera to shoot the guy from the opposite side, showing her friend (who was marginally less giggly).


----------



## onekeano (19 Feb 2005)

So how is it that all channels from pretty much every other country you don't see every second person going "I'm in the telly" during chat shows.

Roy


----------



## rainyday (19 Feb 2005)

Relatively few shows go out to the audience in that way - The only one I can think of that does this was Graham Norton, where the audience member was as likely to be showing their genitalia as winking or nudging.


----------



## Biggles (20 Feb 2005)

> was blown away by the piano music



Was this what the guy on the Late Late was giving out about????


----------



## geegee (20 Feb 2005)

At one time the man complaining on The late Late Show would have been one voice among many. Now he is pilloried as some sort of anachronism. What about basic human morality and decency? Or is this to be pilloried too? The vacuum left by the collapse of the Churches authority has been filled with the most pathetic giggling pre-pubescent immaturity. I think everyone needs to just grow up.


----------



## rainyday (20 Feb 2005)

You only heard what you want to hear, Geegee. Did you listen to John Kelleher the censor - he was the voice of reason, morality & decency. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that it was a crap film, but if adults want to go and watch this crap, they are more than welcome to do so. The elderly gentleman in the audience did not give any reason why adults should not be permitted to see this film. His basic complaint was that children might get in to see it. If we follow his logic, we should ban all cigarette sales, all alcohol sales, all motor car sales on the basis that children might get to drink/smoke/drive.


----------



## geegee (21 Feb 2005)

> Did you listen to John Kelleher the censor - he was the voice of reason, morality & decency. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that it was a crap film, but if adults want to go and watch this crap, they are more than welcome to do so.



What about protecting society from itself if need be? This is hardcore pornography which has been available for a long time _but _ not in the mainstream. Therefore, there was always a bit of a "pervert" connotation to it so people would not advertise the fact that they were viewing it. By putting it on general release it only serves to "normalise" hardcore pornography and give the impression that gratuitous sex is a form of entertainment.



> The elderly gentleman in the audience did not give any reason why adults should not be permitted to see this film.



He didn't need to - like I said earlier, what about basic morality and decency? Did he really need to state the obvious?



> His basic complaint was that children might get in to see it.



Yes, and is this not a totally legitimate complaint as it goes without saying that children will get to see it both in the cinema and at home. 



> If we follow his logic, we should ban all cigarette sales, all alcohol sales, all motor car sales on the basis that children might get to drink/smoke/drive.



Come on! Comparing hardcore pornography with the above? Incredulous. Children observing adults smoking is not morally corrupting. Drinking alcohol isn't either and can be life enhancing if done in moderation. Driving causes pollution but it is a necessary evil. 

I know my opinions are not in keeping with the pseudo "cool" mentality that exists today where anyone who objects on grounds of morality and decency is some sort of freak,so I do expect you will not be alone in your views.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2005)

*He didn't need to - like I said earlier, what about basic morality and decency? Did he really need to state the obvious?*

Actually he completely contradicted himself when _Pat Kenny_ mentioned the fact that there was plenty of rubbish elsewhere in the media (TV, movies, books, magazines etc.) that some people might choose to consume and he (the bloke in the audience) said something along the lines of "well, if that's what they want they can have it". I would totally agree with him on this specific point. In my opinion grown adults should be allowed do and see whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm other non-consenting individuals. 

*give the impression that gratuitous sex is a form of entertainment.*

What's wrong with gratuitous sex? Do you think we should all be paying for it instead? In my experience gratuitous sex is indeed quite entertaining, not least of all for the participants.


----------



## geegee (21 Feb 2005)

> I would totally agree with him on this specific point. In my opinion grown adults should be allowed do and see whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm other non-consenting individuals.



It does harm non-consenting individuals if their partner has a warped view of sex and views it as an entity in itself rather than part of a relationship. If, as a result of this, they seek the services of a professional i.e. prostitute this may not be conjusive with a happy relationship and would harm non-consenting individuals.



> What's wrong with gratuitous sex? Do you think we should all be paying for it instead? In my experience gratuitous sex is indeed quite entertaining, not least of all for the participants.



Definition number three:3. Unnecessary or unwarranted; unjustified: gratuitous criticism, as you well know, is what I mean here but if the debate is to descend into farce then so be it.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2005)

*It does harm non-consenting individuals if their partner has a warped view of sex and views it as an entity in itself rather than part of a relationship.*

Who do you envisage would provide the definition of "warped" in this context? What about single individuals or those in non-committed relationships? Why should viewing sex as an entity (of do you mean "end"?) in itself necessarily be a bad thing?

*If, as a result of this, they seek the services of a professional i.e. prostitute this may not be conjusive with a happy relationship and would harm non-consenting individuals.*

Why do you assume that these things would (might?) happen just because somebody chooses to view explicit sexual content? What about couples who choose to mutually consent to "open" relationships?


----------



## geegee (21 Feb 2005)

*Nine songs*

I place strong emphasis on conventional family values within the nuclear family and lament the moral breakdown of society. I do not nor want to have an "anything goes" type of mentality - being a parent would prevent me even if I wanted to.

Knowing that your ultra-liberal view is commonplace,  I find it incredible that a population which was until very recently enslaved by the church ( I never was) is now so broad minded. Is it that they were in the closet for all of that time or have they just discarded their moral values with wanton abandon and tried to make up for lost time? Ireland was renowned for its morality - was it all just a veneer?


----------



## onekeano (21 Feb 2005)

*Re: Nine songs*

Geegee I'm with Clubman on this one. The morality that you speak of may well have been a veneer because of the status of the Catholic Church and the influence that had on our public behaviour. However I am not sure that in the privacy of our own homes gratuitous sex was taboo. I think the old saying that "there was no sex in Ireland before the Late Late Shown came onto our screens" sums it up.

Roy


----------



## rainyday (21 Feb 2005)

*Re: Nine songs*

Hi Geegee - Who do you propose should become the arbiters of what constitutues 'basic morality & decency'? You? The guy in the audience? Personally, I'd prefer sensible, decent people like John Kelleher the film censor who treats adults like adults. I disagree with your view around the collapse of family values. Ireland was not a moral stronghold in the 'olden days' - it was just that those unfortunate enough to have their 'sins' become visible through pregnancy were locked away in Magdelene laundries washing priests underwear for the rest of their lives so that they didn't cause offence. Their children went on to be physically or sexually abused in orphanages, but all that was swept under the carpet too. If that was the 'good old days', give me freely available hard-core pornography any day.

And by the way, not everyone would agree with your basic tenet that hard-core porn was something nasty to be kept to back-lane sex shops. IMHO, the OK/Hello magazines on the bottom shelf are probably far more harmful to society than the top shelf magazines given their glorification of the cult of celebrity and unrealistic body images.


----------



## Marion (21 Feb 2005)

*Re: How about the GAA and the VECs as moral arbiters!*



> I think the old saying that "there was no sex in Ireland before the Late Late Shown came onto our screens" sums it up.



"The Late Late Show was a prime target, especially after the Bishop and the Nightie affair in February 1966. That was the blow-up that occurred when a woman was asked if she could remember what colour night dress she wore on her wedding night. "didn't wear any nightie at all," she giggled.

The idea of the naked woman sent Bishop Thomas Ryan of Clonfert through the proverbial roof.

*The Loughrea Town Commissioners, the Mayo County Board of the GAA and the Meath Committee of Vocational Education also denounced the Late Late as "a dirty programme that should be abolished altogether". *

Marion :hat


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2005)

*Re: How about the GAA and the VECs as moral arbiters!*

*I place strong emphasis on conventional family values within the nuclear family and lament the moral breakdown of society. I do not nor want to have an "anything goes" type of mentality - being a parent would prevent me even if I wanted to.*

Fair enough - you are obviously perfectly entitled to hold whatever views you want and to promulgate them. Just as others are also entitled to hold opposing or alternative views.

*Knowing that your ultra-liberal view is commonplace, I find it incredible that a population which was until very recently enslaved by the church ( I never was) is now so broad minded.*

Who mentioned enslavement by the church?! In case that was directed at me personally I must say that I never considered myself enslaved by the church (or anybody else for that matter) even if I realised at an early age that I simply did not believe in the religious teachings presented to me and made my own mind up on matters of religion and spirituality. 

By the way - I appreciate your compliment in classing me as ultra-liberal. Thanks.

*Is it that they were in the closet for all of that time or have they just discarded their moral values with wanton abandon and tried to make up for lost time? Ireland was renowned for its morality - was it all just a veneer? *

Don't forget that in recent years some (not all mind) of what passed for morality has itself been proved to have been a veneer hiding some quite immoral shenanigans. Why do you seem to assume that those with (moral) values that don't concur with yours are immoral or prone to wanton abandon (not that I think the latter is necessarily bad myself).


----------



## Gabriel (21 Feb 2005)

*Re: How about the GAA and the VECs as moral arbiters!*

Nine songs and "hardcore pornography" are not phrases that go together.

Geegee...have you ever seen hardcore pornography? If you think this film is a good example of it then you've led a very, very sheltered life. 

The only farce going on here is the idea that anyone could class this film as pornography and worry about it corrupting our youngsters minds. This is 2005 right? I haven't time-warped back 20 years ago have I....?


----------



## ClubMan (22 Feb 2005)

*Re: How about the GAA and the VECs as moral arbiters!*

*Personally, I'd prefer sensible, decent people like John Kelleher the film censor who treats adults like adults. *

Interestingly in some interview or other _John Kelleher_ said that in spite of his official title he preferred to be seen as a classifier rather than a censor of films. That makes more sense to me. Classifying content to allow individuals to make informed choices about what may or may not be suitable for themselves and their dependents is fair enough. Censorship is another matter altogether in my view. Within the key constraint that I mentioned earlier (i.e. assuming that no non-consenting parties are harmed directly), why should any individual or group decide what content other grown adults should be allowed access? Why should any individual or group decide that certain content might have a corrupting effect on other grown adults and somehow consider themselves immune from these alleged effects? It just doesn't make sense and is an anachronism in this day and age in any society that values liberty in my opinion. A society that doesn't trust its own adult citizens to their own judgement on such matters is a society that doesn't trust itself full stop.


----------



## geegee (22 Feb 2005)

*Just as others are also entitled to hold opposing or alternative views.*

Not whenever there is rampant social and moral breakdown in society ( an observation not an opinion ).


*Who mentioned enslavement by the church?!*

I did because your view is so out of synch with the teaching of the churches. Not an issue for you, you point out but it is an issue for the minions who share your views and practice their religion. In my local town, the only traffic jams at the weekends are caused by church attendance. I also know many people whose attendance has lapsed but they still bring up their children to go through the church rituals – baptism, communion, confirmation etc. Why do they bother when they are so ultra liberal in their thinking? The church isn’t so why not give up church altogether?

I am looking at this from a non-religious point of view. If you are,or become, a parent, would you like to think your daughters eighteen-year-old boyfriend had been exposed to hardcore pornography? Or what about your son going around thinking that’s how sexual interaction works? 

*Generally* speaking, I find it bewildering that people have such a sheep-like mentality and go with whatever society deems acceptable rather than making a stand for their own standards.


*If you think this film is a good example of it then you've led a very, very sheltered life.*

Not a good example of it at all but this is the first step onto a slippery slope. Led a very sheltered life? If someone needs to watch porn to avoid leading a sheltered life they are one unwell individual.

*The only farce going on here is the idea that anyone could class this film as pornography and worry about it corrupting our youngsters minds. This is 2005 right? I haven't time-warped back 20 years ago have I....?*

Oh right, leave it all to nature and ignore nurture shall we? No one is corruptible any more are they?  Of course, they’re just born that way. 

Time warp? Oh, so porn being on general release means progress  -  sorry I forgot. 

*Censorship is another matter altogether in my view. Within the key constraint that I mentioned earlier (i.e. assuming that no non-consenting parties are harmed directly), why should any individual or group decide what content other grown adults should be allowed access?*

The collective harm to society is what matters here. Some people need protecting from themselves and others need protecting from what they might become. Perhaps if some of us were unlucky enough to be victims of a crime perpetrated by someone who has been corrupted we might just realise the implications of poor censorship. Ideally there shouldn’t need to be a censor if the dross wasn’t made in the first place but that really is hypothetical.


----------



## car (22 Feb 2005)

*porn*

from pincetons online dictionary: 



> pornography, porno, porn, erotica, smut -- (creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire).



Does the film do this?  Has it no artistic value?

>>If someone needs to watch porn to avoid leading a sheltered life they are one unwell individual.  
No, theres no necessity there but it would  imply that you'd been sheltered from watching any really porn (see above for definition) by someone who didnt want you building your own views on what it is. Hence the sheltered term.


----------



## Gabriel (22 Feb 2005)

*Re: porn*

I'd love to continue this debate but I'm afraid that your viewpoint on this geegee is a little simplistic. This idea that having viewed pornography you become some deviant is just not true. It's about differentiating between life and fiction. Human sexuality can be expressed in many forms. Some people go to S&M clubs...some people blah blah <insert strange sexual practice>, but also hold normal healthy and loving relationships with their partners. I have been in a few "normal" and loving relationships...yet I've looked at porn!!! Go figure.

>Time warp? Oh, so porn being on general release means progress - sorry I forgot. 

The last I knew porn was not on general release anywhere in Ireland.


----------



## ClubMan (22 Feb 2005)

*Not whenever there is rampant social and moral breakdown in society ( an observation not an opinion ).*

Are you saying that I am not entitled to my opinions!!?! :eek  

*I did because your view is so out of synch with the teaching of the churches. Not an issue for you, you point out but it is an issue for the minions who share your views and practice their religion. In my local town, the only traffic jams at the weekends are caused by church attendance. I also know many people whose attendance has lapsed but they still bring up their children to go through the church rituals – baptism, communion, confirmation etc. Why do they bother when they are so ultra liberal in their thinking? The church isn’t so why not give up church altogether?*

I don't know. Why don't you ask them...

*Generally speaking, I find it bewildering that people have such a sheep-like mentality and go with whatever society deems acceptable rather than making a stand for their own standards.*

... rather than jumping to possibly erroneous conclusions?

*If someone needs to watch porn to avoid leading a sheltered life they are one unwell individual.*

How so? Do you have any objective evidence to show that this is the case or is based solely on your beliefs and prejudices? 

*The collective harm to society is what matters here. Some people need protecting from themselves and others need protecting from what they might become. Perhaps if some of us were unlucky enough to be victims of a crime perpetrated by someone who has been corrupted we might just realise the implications of poor censorship. Ideally there shouldn’t need to be a censor if the dross wasn’t made in the first place but that really is hypothetical.*

Again, I'd be interested in how you (a) measure the collective hard to society and (b) establish a cause and effect relationship between this and, for example, lack of censorship? How do you explain the perpetration of heinous crimes of a violent physical/sexual nature by individuals who were presumed to be moral arbiters in our society at a time when censorship was much more rigorously (and some would say arbitrarily) applied?


----------



## Asimov (23 Feb 2005)

Clubman, the nub of the issue is there is a time and a place for everything...including porn, and general cinema release (or TV) is probably not the place. 
I consider myself a liberal in adult viewing terms, but I agree that there are limits on where and when it should be available.


----------



## rainyday (23 Feb 2005)

> I also know many people whose attendance has lapsed but they still bring up their children to go through the church rituals – baptism, communion, confirmation etc. Why do they bother when they are so ultra liberal in their thinking?


Probably because they have discovered that they can't get their children into church-controlled schools (which constitute the vast majority of schools) without a baptisimal cert.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Feb 2005)

*Clubman, the nub of the issue is there is a time and a place for everything...including porn, and general cinema release (or TV) is probably not the place.*

Personally I would disagree and don't see any reason why grown adults should not be allowed to view hard core porn performed by other consenting adults in a cinema if they so choose. It's probably a moot issue since, as far as I know, few porno movies are officially submitted to the censor for classification even if they are widely available elsewhere (there are at least four "adult" stores adjacent to where I work for example) on other media (e.g. _video, DVD, CD_, online etc.) anyway. 

*I consider myself a liberal in adult viewing terms, but I agree that there are limits on where and when it should be available.*

In my view the main or only limit should be that it doesn't impinge on the rights of other unwilling participants. For example viewing porn classified for over 18 release in a cinema would be fine in my opinion. Browsing internet porn in the local library in full view of other non-consenting individuals would not be. As it happens a colleague of mine is acting as an expert technical witness in such a case in the _High Court_ at the moment.

Getting back to what _geegee_ said earlier about _"collective harm to society"_ I'd be curious as to if/how s/he would view a grown adult going home after a hard day's work and watching porn in the privacy of his/her own home for entertainment as harming society or even themselves?


----------



## Asimov (24 Feb 2005)

> Personally I would disagree and don't see any reason why grown adults should not be allowed to view hard core porn performed by other consenting adults in a cinema if they so choose.


Then you are content if it all hinges on the cinema management, and how careful they are about controlling access and applying PG ratings? 

And, anything that's on general release in cinemas will end up on general release on DVD down your local Xtravision, accessible to kids as well as 'grown adults'. You are content to entrust that responsibility to a teenage employee?

I don't believe cinema managers, or spotty students working in the local Xtravision, should be entrusted with the moral policing of any society.



> few porno movies are officially submitted to the censor


 We're discussing one right here!

Adults watching porn in the comfort of their own home - no problem. Anywhere else is just too 'in your face'.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Feb 2005)

*Then you are content if it all hinges on the cinema management, and how careful they are about controlling access and applying PG ratings?

And, anything that's on general release in cinemas will end up on general release on DVD down your local Xtravision, accessible to kids as well as 'grown adults'. You are content to entrust that responsibility to a teenage employee?

I don't believe cinema managers, or spotty students working in the local Xtravision, should be entrusted with the moral policing of any society.*

Isn't that the case today? I presume that it may be an offence for a cinema or video library to allow an under-age individual view content for which they don't meet the rating criteria even if prosecutions are presumably rare? The problem then is policing/enforcement of the rules and not with the argument that grown adults should be allowed view whatever content they choose. Otherwise where do you draw the line - for example, do you consider the fact that some under-age individuals manage to consume alcohol or cigarettes as reason enough to call for a total ban on these, even for adults?

*We're discussing one right here!*

I haven't seen the film in question so can't comment on it specifically. Have you seen it yourself?

Anybody remember the _Richard Burton_ film Equus? it included at least one explicit scene of male erection and what looked like actual vaginal penetration. Does that make it a porno flick?


----------



## Asimov (24 Feb 2005)

Yes, policing (enforcement?) is indeed the issue here, and the simple fact is (as you state yourself) there is no enforcement. 

Thats why the restriction on under age drinking in this country is easy to ignore, while in the US underage drinking (and public drunkeness) is practically unheard of and is treated with the utmost seriousness.

The Irish are hopelessly addicted to drink, it pervades our culture, and restricting it is almost impossible - unlike in the US where people have a generally healthier attitude to drinking and don't abuse the rules. 

Just because we are hopelessly addicted to drink it does not follow directly that we should be hopelessly liberal about everything else - why not have child porn on the news-stands if thats your logic?

While there is no serious enforcement here then certain movies should not be on general release. I haven't seen the movie in question, but I understand it contains scenes of live sex, and that the lead actress has had a change of heart after making it and asked for her name to be removed from the credits.

Perhaps whats needed here is the reinstatement of the old X Rated Certificate, and that X rated movies are only allowed on restricted release in cinemas like the IFC. It shouldn't be on general release in Xtravision either if it carries an X Cert or possibly even the current over 18 Cert.


----------



## Gabriel (24 Feb 2005)

By equating our drink culture with child pornography you've just ruined whatever point you were trying to make and completely missed the valid points being made. 

I lived in the US for 4 years. I was 18 when I went there. You're right, they take underage drinking more seriously than we do. That's why they have parties there - where everyone gets completely legless anyway!! It's just as easy to get drink  over there as it is here, as an underager.


----------



## Asimov (24 Feb 2005)

Anyone, in any country, can get drunk if they really want. Even in Saudi Arabia. 

The point you ignored is the importance of the public attitude to the practice, and how it is reflected in policing, which is central to the issue. You just don't see drunk kids vomiting on the streets of US cities every weekend, unlike in Ireland.

By the way, who equated child porn with drinking, if not ClubMan? His point is that drink and porn (and he didn't qualify it) should both be equally available for unfettered consumption because anything else would restrict his rights as an adult to do as he pleases.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Feb 2005)

*why not have child porn on the news-stands if thats your logic?*

That's not my logic. I've already qualified my argument by stating that no innocent/non-consenting parties should be harmed but as long as that rule is adhered to anything goes in my view. Consenting adults viewing porn performed by other consenting adults is all right in my book. Porn involving non-consenting participants including children is obviously unacceptable. 

*While there is no serious enforcement here then certain movies should not be on general release.*

I disagree. The policing/enforcement of the relevant rules and the freedom of choice arguments are separate in my view.

*I haven't seen the movie in question, but I understand it contains scenes of live sex*

How can you say for certain that it's porn so? The guy in the _Late Late_ audience hadn't seen it either but was well able to list off each instance of nudity, penetration (which he was also able to sub-categorise into oral and vaginal etc.), etc. which was sort of unusual. I'd be hard pushed to remember such specific details about most movies that I have viewed!

*Perhaps whats needed here is the reinstatement of the old X Rated Certificate, and that X rated movies are only allowed on restricted release in cinemas like the IFC. It shouldn't be on general release in Xtravision either if it carries an X Cert or possibly even the current over 18 Cert.*

Are you certain that there ever was an _X_ rating in _Ireland_? Perhaps you're confusing it with limited release club showings which, as far as I know, don't need any authorisation from the censor in the first place (e.g. banned movies such as _Natural Born Killers_, _A Clockwork Orange_, _Life of Brian_, _The Last Temptation of Christ_ etc. were all shown in film clubs such as in universities or the _IFC_). Anyway, regardless of such potential loopholes, I think that the honest thing for a free society to do would be to categorise/classify all content (within the limitation mentioned at the top) and then make it available for viewing by the relevant audiences if they so choose rather than hide behind some sort of fudged approach.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Feb 2005)

*By the way, who equated child porn with drinking, if not ClubMan? His point is that drink and porn (and he didn't qualify it) should both be equally available for unfettered consumption because anything else would restrict his rights as an adult to do as he pleases.*

Wrong - please read my posts more carefully. I drew a parallel between the argument that possible unauthorised access to porn (e.g. by children) is reason enough to ban it outright with the same argument applied to other stuff like alcohol and tobacco etc. *Nowhere have I said that anybody should have access to child porn or porn involving non-consenting participants!* In fact, several times I have qualified my points with the caveat about protecting non-consenting parties so anybody who has been following the discussion to date would easily have inferred it when I did not mention it explicitly. :rolleyes


----------



## Gabriel (24 Feb 2005)

>His point is that drink and porn (and he didn't qualify it) should both be equally available for unfettered consumption because anything else would restrict his rights as an adult to do as he pleases.

Dear god. Porn is not the same thing as child porn. Consenting sex between adults is one thing. Violating childrens rights and abusing them sexually is another thing altogether :rolleyes


----------



## ClubMan (24 Feb 2005)

_Gabriel_ - seems to me that there is not much point in attempting to argue the toss with some people here as, just as they draw conclusions about movies that they have not seen, they also seem to read what they expect to see and not what is actually written down in front of them. :rolleyes


----------



## Asimov (24 Feb 2005)

Porn is not the same thing as child porn? How so? You used the same word to describe both - PORN! 
Child Porn is a sub section of Porn. If you say PORN without qualification you therefore include child porn. 

But lets take the 'child' out the porn for a moment and develop the argument.

If PORN (sexual images of consenting adults) is as acceptable as alcohol in our culture - because (as ClubMan says) we can't restrict something from the whole adult population just because a few individuals abuse it - then he is saying that porn should be as freely available as alcohol. 
And we know what that means, you can see it by walking down Grafton Street any Saturady night.

Incidentally it just occurred to me, since you define your objection to child porn solely on the grounds that it is not like porn between consenting adults, then how do you intend to label the film Nine Songs now that the lead actress is no longer a consenting adult in its distribution?


----------



## Gabriel (24 Feb 2005)

Clubman, I agree entirely.

I had the misfortune to be listening to Matt Cooper last night and hear some rather uninformed debate from two feminists concerning pornography and how it was turning men into violent spouse abusers. One of the two women had never even watched pornography...but was a real expert on the subject nonetheless.

Matt brought a well known porn actor, Ron Jeremy, into the fray and he rubbished a lot of what was being said.

Make no mistake, there is a lot of very harmful pornography/abuse out there on the internet (something which Mr Jeremy also acknowledged). The key point is differentiating between consentual and legislated adult content and the stuff that society needs to filter out. Unfortunately, while there are uninformed and generally right wing comments being made about how porn turns us all into emotionally defunct men, the issue gets largely lost.


----------



## Gabriel (24 Feb 2005)

>Porn is not the same thing as child porn? How so? You used the same word to describe both - PORN! 

Most "normal" people see porn as adult movies. Those same people would think of _child porn_ as a criminal act and severe abuse of children. The name "child porn" is just an a name. A way of describing something. You're bandying words about. Utter nonsense.

I'll let Clubman deal with the rest of your post. Once again, you're completely misrepresenting what he said to suit what you want to hear or what you think he said.


----------



## Asimov (24 Feb 2005)

Gabriel, I see you've decided to ignore awkward questions. Fair enough, I hope it leads you to reflect on your convictions.

I heard that interview on Matt Cooper too. Those women were talking about something entirely different to what we are discussing here. 

While they would like to see the total ban of all pornography (which would actually be impossible to define anyhow) I already stated I have no problem with it, when its handled properly. My issue is with its handling. Not with its abolition.


----------



## Gabriel (24 Feb 2005)

My point about the Cooper interview did not necessarily concern your comments. It was merely a tangent to the discussion in general.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Feb 2005)

* Porn is not the same thing as child porn? How so? You used the same word to describe both - PORN!
Child Porn is a sub section of Porn. If you say PORN without qualification you therefore include child porn.*

If you want the discussion to degenerate into an argument about semantics so be it. However I am fairly confident that most readers, even those that don't agree with my stance on the issue, will have understood my points and realise that in no way did I argue that people should have an automatic right to view child porn or any other porn involving non-consenting participants.

*If PORN (sexual images of consenting adults) is as acceptable as alcohol in our culture - because (as ClubMan says) we can't restrict something from the whole adult population just because a few individuals abuse it - then he is saying that porn should be as freely available as alcohol.*

Yes - I believe that grown adults should be entitled to view any content (within the caveats mentioned above for those who were not reading carefully) that they so choose and that there should be appropriate rules (e.g. censorship classifications of content) and oversight (e.g. penalties for those who allow it) to prevent unauthorised access to such content (e.g. by children).

*And we know what that means, you can see it by walking down Grafton Street any Saturady night.*

See what?

*Incidentally it just occurred to me, since you define your objection to child porn solely on the grounds that it is not like porn between consenting adults, then how do you intend to label the film Nine Songs now that the lead actress is no longer a consenting adult in its distribution?*

I assume that she was a willing participant in, and was remunerated for, the making of the movie otherwise somebody should obviously be charged with kidnapping. Has the actor in question reported any crime to the relevant police/investigative authorities or taken any civil court action in respect of her role in this matter?


----------



## ClubMan (24 Feb 2005)

By the way - I presume that the actress to whom _Asimov_ referred was Margot Stilley whose IMDb bio includes the following information (underlining is mine):


> Trivia
> 
> She wanted director Winterbottom to refer to her simply by her character's name Lisa in interviews about the movie 'Nine Songs'.
> 
> ...



Other than the bit about not wanting the director to use her real name in promotion of the movie above I have drawn a blank on finding more detailed information about allegations that she objected in some way to the movie or its promotion. Does anybody else have links to such information or is somebody telling porkies?


----------



## Asimov (24 Feb 2005)

*If you want the discussion to degenerate into an argument about semantics so be it.*

No I don't, but words are very important here, lest anyone misunderstand. 

*However I am fairly confident that most readers, even those that don't agree with my stance on the issue, will have understood my points and realise that in no way did I argue that people should have an automatic right to view child porn or any other porn involving non-consenting participants.*

I didn't think you said that either...but the fact is that the logic of your argument unfortunately extends in that sense.

*Yes - I believe that grown adults should be entitled to view any content (within the caveats mentioned above for those who were not reading carefully) that they so choose and that there should be appropriate rules (e.g. censorship classifications of content) and oversight (e.g. penalties for those who allow it) to prevent unauthorised access to such content (e.g. by children).*

Well, whaddya know...we agree again! In fact I think your acceptance of the necessity for CENSORSHIP just affirms that our positions are not as different as you might think, and that the unfettered availability of porn is not a good thing!

*And we know what that means, you can see it by walking down Grafton Street any Saturady night. See what?*

Under 18's out of their skull on drink, when they are supposed to be underage to buy or consume it!

The Irish Times carried an article on the film in question and the author inferred she had withdrwan her name because she had second thoughts about her role afterward. Maybe the Irish Times are telling porkies...it wouldn't be the first time...eh Kevin?

On the other hand, if true (and who really knows whats in her head), it raises questions about this term 'consenting' which you've just brushed away. The feminists would have a field day with you unless you can come up with a better argument. Lets face it, they'd be right if they said that many of the porn actresses who make XXX today and claim to do it freely, write a book next week telling how their abusive boyfriend/drug addiction drove them to do it, and they now regret it. I guess you've heard of Linda Lovelace - par example?

The whole 'consenting adult' argument is just too shaky a foundation to build a solid case for porn upon. Lets face it, most people who get into the 'acting' end of the business wouldn't be the sharpest knives in anybody's drawer.


----------



## Gabriel (24 Feb 2005)

>I didn't think you said that either...but the fact is that the logic of your argument unfortunately extends in that sense.

Clubman's logic made perfect sense to me and I didn't draw any of the conclusions you did.

>Under 18's out of their skull on drink, when they are supposed to be underage to buy or consume it!

Grafton street or its surrounding areas is where you'll find me most saturday nights. I can tell you right now, that although there are certainly a lot of people out of their skull on drink, there aren't half as many underagers as people make out. 18 and over yes...but definitely not under. At least, that's my impression of the situation.

>I guess you've heard of Linda Lovelace - par example?

I've heard her story and it's a very sad one. Ever heard of Judy Garland? Perhaps we should ban Hollywood because of her?

>The whole 'consenting adult' argument is just too shaky a foundation to build a solid case for porn upon. Lets face it, most people who get into the 'acting' end of the business wouldn't be the sharpest knives in anybody's drawer.

Tell that to millionaires like Jenna Jameson. She acts in her own movies and runs one of the biggest adult movie film companies in the US. I haven't personally met many porn stars so can't comment on how sharp or intellectual they might be.


----------



## Asimov (24 Feb 2005)

*Clubman's logic made perfect sense to me and I didn't draw any of the conclusions you did.*

Maybe thats because you have identical views on Porn?

*At least, that's my impression of the situation.*

Obviously not everyone elses though...[broken link removed]

*I've heard her story and it's a very sad one. Ever heard of Judy Garland? Perhaps we should ban Hollywood because of her?*

Did I say ban porn? You still don't get it, do you?

*Tell that to millionaires like Jenna Jameson. She acts in her own movies and runs one of the biggest adult movie film companies in the US. I haven't personally met many porn stars so can't comment on how sharp or intellectual they might be.*

Would you choose porn as a career if you had another option that paid as well? On second thoughts...you needn't answer that.

Jenna is a lovely girl, but aging quickly. I hope she's made good provision for her retirement and invested well...we could yet see the 'I regret it all' book. The jurys still out.

For every Jenna Jameson theres a thousand sad cases like


----------



## Gabriel (25 Feb 2005)

>Maybe thats because you have identical views on Porn?

Regardless of my views on porn, I did not misrepresent what he said as I understood the points he was making - quite clearly I might add.

>Obviously not everyone elses though

I believe your point was concerning Grafton street on a saturday night. As I said, there would appear to be very few underage drinkers staggering around Grafton street on an average saturday night. I've no doubt we have a high rate of underage drinking in general.

>Did I say ban porn? You still don't get it, do you?

I'm afraid you're making your point, whatever it is, very badly...bringing semantics concerning the word itself into your argument and continuously misrepresenting what people say post after post. 

>Would you choose porn as a career if you had another option that paid as well?

Personally no. I wouldn't be willing to put up with the inherent risks of STD's (HIV in particular) from unprotected sex. But if people choose to do it I don't judge them for it. It would seem from your postings that you do.

>Jenna is a lovely girl, but aging quickly. I hope she's made good provision for her retirement and invested well...we could yet see the 'I regret it all' book. The jurys still out.

I wouldn't hold your breath. She's filthy rich. She could retire tomorrow.

Incidentally, many coal miners also die young. They don't get paid as well mind you.


----------



## Asimov (25 Feb 2005)

*I believe your point was concerning Grafton street on a saturday night. As I said, there would appear to be very few underage drinkers staggering around Grafton street on an average saturday night. I've no doubt we have a high rate of underage drinking in general.*

Have you a point to make then? Other than perhaps that all those underage drunks don't go to Grafton Street because you say so - or if they do, perhaps they hide when they see you coming? 

*I'm afraid you're making your point, whatever it is, very badly...bringing semantics concerning the word itself into your argument and continuously misrepresenting what people say post after post.*

Gee, you seem to be losing the rag here. 

*Personally no. I wouldn't be willing to put up with the inherent risks of STD's (HIV in particular) from unprotected sex. But if people choose to do it I don't judge them for it. It would seem from your postings that you do.*

Here's a bit of news for you pornhound...EVERYBODY gets judged by what they do...even YOU.

*I wouldn't hold your breath. She's filthy rich. She could retire tomorrow.*

Lucky her. If you think that makes it worth the risks I don't know why you don't fancy doing it yourself.

*Incidentally, many coal miners also die young. They don't get paid as well mind you.*

Don't be a miner then either! 
Again...whats your point? 

By the way...when you are socialising on Grafton Street every Saturday night, do you proudly tell all the little chickies you chat up that you're a huge pornhound? 
If not, why not?


----------



## ClubMan (25 Feb 2005)

*No I don't, but words are very important here, lest anyone misunderstand. *

Indeed - and I think that I have made myself abuntantly clear on the matter in spite of your attempts to twist what I have said. 

*I didn't think you said that either...but the fact is that the logic of your argument unfortunately extends in that sense.*

It doesn't as I have already pointed out several times. I have never asserted anybody's right to view material which impinges on the rights of non-consenting participants. This would obviously rule out child porn. To even suggest that I am expressing an opinion in favour of the dissemination of child porn is ridiculous, highly insulting and potentially dangerous.

*In fact I think your acceptance of the necessity for CENSORSHIP *

I agree that children should be protected from certain material and that appropriate classification and enforcement of the relevant rules would be warranted in this context. I do not agree that grown adults should be prevented from viewing any material which harms or impinges on the rights of other non-consenting individuals. I'm afraid I can't make it any clearer than that.

*Under 18's out of their skull on drink, when they are supposed to be underage to buy or consume it*

Yes - a problem with the enforcement of the laws pertaining to the sale/procurement of alcohol and not a reason for preventing grown adults from indulging obviously.

*The Irish Times carried an article on the film in question and the author inferred she had withdrwan her name because she had second thoughts about her role afterward. Maybe the Irish Times are telling porkies...it wouldn't be the first time...eh Kevin?*

Could be. Other than the line I quoted earlier from her _IMDb_ bio I can find no other evidence that the actor in question objected to her role in the film, was an otherwise unwilling participant or has condemned it in any way.

*and who really knows whats in her head*

Now it's getting really silly... :|  

*The feminists would have a field day with you unless you can come up with a better argument. Lets face it, they'd be right if they said that many of the porn actresses who make XXX today and claim to do it freely, write a book next week telling how their abusive boyfriend/drug addiction drove them to do it, and they now regret it. I guess you've heard of Linda Lovelace - par example?*

"The feminists"? Who precisely? Last time I checked there were a broad range of people and groups with differing views that might reasonably be described as "feminist". I wouldn't be as presumptious as to lump them all into a single group with a single homogenous viewpoint on this or any other matter. Anyway, grown adults make mistakes and regret them all the time. Prior restraint to protect an individual against mistakes that they may make is hardly a tenable argument.

*The whole 'consenting adult' argument is just too shaky a foundation to build a solid case for porn upon. Lets face it, most people who get into the 'acting' end of the business wouldn't be the sharpest knives in anybody's drawer.*

Even if that is the general case then so what? Do you really think that we should make protecting individuals against mistakes, foolishness etc. that they [may] make that cause themselves (as opposed to others) harm a basis for formulating our laws?


----------



## Asimov (25 Feb 2005)

*Indeed - and I think that I have made myself abuntantly clear on the matter in spite of your attempts to twist what I have said.*

I'm sorry if you don't like your argument to be teased apart. But thats all I did...no twisting necessary. Get over it.

*I have never asserted anybody's right to view material which impinges on the rights of non-consenting participants.*

Thats convenient. But impossible to police in the real world.

*This would obviously rule out child porn. To even suggest that I am expressing an opinion in favour of the dissemination of child porn is ridiculous, highly insulting and potentially dangerous.*

Yes, thats right...porn can be dangerous. Thats why it needs strict controls.

*I do not agree that grown adults should be prevented from viewing any material which harms or impinges on the rights of other non-consenting individuals.*

And thats where I came in and said there is a time and a place for everytrhing....so we return to the start again...circling, always circling...

*Yes - a problem with the enforcement of the laws pertaining to the sale/procurement of alcohol and not a reason for preventing grown adults from indulging obviously.*

Don't pretend to be stupid, I know you aren't really. 
If a banned substance such as alcohol is accessible by kids, how do you plan to limit porn access by kids, especially if its on sale in the local multiplex, and for hire in Xtravision?

Let me flesh it out again (no pun intended)...you've already said you agree with the necessity for censorship, and you also agree that alcohol is being abused by underage kids. 
By allowing widespread easy access to porn you are inviting its abuse also, by kids. As an adult I have no problem with restrictions on my freedoms, even where I think it unnecessary to protect me personally - because there are other more vulnerable people who would suffer as a result. Drugs are another good example of this. I don't agree with the liberalisation of Marijuana, and even if I used it I still wouldn't agree that it should be sold on every street corner.  

*"The feminists"? Who precisely?*

Them...you know...the Feminists! Ask John Waters fer crissake!

*Even if that is the general case then so what? Do you really think that we should make protecting individuals against mistakes, foolishness etc. that they [may] make that cause themselves (as opposed to others) harm a basis for formulating our laws?*

Nah. Never did. HEY! you're twisting my words now! Whaddya know! What a coincidence!
There'll always be dumb shmucks to make porno movies. Just don't try to tell me they're all multi millionaires by the time they're 35. It insults our intelligence.


----------



## Gabriel (25 Feb 2005)

>Have you a point to make then? Other than perhaps that all those underage drunks don't go to Grafton Street...

Actually, that was your point. I was merely pointing out that from my own experience I don't see that going on in town. Plenty of drunken behaviour...but very little of it underage. Your remark was akin to that of a tabloid. All shock with very little substance.


>Gee, you seem to be losing the rag here. 

Not at all...although I gather you'd like that. It's generally how you conduct yourself here.


>Lucky her. If you think that makes it worth the risks I don't know why you don't fancy doing it yourself.

I believe I already dealt with the issue of my own feelings about being involved in the adult industry and the risks involved.


>Don't be a miner then either!
Again...whats your point? 

I realise it's subtle...but try again.


>By the way...when you are socialising on Grafton Street every Saturday night, do you proudly tell all the little chickies you chat up that you're a huge pornhound?
If not, why not?

Little chickies? Well...I tend not to refer to women that I meet as little chickies actually!
This seems to be a pattern of yours on this board. Resorting to this rubbish. I think I have seen about 7 to 10 porn movies my whole life. I know a little about it. I'm a man of the world so I know the issues involved. I realise of course that your sad attempt to get a rise out of me is a product of your own inability to hold constructive debate. But I'm afraid I'm not biting. Before you drag this debate downhill, as you invariably do, I'll bow out...unless you have any real point to make.


----------



## ClubMan (25 Feb 2005)

*I'm sorry if you don't like your argument to be teased apart. But thats all I did...no twisting necessary. Get over it.*



> ClubMan
> Administrator
> Posts: 11045
> (22/2/05 11:55 am)
> ...





> ClubMan
> Administrator
> Posts: 11055
> (23/2/05 11:39 am)
> ...





> ClubMan
> Administrator
> Posts: 11114
> (23/2/05 10:59 pm)
> ...





> Asimov
> Frequent poster
> Posts: 156
> (24/2/05 1:17 pm)
> ...



I would argue that you did indeed twist my words and, by insinuating from the lack of the caveat/qualification mentioned in several of my previous posts and implicit in my last one above that that I in some way was supporting access to child porn, acted outrageously.

*Yes, thats right...porn can be dangerous. Thats why it needs strict controls.*

I didn't concede that. I just agree that children are still developing physically and emotionally and should be shielded from certain material until they have reached an age at which they can make informed decisions for themselves whether to consume such material or not. 

*And thats where I came in and said there is a time and a place for everytrhing.*

I'm not familiar with your views on timing but your idea of an appropriate place for it (_"Adults watching porn in the comfort of their own home - no problem. Anywhere else is just too 'in your face'."_) is much more restrictive than mine.

*Don't pretend to be stupid,*

Two words to that - posting guidelines!

*If a banned substance such as alcohol is accessible by kids, how do you plan to limit porn access by kids, especially if its on sale in the local multiplex, and for hire in Xtravision?*

You enforce the relevant rules.

*Let me flesh it out again (no pun intended)...you've already said you agree with the necessity for censorship*

Not to limit what material grown adults can access, no.

*and you also agree that alcohol is being abused by underage kids. *

I never actually mentioned "abuse". I just mentioned that access to alcohol/tobacco by those under legal age obviously does occur. 

*By allowing widespread easy access to porn you are inviting its abuse also, by kids. As an adult I have no problem with restrictions on my freedoms, even where I think it unnecessary to protect me personally - because there are other more vulnerable people who would suffer as a result. Drugs are another good example of this. I don't agree with the liberalisation of Marijuana, and even if I used it I still wouldn't agree that it should be sold on every street corner.*

Well we'll just have to agree to differ in spite of the fact that you think that I've agreed to agree with you. I won't even get onto my views on other "consensual crimes" involving individuals and causing no direct harm to non-consenting others (such as those involving personal use of currently banned substances) or we'll never get out of here alive but I'm sure that you can guess. However, before you jump to any more mistaken conclusions please note that I do not condone the trafficking/use of controlled substances while they are still banned under law.

*Ask John Waters fer crissake!*

Eh?

*Nah. Never did. HEY! you're twisting my words now! *

Er, how can I be twisting your words when all I did was pose a question for you to answer? :\ 

*Just don't try to tell me they're all multi millionaires by the time they're 35.*

And, if you read my contributions carefully you'll also notice that I never said that either.


----------



## ClubMan (25 Feb 2005)

*By the way...when you are socialising on Grafton Street every Saturday night, do you proudly tell all the little chickies you chat up that you're a huge pornhound?*

Are you a big _Austin Powers_ fan or something?


----------



## Asimov (25 Feb 2005)

HTML Comments are not allowed


----------



## ClubMan (25 Feb 2005)

* HTML Comments are not allowed*

Please note that  explains why your post went missing and not, in spite of your claim in a post which has since been removed by another moderator (not me), because it was censored by me.


----------



## Asimov (25 Feb 2005)

*HTML Comments are not allowed*

I spent a considerable time last night composing a response to ClubMans posting, only to see it deleted.

ClubMan claims it was deleted by 'the machine' and not him.
Whatever.

Pity, it was rather good....but I can't be bothered to write it all again.

In parting I just have this to add.

ClubMan is a "MODERATOR" on this Bulletin Board. He regularly edits and deletes threads, deletes comments, and locks discussions. Indeed he has just deleted a posting by GeeGee, inserted his excuse, and locked the discussion.

Now if that is not CENSORSHIP, I ask you - what is?

MODERATOR = CENSOR ClubMan!

ClubMan is vehement in asserting his god given RIGHT to access the vilest pornography because "...why should any individual or group decide what content other grown adults should be allowed access?" and yet he registers absolutely no contradiction in his position when he chooses to CENSOR what I write or what YOU can read. 

In other words, his convictions on 'freedom of content' only apply when and where, and to whom he chooses. 
Specifically, he is the arbiter of our viewing.

This is the attitude of an out and out hypocrite. He can't even see the hypocrisy of his position.

Over and out.


----------



## ClubMan (25 Feb 2005)

*Re: HTML Comments are not allowed*

* I spent a considerable time last night composing a response to ClubMans posting, only to see it deleted.

ClubMan claims it was deleted by 'the machine' and not him.
Whatever.*

If you don't believe me then so be it. The _HTML comments not allowed_ issue is a well known and annoying feature (I'd call it a bug) on _ezBoard_. If you still insist on believing that I (or any other moderator) would resort to censoring somebody simply because they disagree with or challenge me and/or would use an _ezBoard_ bug as some sort of subterfuge to deny responsibility then, as you say, WHATEVER! :\  

*ClubMan is a "MODERATOR" on this Bulletin Board. He regularly edits and deletes threads, deletes comments, and locks discussions. Indeed he has just deleted a posting by GeeGee, inserted his excuse, and locked the discussion.

ClubMan is vehement in asserting his god given RIGHT to access the vilest pornography because "...why should any individual or group decide what content other grown adults should be allowed access?" and yet he registers absolutely no contradiction in his position when he chooses to CENSOR what I write or what YOU can read.*

This is simply not true but there is obviously no point in attempting to reason with you. Neither did I delete any post by _geegee_ and/or lock the topic in question (please link to the locked topic in question if you think otherwise). Last night I did post an explanation for _geegee_ about how one of his/her posts was quarantined by another modetator for review because the topic to which it referred had been previously locked. Otherwise I had no involvement in this matter but just posted the explanation out of courtesy to _geegee_ and any other readers who might have been confused.

While you may insist on attempting to blacken my name in some way I trust that most reasonable contributors - including those who strongly disagree me on various topics or who have engaged in vigorous debates with me - will draw their own conclusions about my bona fides as a contributor and moderator/administrator from my track record on _AAM_ to date. I trust that they can also draw their own conclusions from your track record and your inimitable debating "style".

*In other words, his convictions on 'freedom of content' only apply when and where, and to whom he chooses.
Specifically, he is the arbiter of our viewing.*

No - I am merely expressing my opinion on the matter. I have no direct control over what people choose to view.

*In other words, his convictions on 'freedom of content' only apply when and where, and to whom he chooses.
Specifically, he is the arbiter of our view*

Once again - if you can't play by the rules you should probably desist from posting at all.


----------



## Gabriel (25 Feb 2005)

*Re: HTML Comments are not allowed*

I'd just like to add, on Clubman's behalf, that what Asimov has just written about him is *absolute unadulterated rubbish* and entirely untrue, both in terms of his basic understanding of the moderation that goes on here and his understanding of what was being discussed in this thread. Petulant child indeed.


----------



## ClubMan (25 Feb 2005)

*Re: HTML Comments are not allowed*

Thanks for your support _Gabriel_ but I'd imagine it's pointless as far as _Asimov_ is concerned since s/he'll probably just accuse me of posting under the monikers _ClubMan_ and _Gabriel_. *WHATEVER!*


----------



## Tommy (25 Feb 2005)

*Re: 9 songs*

A google search for 
ezboard "HTML comments not allowed" 
yields 51 website references to this issue (none of which appear to originate from AAM). 

A google search for 
ezboard "HTML comments are not allowed" 
yields 324 website references (which I don't have the time to individually check)

If Clubman is to blame for all this, he surely is even more prolific than I ever imagined!


----------



## ajapale (25 Feb 2005)

*Askaboutmoney is about Irish consumer finance issues.*

I think might be useful to go back to first principles here:



> Askaboutmoney is a discussion forum on *Irish consumer finance issues.*



and Rule 17


> 17) Letting off Steam is for regular contributors to do just that:
> The Letting Off Steam forum is designed for regular contributors to Askaboutmoney to occasionally discuss non financial issues. It is not designed to be a platform for people who make little or no other contribution (e.g. by answering finance related queries or otherwise contributing to the more finance orientated forums) to Askaboutmoney to stir up trouble or pursue their own campaigns. These posters should find another website to pursue their objectives.



Moderators and Admins have neither the desire or inclination to expend time and effort monitoring, moderating and editing topics which clearly fall outside the scope of the forum.

Letting off Steam was a category established for contributers to the main AAM categories to occcasionaly discuss issues which fall out side this scope.

Other forums exist (politics.ie, boards.ie) where such issues as "Northern Ireland Politics" or "Morality in Ireland" can be discussed and perhaps these forums should be considered where one wants to conduct heated discussions on these topics.

ajapale


----------



## Gabriel (25 Feb 2005)

*Re: Askaboutmoney is about Irish consumer finance issues.*

Hi ajapale,

Actually, I think it would be a shame not to discuss these issues here as, in one form or other, we always have.

If you go back some time ago you'll find a promise that a certain someone made as to how he would conduct himself on this board from there on in. It concerned a certain airline and Brendan's banning of that topic. I believe he's following through on that promise and, in my opinion, letting him upset the normal flow of discussions here would only be letting him win.


----------



## ClubMan (25 Feb 2005)

*Re: Askaboutmoney is about Irish consumer finance issues.*

If, as _Asimov_ claimed, I am hypocritical in anything here it may well be in the relatively minor fact that I originally (among the moderators) was one of the strongest objectors to allowing discussion of non "core" topics (e.g. those that did not strongly or obviously relate to issues of [personal] finance) but once the decision was taken to allow such discussions I went hell for leather in engaging in some of them!    Ultimately I enjoy lively discussion/debate on most topics but it's unfortunate that a minority of contributors, even if they have strong views contrary to others, cannot concentrate on reasoned discussion of the substantive matters in hand and instead resort to insults and false accusations often to deflect from the fact that their arguments are untenable or based on misrepresentations of others' opinions. Maybe I should stick to the "above the line" forums from now on... :\


----------



## Tharggy (26 Feb 2005)

*Censorship*



> Neither did I delete any post by geegee and/or lock the topic in question (please link to the locked topic in question if you think otherwise).


As it happens, I saw GeeGees post last night also. His thread was called 'Where has my post gone' and he asked a question about a posting he had made. ClubMan, you responded to his post and told him his missing thread was being reviewed by the moderators. 

I think its rather disingenious of you to ask Asimov to prove his point by linking to the thread...when you know thats impossible because you already deleted it!

Don't try to wriggle out of the censorship point by claiming innocence, you've censored ME on numerous occasions, and certain subjects which are wholly in the public domain are even banned from discussion here. So much for freedom of access to content by adults!

Finally, you say "Once again - if you can't play by the rules you should probably desist from posting at all."

I would put it to you that if your convictions about censorship are as deeply held as you claim then that is incompatible and indeed hypocritical. I would suggest a better course of action for you - if you had any integrity and truly mean what you said about 'freedom of access to content' - then you should resign as a moderator immediately.

Don't bother trying to explain what mental gymnastics you use to salve your conscience, I'm not interested in how your mind works. Its a simple test of your bona fides, and I know 100% you will fail it.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Feb 2005)

*Re: Censorship*

I give up! :rolleyes      

*ClubMan, you responded to his post and told him his missing thread was being reviewed by the moderators.

I think its rather disingenious of you to ask Asimov to prove his point by linking to the thread...when you know thats impossible because you already deleted it!*

Why would I bother replying to a post (which I did) and then delete the topic (which I did not although I presume that another moderator did for some reason)?

*Don't try to wriggle out of the censorship point by claiming innocence, you've censored ME on numerous occasions, and certain subjects which are wholly in the public domain are even banned from discussion here. So much for freedom of access to content by adults!*

It is quite possible that I have indeed deleted posts by you but only because they contravened the posting guidelines. Abiding by the declared posting guidelines on this site which have been mutually agreed on by the moderators and being involved in the moderation process which ensures that they are not contravened is in no way inconsistent with my personal views on freedom of speech/access to content etc.

*I would put it to you that if your convictions about censorship are as deeply held as you claim then that is incompatible and indeed hypocritical. I would suggest a better course of action for you - if you had any integrity and truly mean what you said about 'freedom of access to content' - then you should resign as a moderator immediately.*

OK - I'll do a deal - the day that you or _Asimov_ are invited to become moderators I will step down to make way for you. I'll even abstain if it comes to a vote by the moderators. Agreed?

*Don't bother trying to explain what mental gymnastics you use to salve your conscience, I'm not interested in how your mind works. Its a simple test of your bona fides, and I know 100% you will fail it.*

Failing the _Tharggy_ bona fide test? Hmmmm ... I think I can live with that without the need for too much conscience salving.


----------



## fatherdougalmaguire (26 Feb 2005)

*Re: Censorship*

Hey, we're on a plane!


----------



## ClubMan (26 Feb 2005)

*Re: Censorship*

Actually I think we're on a different planet at this stage? Look at those spacemen go.... 0]


----------



## Tharggy (26 Feb 2005)

*Re: Censorship*



> It is quite possible that I have indeed deleted posts by you but only because they BLAH BLAH BLAH :lol    the posting guidelines BLAH. Abiding by the BLAH BLAH BLAH :lol     on this site which have been mutually BLAH BLAH :lol    by the moderators and being involved in BLAH BLAH :lol   process which ensures that BLAH BLAH BLAH :lol    contravened is in no way inconsistent BLAH BLAH BLAH :lol    personal views on freedom of speech/access to content etc.:lol      :lol      :lol



Hoisted by your own petard "ClubMan"!! :lol     



> I'll do a deal - the day that you or Asimov are invited to become moderators


And who makes the invites? You and your Censorial Brethren? 
Gimme a break.

Beginning to understand the value of censorship yet?

Suppose I link to a Porn site from here? 
You OK with that?
I think not.

You are a mental midget evidently, as well as a hypocrite.

CENSOR me now Mr.CENSOR...I'm asking for it!!!


----------



## rainyday (26 Feb 2005)

*Re: Censorship*

For those without the time or inclination to read through Thargy's full post, here's the significant bit;


> I'm asking for it


This is simply a pile of attention-seeking, trolling twaddle. Tharg - This isn't the Supreme Court, or the Irish Times or some other hugely important state institution where you have some inalienable personal right to express yourself. It's a small, backwoods bulletin board for discussing Irish personal financial queries - That's all. Your personal rights aren't being invalidated by our policies. There are many, many other bulletin boards where you can continue your trolling. Please either;
1) find somewhere else to troll
2) start adding some value to this little community of ours by posting on financial issues, instead of just trolling on Ryanair/Aer Lingus/moderation.

My preference would be for number 1. Note that I'm speaking on a personal basis, not as a moderator.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Feb 2005)

*Re: Censorship*

*Hoisted by your own petard "ClubMan"!! *

Didn't the _Bard_ say _"hoist by his own petard"_?

*And who makes the invites? You and your Censorial Brethren?*

_Brendan_ and the moderators invite reasonable and constructive contributors to become moderators from time to time. I'm sure that unsolicited applications on the part of individuals would also be considered. on their own merits.

*Gimme a break.*

I already did - I said I'd abstain in any nomination or vote for the likes of yourself to become moderator. I'd even go so far as to suggest that if there is a groundswell of general opinion (in the form of established _AAM_ contributors) for you to become moderator I will even step down and offer you my place as moderator although I can't guarantee that the other moderators will necessarily accept you.

*Suppose I link to a Porn site from here?
You OK with that?*

Wouldn't bother me personally but since this bulletin board is not my personal plaything, and I don't attempt to treat it as such - unlike some, and the posting guidelines have been formulated by the moderators and refined over time the decision is not mine alone.

*You are a mental midget evidently, as well as a hypocrite.

CENSOR me now Mr.CENSOR...I'm asking for it!!!*

:lol   

Have you ever considered anger management counselling? I sometimes worry about you not to mention your passengers up there at 30,000 feet.


----------



## Tharggy (26 Feb 2005)

*Re: Censorship*



> There are many, many other bulletin boards where you can continue your trolling.


Trolling? Not a bit of it. I simply detest hypocrisy, and I see it in spades here.

Must I make the point again?

ClubMan has expressed his deeply held beliefs that adults should not have their viewing content censored, yet he is a censor on this website and regularly restricts the viewing content on this website.

The rules on AAM are of absolutely no consequence in this discussion and are beside the point. 

The issue is *ClubMans double standards*, and the fundamental flaw it exposes in the larger 'Right On' culture of PC liberalism.

I really have nothing against poor old ClubMan. He' can't help it if he's confused. Its just that he is the visible manifestation of all that hypocrisy which infects our society. 

They say if you scratch a liberal you find a fascist underneath. Sadly, ClubMan is proof of it.   

PS Congratulations for resisting the temptation to delete my comments, but then...that would just prove my point, wouldn't it? How frustrating is that for you!

PPS Gabriel, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about Asimov. Could it have anything to do with how he spanked your bottom in the thread about Sinn Fein?

I noticed in that discussion you were highly supportive of the Reverend Ian Paisley. Interesting bedfellows you choose....do you think the good reverend would approve of your advocacy of porn? Or would he say NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!!! :lol


----------



## ClubMan (26 Feb 2005)

*Re: Censorship*

*ClubMan has expressed his deeply held beliefs that adults should not have their viewing content censored, yet he is a censor on this website and regularly restricts the viewing content on this website.*

I was referring to state censorship as opposed to individual fora (such as this) which decide upon their own posting guidelines and on what is deemed acceptable or not in that specific context. There is nothing preventing me, you or anybody else starting up a bulletin board called something like _Ask About Money, Tits and Ass_ if we want and taking a more permissive approach to the type of content posted. However I'm not sure that it would address the primary goal of discussion of [personal] finance and related matters as well as _AAM_.

*They say if you scratch a liberal you find a fascist underneath. ClubMan is proof of it.*

So - let's see - at this stage I'm a hypocritical, conscience salving, midget minded, fascistic liberal mental gymnast who promulgates child porn and who has been hoisted (sic.) by my own petard? Anything else to add to that?


----------



## Tharggy (26 Feb 2005)

*Re: Censorship*

ClubMan, you are rationalising. Stop it.

If you believe there are occasions (like here) where censorship is inevitable, then you have just admitted that Asimov was right all along, and all your quibbling is wasted breath.

Its not personal ClubMan, I'm sure you're a nice guy....you just haven't thought things through properly.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Feb 2005)

*Re: Censorship*

* ClubMan, you are rationalising*

Sorry - I forgot that rational debate was beyond some peoples' ken. My apologies.

*Its not personal ClubMan, I'm sure you're a nice guy....*

If you think that somebody alleged to be _"a hypocritical, conscience salving, midget minded, fascistic liberal mental gymnast who promulgates child porn and who has been hoisted (sic.) by [his/her] own petard"_ is a nice person then I'm not sure what that says about you. :\


----------



## Tharggy (26 Feb 2005)

*Re: Censorship*

*Rationalisation*  (psychiatry) a defense mechanism by which your true motivation is concealed by explaining your actions and feelings in a way that is not threatening.



> "a hypocritical, conscience salving, midget minded, fascistic liberal mental gymnast who promulgates child porn and who has been hoisted (sic.) by [his/her] own petard" is a nice person then I'm not sure what that says about you."


 That I'm an optimist? :lol


----------



## Marie (27 Feb 2005)

*sex*

The last dozen or so exchanges border on personal attacks which is not surprising given the potential volatility of the subject - which is probably sex rather than censorship.

Discussing highly-personal attitudes to sex on the edges of a forum on money (as both ajapale and ClubMan have recalled to be the purpose of the forum) is guaranteed - for a raft of unconscious psychological reasons - to produce heated discussion.  

I do think the discussion is appropriate on a money forum since what is at issue is the displacement of intimate physical relationship from its (usual, biological) couple setting, into the realm of media (t.v., video, film, porn magazines live-sex-clubs etc.) which are if not directly part of 'the culture' are certainly a sub-culture.  Pornography, prostitution and marketed perversions of every ilk are traded and are highly lucrative (prospering the actors and technicians who make them as well as the entrepreneurs, as has been pointed out in several posts).

There is an interesting sub-text in this thread that prior to these more 'liberal' sexually-explicit times in which we live there was (a) no sex or (b) poor sex or (c) hypocracy and there was (a) no financial exploitation of sex or (b) poorly-developed trade in sexuality or (c) everyone was pure as the driven snow.

The dichotomies don't represent the reality 'then' or 'now' and the issue is a deal more complex.

As a woman I am very clear in my own mind that men or women (though it is usually men!) who need or choose recourse to fantasy activity with images or strangers (porn mags/films/prostitutes, fetishistic perversions) as a substitute for physical, sensual sexual relationship with a (consenting peer) human then there is a problem.  

As a psychotherapist my experience has been that individuals who make such choices need - as with any substitute or addiction - to indulge in more and more of whatever the activity is - and increasingly 'heavy' stimuli are resorted to to achieve sexual satisfaction ending with the  'hard porn' and 'child porn' end of the spectrum.

Perhaps the difficulty of debating these important issues is that as well as engaging deeply-held convictions and morals _some_ cultural products (films, paintings, drama books etc.) are considered as art (which enhances our sensibilities and appreciation and understanding of human sexuality) by some and as vulgarity and pornographic by others (the displacement of healthy sexuality by voyeurism, fetishism etc.)

The clue is in the increasing move of film-institute type films into general release and onto DVD and television entirely on the basis of the profit motive and outside of a context of debate and reflection on the issues raised.  

Personally I find pornography tedious after a conscious 'induction' by my sister and her Dutch partner to that side of life during holidays in Amsterdam when I was in my early 20's.  Real life and real relationships and real sex are  far more interesting.  However it is a matter of extreme concern to think that teenagers struggling with issues of autonomy, dependency, relationship during adolescence would be exposed to images and ideas (increasingly generated from financial rather than artistic motives) which confuse, trouble and distort their healthy development.  

We need to be able to distinguish fine art and its motives and effects from commercial packages of titilation floated from the 'sub-culture' into the culture with the implicit sales-pitch that to object, reject, or censor is 'uncool' or 'unliberated'.  This does not infantalise adults - men or women - or reduce their freedom but rather engages their maturity in the necessity of deciding and working for the kind of community and society in which the position of those more vulnerable - the young - is respected.


----------



## ClubMan (27 Feb 2005)

*Re: sex*

Interesting and thought provoking post _Marie_ which makes a change for the last few! However I have to take issue with this:

*We need to be able to distinguish fine art and its motives and effects from commercial packages of titilation floated from the 'sub-culture' into the culture with the implicit sales-pitch that to object, reject, or censor is 'uncool' or 'unliberated'. This does not infantalise adults - men or women - or reduce their freedom but rather engages their maturity in the necessity of deciding and working for the kind of community and society in which the position of those more vulnerable - the young - is respected.*

Even leaving porn specifically aside for a moment, how can anybody realistically arrive at an objective or authoritative assessment of the intrinsic artistic "value" or aesthetic "worth" of any work when such things are largely (or wholly?) subjective. To attempt to impose rules in this context is to risk arbitarily marginalising that which is considered beyond the pale at any point in time and to stultify creativity. Just think of all the artistic works which, in their time, were considered offensive but which are now hailed as works of genius.


----------



## Gabriel (27 Feb 2005)

*Re: sex*

Yes...very interesting and thought provoking post Marie.

While I agree with a lot of your points I'd be a little suspicious about two things - despite your expertise in the area of understanding human nature.
*
>As a woman I am very clear in my own mind that men or women (though it is usually men!) who need or choose recourse to fantasy activity with images or strangers (porn mags/films/prostitutes, fetishistic perversions) as a substitute for physical, sensual sexual relationship with a (consenting peer) human then there is a problem.*

As a man, I am very certain that a great deal of men are sexually aroused by images of sex or eroticism. I don't have any online evidence for this assertion but I'm fairly sure that it's a proven fact. Occupation aside I fear you may be personalising the subject a little too much and also taking it to extremes which aren't always necessarily true. There are many ways to explore your own sexuality, not all of which involve monogamous relationships.

*>As a psychotherapist my experience has been that individuals who make such choices need - as with any substitute or addiction - to indulge in more and more of whatever the activity is - and increasingly 'heavy' stimuli are resorted to to achieve sexual satisfaction ending with the 'hard porn' and 'child porn' end of the spectrum.*

I would imagine that as a psychotherapist you see a lot of the extremes. Extrapolating from your experience that the above might always be true would seem to be a dangerous presumption. then. In saying that I suppose all of our opinions are based on personal experience.


----------



## Marie (27 Feb 2005)

*sex*

Gabriel - I acknowledge your view that mine is limited. Of course it is, as is yours, by your background and experience.  Perhaps what is different is I indicate from which areas of my personal  experience my views originate.  

What I endeavoured to articulat was that from postings to this thread _one_ of the issues being raised appears to be that of appropriate discrimination between _art_ (to which in many cases sex is central right back to the Renaissance)  and _sub-culture-masquerading-as-culture_ - for shorthand 'the sex industry' - and which is seductive, mesmeric addictive and _pseudo_-artistic and causes problems of definition (which incidentally Asimov has been struggling to point out and has been drummed out on)! 

The former ('art') can be discerned insofar as it open up intellect and feeling and connects the world in a meaningful manner (though the work required of reflecting on, discussing publicly and understanding the symbolism is far from straightforward).

'The sex industry' on the contrary operates by selling the fiction of sexual satisfaction without the drawback (?!) of having to think about the needs, preferences or desires of a partner.  It is narcissistic, an empty promise that one can avoid dealing with relational issues or issues of one's own sexuality through complex identification with the fantasy of another transformed packaged as _a commodity_ which is sold.  A commodity is _not_ a person and sexual arousal through substitutes for a sexual partner are _not_ sex which is an engagement of two physical persons.

I posted to this thread not because I or anyone I know cares what some 'men' (?!) do 'in the privacy of their own homes' as far as intervening _there_ is concerned or foisting a dialogue which given the solitary nature of the practices clearly would not be welcome.  These are their own responsibility (as a number of men here have trenchantly expressed).

_However_ the prediliction of some men and their engagement with porn _does_ have implications for others in the social group in which the sex industry imbeds and flourishes (as a number of posters have already expressed).  One of those implications is that with proliferation of use of porn other people are increasingly related to as _objects_ not _subjects_ and can be purchased for one's own sexual (narcissistic and solitary!) gratification.  It also distorts reality insofar as real people are reduced in stature in comparison with the (artifically created) pornographic icons and there is a falsification of reality.

Sex in 'art' I suggested - from the Greek Chalcolithic figurines (3000BC) through to 'Last Tango in Paris' and 'Ai No Corrida' - opens dialogue through presenting symbolic complexity  which must be worked at and unravelled and in the process private fantasy is modified in a benign way which connects the individual with partner/group - rather than the disconnection and isolation of the individual - which is one aspect of porn.  The manufacturers of pornographic material do not have any moral compunction about what happens to the purchaser, the community or anybody else, as evidenced by their willingness to manufacture  'snuff' movies.

I did not infer solitary indulgence in pornographic material was not exciting.  It is!  That's why it's big business.  Porn is what it is and it is a major error of judgement to believe it is what it is not.  

The more reliance on external restraints, censorship and prohibition the less people exercise discrimination and judgement on their own behalf.  If men desire porn their desire occurs in a social space occupied by others and they need to engage in open debate about its effects on the entire community and how that desire is stimulated by the workings of a sub-culture which sells not just sexual imagery but the idea that people are things there for one's use on demand in return for money.


----------



## Gabriel (27 Feb 2005)

*Re: sex*

Hi Marie,

No Grafton street tonight guys. Conserving cash I'm afraid. February is a tough month  

*>Perhaps what is different is I indicate from which areas of my personal experience my views originate. *

I acknowledge that. Unfortunately, and I don't wish this to be offensive, I see far more of your personal feelings in your last post than your job.

This has become a difficult subject now and I don't pretend to be right in everything I say. Please bear that in mind.

*>The sex industry' on the contrary operates by selling the fiction of sexual satisfaction without the drawback (?!) of having to think about the needs, preferences or desires of a partner. It is narcissistic, an empty promise that one can avoid dealing with relational issues or issues of one's own sexuality through complex identification with the fantasy of another transformed packaged as a commodity which is sold. A commodity is not a person and sexual arousal through substitutes for a sexual partner are not sex which is an engagement of two physical persons.*


My problem with this comment is the presumption inferred that anything short of loving sex is wrong or that it has no place. Fantasy, by its very nature is an empty promise. Fantasy and reality rarely mix well. 
Sex has been a commodity for a long time. Prostitution is the oldest profession after all.


*>I posted to this thread not because I or anyone I know cares what some 'men' (?!) do 'in the privacy of their own homes'...*

You'll have to forgive me if I sense a certain disdain for men who view porn in that statement. From a psychotherapists point of view I find that strange to be honest. It personalises your viewpoint somewhat, without dealing with the matter in an objective manner.

*>One of those implications is that with proliferation of use of porn other people are increasingly related to as objects not subjects and can be purchased for one's own sexual (narcissistic and solitary!) gratification. It also distorts reality insofar as real people are reduced in stature in comparison with the (artificially created) pornographic icons and there is a falsification of reality.*

I'm actually quite a fan of your postings here...but unfortunately you're beginning to sound a lot like the two feminist experts on the Last Word the other night. Forgive me if that sounds flippant.
Both male and female participants in porn are related as objects. That in itself is not a necessarily a 'bad' thing. Fantasy, after all, is something every human being thinks about. It objectifys sexual desires in our mind. Sexual fantasy for men rarely takes feelings into consideration. Pornography is, very often, merely the physical manifestation of that fantasy.
*
>If men desire porn their desire occurs in a social space occupied by others and they need to engage in open debate about its effects on the entire community and how that desire is stimulated by the workings of a sub-culture which sells not just sexual imagery but the idea that people are things there for one's use on demand in return for money.*

I doubt we'll ever agree on this subject. I'm a deep thinker and I understand a lot of what you're saying, but I also see other sides to the point being made. We could get into deeply convoluted arguments about how people themselves sell their own sex for a price...but I'm not sure what it would prove. Excuse the example, but it's the first that comes to mind right now. The woman, seeking a virile man, who sells her love and sex for the man who can give her the most. A rich man perhaps with prospects. One who can provide the life she desires? Is that woman selling herself? Her body? Does this happen? What does it mean?
That last point might be a little abstract and I may have had too much red wine!!  
My point is I fear we can psycho-analyse a subject too much to suit our own pre-conceptions. Your own _personal_ view of pornography is obviously a lot different to mine. I see it (the selling of sex and sexual gratification) as being part of the basic makeup of a lot of human beings (mainly male but also female). In much the same way that war and killing predispose themselves to the human equation, so does the objectification of sexuality. In the correct context, it's my view that this is merely an exploration into ones own sexual psyche.


----------



## ClubMan (27 Feb 2005)

*Re: sex*

*The former ('art') can be discerned insofar as it open up intellect and feeling and connects the world in a meaningful manner (though the work required of reflecting on, discussing publicly and understanding the symbolism is far from straightforward).*

No offence _Marie_ but if _Duchamp_ can declare a defaced urinal art then I see no reason why, say, _Ron Jeremy_ can't do likewise. I am not being obtuse/facetious either. Who is the arbiter of what is _"pseudo artistic"_ for example? 



*However the prediliction of some men and their engagement with porn does have implications for others in the social group in which the sex industry imbeds and flourishes (as a number of posters have already expressed). One of those implications is that with proliferation of use of porn other people are increasingly related to as objects not subjects and can be purchased for one's own sexual (narcissistic and solitary!) gratification. It also distorts reality insofar as real people are reduced in stature in comparison with the (artifically created) pornographic icons and there is a falsification of reality.*

Surely the same goes for lots of other individual and often solitary activities such as hero worship, cults of personalitity, religious practices etc. Porn is not the only means by which people are objectified and I don't see objectification as necessarily something nefarious as seems to be the implication.

*I did not infer solitary indulgence in pornographic material was not exciting. It is! That's why it's big business. Porn is what it is and it is a major error of judgement to believe it is what it is not.*

Er, maybe _Tharggy_ was correct and I am after all a midget minded because I haven't a clue what that means!  

*If men desire porn their desire occurs in a social space occupied by others and they need to engage in open debate about its effects on the entire community and how that desire is stimulated by the workings of a sub-culture which sells not just sexual imagery but the idea that people are things there for one's use on demand in return for money.*

I disagree that they "need" to do anything of the sort. THey can do so if they choose to.


----------



## Marie (27 Feb 2005)

*fantasy*

Gabriel and ClubMan - thank you for thought-provoking posts which unfortunately I'm not able to respond to till tonight.  Quick point to ClubMan's - Duchamp was the less-able brother of two technically highly-talented siblings who were both painters, as was his father.  Marcel's re-contextualisation of everyday objects from the profane space to the reified gallery was - it is believed in some circles - his way of dealing with that symbolically, though there is a great deal more to him (The Large Glass, for example, 'The bride stripped bare by her batchelors even.....') of great complexity and he pushed all the boundaries of sculptural and imagic form in a manner which has never been surpassed.

Quick point in response to Gabriel - far from wishing to curtail fantasy my position is (and it may well be that my expression of this in previous posts was clumsy!) that the _problem_ with porn, to my mind, is that porn offers an ersatz substitute not alone for relationship but for fantasy (or phantasy) itself, whereas art stimulates fantasy (examples which come to mind are Marilyn Monroe as Sugar in 'Some Like It Hot'.........in fact all the relationships and symbolism of SLIH.....and Bernini's 'Ecstasy of St. Teresa' 
www.com/artchive/B/Bernin...a.jpg.html


----------



## Marie (27 Feb 2005)

*fantasy*

That link should be:-

www.artchive.com/artchive...a.jpg.html


----------



## ClubMan (27 Feb 2005)

*Re: fantasy*

*Marcel's re-contextualisation of everyday objects from the profane space to the reified gallery was - it is believed in some circles - his way of dealing with that symbolically, though there is a great deal more to him (The Large Glass, for example, 'The bride stripped bare by her batchelors even.....') of great complexity and he pushed all the boundaries of sculptural and imagic form in a manner which has never been surpassed.*

So who's to say that somebody like _Ron Jeremy_ is not doing the same sort of things either consciously or unconsciously? Why is some of _Robert Mapp_lethorpe's_ (have to insert the underscore to stop _ezBoard_ messing the name up) work considered "art" while _Ron Jermey's_ is dismissed as "porn"?

Art reminds me of that old _Flann O'Brien_ one about fields of human endeavour sufficiently free of objective rules, checks and balances that any oul' chancer could give them a lash. And so it should be! We are all artists if we just decide that we are. And something is art if we say it is. Of course whether or not anybody will appreciate us or such "works" and see (for themselves - and not by proxy or just because some arbiter says so) some intrinsic value in it is another matter altogether!


----------



## Marie (28 Feb 2005)

*fantasy*

_Gabriel wrote_:-

*Hi Marie,

(snip) My problem with this comment is the presumption inferred that anything short of loving sex is wrong or that it has no place. Fantasy, by its very nature is an empty promise. Fantasy and reality rarely mix well. 
Sex has been a commodity for a long time. Prostitution is the oldest profession after all...............

You'll have to forgive me if I sense a certain disdain for men who view porn in that statement. From a psychotherapists point of view I find that strange to be honest. It personalises your viewpoint somewhat, without dealing with the matter in an objective manner.....

Both male and female participants in porn are related as objects. That in itself is not a necessarily a 'bad' thing. Fantasy, after all, is something every human being thinks about. It objectifys sexual desires in our mind. Sexual fantasy for men rarely takes feelings into consideration. Pornography is, very often, merely the physical manifestation of that fantasy.........

I doubt we'll ever agree on this subject. I'm a deep thinker and I understand a lot of what you're saying, but I also see other sides to the point being made. We could get into deeply convoluted arguments about how people themselves sell their own sex for a price...but I'm not sure what it would prove. Excuse the example, but it's the first that comes to mind right now. The woman, seeking a virile man, who sells her love and sex for the man who can give her the most. A rich man perhaps with prospects. One who can provide the life she desires? Is that woman selling herself? Her body? Does this happen? What does it mean?........

My point is I fear we can psycho-analyse a subject too much to suit our own pre-conceptions. Your own personal view of pornography is obviously a lot different to mine. I see it (the selling of sex and sexual gratification) as being part of the basic makeup of a lot of human beings (mainly male but also female). In much the same way that war and killing predispose themselves to the human equation, so does the objectification of sexuality. In the correct context, it's my view that this is merely an exploration into ones own sexual psyche.*........

Gabriel - I acknowledge that there are physical relationships which are not exclusive committed couple-arrangements and based on all kinds of attraction, desire need etc.  Perhaps what changes when the film/book/play (the pornographic depiction and/or the cultural object) are created from these various aspects of human physical sexual relating is that random, changing process becomes 'a thing' or fetish and moves out of the relational into the 'commodity' category!

It is then re-purchased by the people from whom it has - in a sense - been stolen or removed.....and they then internalise it as if 'the porn' or 'the cultural object' is providing them with something they need.

This point in your post was very interesting to me because I hadn't thought about consumption of either 'culture' or 'pornogrphy' in this way before.  They are both indeed 'consumed' and I think and feel (though I know you disagree here!) that pornography promises but does not deliver the goods or the anticipated level of pleasure (leaving the individual feeling they've been taken from perhaps?); the cultural object (art) does if it is indeed 'art' touch us profoundly and in a manner in which gives individuals more strength, feeling, sensitivity etc.  A remarkable thing about 'great' art is each portrayal, piece, object, is never in danger of getting mixed up with another.  The ennervating aspect of pornography is 'they all look the same' and there is a _reduction_ here and a simplification.  The con is that our desires are anything but simple - they are (as you indicate in this post) complex and changing and I don't think porn can actually meet that.  The buyer always always goes in to start from the beginning again and the only way to keep interest going is to move increasingly 'hard-core'.

That's my perspective and I take your point we each have a  limited perspective, and having of necessity to be of one gender or the other poses its own limits and perspective.

Your point about both male and female participants in pornography being 'objectified' by a viewer constituting a 'third position' is interesting and raises all kinds of issues about gender differences in the identifications here.

You write that male sexual fantasy doesn't include feelings and is the physical manifestation of that fantasy I can understand more why and how we must disagree as I cannot (be definition!) have the experience you are describing.  Also we may be using the term fantasy differently, yours perhaps being closer to ideas of behaviour and 'doing' whilst mine is of the complex feelings and layers of symbolism which go on psychologically whilst physical behaviour and actions and relationships are happening in the outer world.

When you go on to talk about 'negotiated deals' which people sometimes involve themselves in which seem less than partnerships I feel we've moved a long way from the very definite commodity which pornography (and indeed 'art') represent.  The difference between the cultural commodities we're discussing here and 'accommodations' between individuals is that the latter are part of process and do not involve cultural icons.

Moving to your last paragraph - I enjoy thinking about life and relationships through the filter of psychoanalytic ideas which have developed a great deal since Freud..........so for me you can never psycho-analyse too much    To the suggestion that pornography is part and parcel of human nature I don't agree at all.  My clumsy efforts have been to present the case that far from being a 'natural satisfaction of an urge/itch' pornography is a big business, the business of selling dreams.  The sale of dreams couldn't be further from what men (and women!!) actually NEED to enhance their sexuality and their relationships - and I have suggested what we need is the space and opportunity - and internal freedom - for fantasy.  

Gabriel thank you for such a fascinating discussion!


----------



## Marie (28 Feb 2005)

*fantasy*

_ClubMan wrote:_

(snip)
*No offence Marie but if Duchamp can declare a defaced urinal art then I see no reason why, say, Ron Jeremy can't do likewise. I am not being obtuse/facetious either. Who is the arbiter of what is "pseudo artistic" for example?* 

_[real people are reduced in stature in comparison with the (artifically created) pornographic icons and there is a falsification of reality]._

*Surely the same goes for lots of other individual and often solitary activities such as hero worship, cults of personalitity, religious practices etc. Porn is not the only means by which people are objectified and I don't see objectification as necessarily something nefarious as seems to be the implication.*

_[I did not infer solitary indulgence in pornographic material was not exciting. It is! That's why it's big business. Porn is what it is and it is a major error of judgement to believe it is what it is not]._

*Er, maybe Tharggy was correct and I am after all a midget minded because I haven't a clue what that means! * 

_[If men desire porn their desire occurs in a social space occupied by others and they need to engage in open debate]_ 

*I disagree that they "need" to do anything of the sort. THey can do so if they choose to.* 

ClubMan questioned why some 'cultural artefacts' are accepted as art whilst others are not.

ClubMan - Regarding your first point I suggested there are commercial pressures which operate to sell commodified sex packaged as art and pondered aloud what the difference between these two commodities are since they frequently look remarkably alike on the surface (and you brought Robert Mappwhaziznamelethorpe in exemplifying how close one is to t'other).

Yes - heroes, and 'personalities' (but I doubt religions!) _are_ marketed but they are hardly solitary but group based and appeal to very different human needs - for perfection, leadership, dependency etc.  Does the existence of other commodifications of desire invalidate comments here about pornography and sexuality - or confirm it? 

ClubMan - Fear not the midget-mind.....Tharggy was being _wude wude wude_ and that's an end of it! I'm rather proud of _"Porn is what it is and it is a major error of judgement to believe it is what it is not"._......makes me sound like an intellectual!

:rollin 

Nighty-night all AAM'ers wherever you are!


----------



## ClubMan (28 Feb 2005)

*Re: fantasy*

*I'm rather proud of "Porn is what it is and it is a major error of judgement to believe it is what it is not".......makes me sound like an intellectual!*

For some reason that line of yours sprung to mind this evening when I read this line in one newspaper's _Hunter S. Thompson_ obituary:



> "I hate to advocate weird chemicals, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone ... but they've always worked for me."


----------



## Marie (1 Mar 2005)

*fantasy*

What an epitaph!

No schleppin' down Xtravision or the porn-shop for a video in _that_ 'time of promises, time of golden dreaming' when vision (and super-vision) were gleaned through very personal and random means and there was no shortage of fantasy.  Hunter certainly lived (and died) his beliefs, and he is so so right!


----------



## Asimov (1 Mar 2005)

*Re: fantasy*

Marie, you've been sidetracked by ClubMan and Gaybo into a debate on the value of porn as art (or whatever). Thats a red herring because no-one can define art (certainly not here, and not to my satisfaction). 

I think the real debate is about *Censorship*, where both ClubMan and Gaybo have demonstrated double standards.

So, tell me Marie, what is your view on censorship...are you in favour of a free-for-all where each individual (adult) decides what is acceptable, or do you advocate some controls on access to pornography?


----------



## ClubMan (1 Mar 2005)

*Re: fantasy*

*Marie, you've been sidetracked by ClubMan and Gaybo into a debate on the value of porn as art (or whatever).*

Actually _Marie_ "sidetracked" the discussion all by herself as you will see if you read  carefully. I'll even give you a clue to help you out; I've even underlined the key words for you:


> Perhaps the difficulty of debating these important issues is that as well as engaging deeply-held convictions and morals some cultural products (films, paintings, drama books etc.) are considered as art (which enhances our sensibilities and appreciation and understanding of human sexuality) by some and as vulgarity and pornographic by others (the displacement of healthy sexuality by voyeurism, fetishism etc.)


*Thats a red herring because no-one can define art (certainly not here, and not to my satisfaction).*

_"not to my satisfation"_!? :lol   And this from the individual who accused me earlier of being like a _"petulant child"_ but who subsequently removed this comment. Excellent!

*I think the real debate is about Censorship, where both ClubMan and Gaybo have demonstrated double standards.*

The original debate was indeed about censorship. To restate my opinion (yet again) for those who are a bit slow on the uptake: I personally object to state censorship controlling adult consumption of material that does not harm non consenting others. I don't disagree with individual communities (such as this) imposing their own rules of etiquette which obviously only have local currency and can be circumvented by opening other channels of communication by those who don't like them.


----------



## Asimov (1 Mar 2005)

*Re: fantasy*

My post was directed to Marie. Why do you feel the need to constantly defend yourself? Methinks thou doth protest too much.


----------



## ClubMan (1 Mar 2005)

*Re: fantasy*

Your contribution was posted in the public domain and so open to response/rebuttal by any contributor - not least of all those towards whom you directed yet another kneejerk side swipe. Such is the nature of a bulletin board discussion forum. If you want to direct something to an individual contributor only then you should probably use the _Private Messaging_ system. Hope this is "to your satisfaction" because I wouldn't want you to get upset or anything. :lol


----------



## Asimov (3 Mar 2005)

*Censorship*

please read post below.


----------



## jem (4 Mar 2005)

*Re: Censorship*

Asimov,
Enough is enough. We are geting very tired of your insults etc. If you don't like the site or the way it is moderated you don't have to stay you know. There are other sites that might enjoy your rambling on and on and on, insulting moderartors and contributors alike, this site is not one of those.
Grow up or go away, the choice is yours.


----------

