← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · JOEBIALEK
Thread ID: 11438 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2003-12-11
2003-12-11 01:35 | User Profile
On this 50th anniversary of Playboy Magazine, perhaps a discussion of pornography is appropriate. Pornography is defined as sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. Those who promote it believe they are exercising their right from the first amendment of the United States Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The delicate question before us goes beyond the legal justification for allowing anyone to speak or write about anything they choose to. It speaks to the moral and ethical ramifications of such an enterprise. Our society today is inundated with references to sexuality in any medium we experience. The often quoted justification is that "sex sells" and therefore if marketing outlets can somehow equate a material purchase with sexual gratification, then some hidden unmet need will be satisfied. This is Freudianomics at its worst. Sex is promoted today as a means to an end and not the expression of love between consenting adults. Pornography portrays sex as some lustful hedonism with little regard for the potential outcome of such an experience. Still, millions of people purchase it for their own sexual stimulation. They believe that since those being filmed are consenting adults there is no harm to anyone. Assuming there is mutual consent among the actors, what is the difference between paying them to have sex with each other and paying a prostitute to have sex with you? Whether you favor or oppose pornography, it is this country's obsession with sex that is the root of the problem and the unfortunate consequences it produces. Until we as a nation can collectively mature out of this sexual pre-occupation we will be trapped in our own national adolescence.
2003-12-11 01:58 | User Profile
[SIZE=3][url]http://www.lukeford.com/subjects/content/jews_in_porn.html[/url][/SIZE]
2003-12-11 04:38 | User Profile
In a white society with Congoids and a variety of other savage's roaming freely among U.S., it is a crime I will state now to put white Porno out in this multi-cult society we have now, showing pretty white women like this is a crime against U.S./White society at large... You want to know why white female's from 10 to 100 are under attack? The Porn plays a big role is why. There is a Congoid roaming London in the U.K now that has been exclusively attacking elderly women, check the Black crime section on the reader page at [url]www.newnation.org[/url] Having grown up around non-white's and serving in the military I can tell you that non white's have an insane drive to get white woman porn, I was amazed at this, even at a young age, and it is what I experieced being around these savages. Non-white's in the service, would buy very expensive digusting porn magazines in early 70 thru 73. Now, I am not talking about putting canvass sheets on nude statues like some kook's do, etc, or being up tight about nudity and beautiful nude art, but flat out in the U.S. today it's all out crime against whites, for savage's to view porno of white women.. Then you have white young women, who do not understand that savages in real life, are not like the ones they see on TV/Movies, etc.. Hence the CO. Basketball/young white girl tradgedy. Get the picture? About playboy, back in my days in service, I never bought it, but did view it and READ it. The letters/advice column was alway's talking about rear end sex was okay etc., with women etc. Rear end sex is un-healthy and is a crime to promote using on women, say's me. I remember Twenty years ago, I had a nieghbor who was a Jewish MA consular and he alway's talked about how you had to rear end women to teach them who's boss and they won't respect unless you do it, and other stuff, I don't care to write about. He told, me I was too soft women etc., he made me sick, but I did not understand the tribe then. Bottom line is that porn in the U.S. in today's no border nation, and with savage multi-cult savage in almost every white town left, this alone is violence against the white race, and white males are attacked in Jails too, some happen for over night traffic citation issues, so the homo porno being put out is also a crime too.
2003-12-11 07:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Those who promote it believe they are exercising their right from the first amendment of the United States Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[/QUOTE]
The question is what is "speech" within the meaning of the First Amendment.
As Lincoln once put it, "the intent of the lawgiver is the law", and so the question is what the Constitution's Framers saw as "speech."
The answer is clear enough: "speech" meant at its heart political and religous discourse. The First Amendment guarantees our right to say and write what we will on those matters without state interference. The Framers believed that reasoned debate could lead to Truth, and promoting reasoned discourse is what the First Amendment is all about.
Just as clearly, the Framers didn't mean to include within the meaning of "speech" sexually explicit materials, which by their very nature have nothing to do with reasoned discourse; pornography is designed to appeal to the libido, and not to reason. Pornography is in a sense the triumph of our basest emotions over reason. Anyway, it cannot reasonably be held that the Framers meant to protect smut from state regulation. No way.
Our activist courts expanded First Amendment "speech" to include all "expression", and so now we more properly talk about "freedom of expression" rather than "freedom of speech." I think that maybe it's not such a bad idea to build a fence around the First Amendment's heart of reasoned discourse by constructing a sort of protective fence of sacrosanct "expression" around it, the idea being that the core of the First Amendment is safer if those who would attack it must first walk through the fence of lesser-valued expression (advertising, for example).
In addition, I think that a cost-benefit analysis reveals that the costs of banning pornography entirely outweigh the potential social benefits, and we should content ourselves with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on its production and sale (protecting children, keeping it off television, requiring brown paper covers on magazine racks, and so forth). Frankly, I could live with a good deal of legalized smut so long as it is closely regulated as to time, place & manner, while enjoying a warm and fuzzy feeling that the heart of the First Amendment is safe behind a lot of judicial bluster about "freedom of expression" as it applies to Larry Flynt.
But that's not what SCOTUS intends to do. They intend, unlimately, to outlaw "hate speech" - any argument ZOG doesn't approve - while making up for it in the mind of the sheeple by protecting all forms of pornography. The protection of pornography is, I think, something of a judicial trojan horse, allowing our ZOG SCOTUS to appear concerned with protecting individual feedom while in fact slowly eating away the substance of the First Amendment.
It's working pretty well, too. Ernst Zundel is a test case. Canada is already there - you can promote sodomy there but not publicly preach against it. You can advocate sex with children and animals, but you can't openly discuss human racial differences. That's the direction we're headed, and fast.
It all boils down to who owns the Constitution. Our courts no longer represent the original American tradition, and we must ask ourselves how much regard they are owed at this point.
End of rant. Walter
2003-12-11 15:15 | User Profile
I think our society has too long been hung up on litigious, doctrinal debates such as what or what isn't free speech. How about what or what isn't healthy? That's more like "playing with fire" relative to our government now, but our current government shows it can and will do nothing to halt long term decay. To my mind pornography comes in many forms, including the selling of products with sexual images... and that's the reason our current society tolerates it.
It's one thing to point the fingers at the Jews but another to find the Jew within and excise it.
2003-12-12 05:16 | User Profile
All the post's on this subject are timely, worthy and important to ponder as the subject matter has now had a reality of fermintation of the past 60 years with a now stinking disasterous physical and social results for U.S. and all Western people. Along with a non-white invasion of all Western countries. Time has arrived that the pimps and whores in office with their ma$ters of media support should be removed at the next election, but if this does not happen, I say it's because our people are in a cult like N.P.R. trance, but all could change as fast the gold prices, especially with shortages of food. Yet, I say our people are ripe with desire for supporting a W.N. leader, and that is why when even wimp's like ex-boxer Rep. James Moran D. VA. cried that he was not anti-semitic and that his daughter was marrying a Jew etc., he was severely attacked by the alien hate press. Point is even a wimpy statement as to who supported the war had a liberial Democrap Rep. on his knee's.. We do need a new hardness and we must try to reach more people in every way we can and remain as a gentleman in composure too. All this white porn is hate violence agains U.S. whites. It helps in the distruction of the whole of Western society, as we have not one white country any where that is for whites, and even young women in Iceland, have fallen to for the filth of Hooley Weird CA. brainwashing p.c. I am not coming from a leftist or prudish corner either, but a survial point for U.S. Gun's, prison's, Law's, or political partie's will not save us, only having the right to free association, and secure border's with our own media will return our country. As White's are gagged and in Subjewgation today. The media now use's ad's on day time radio, that 40 years ago, would have had a mob run to the radio station personal and beat them to a pulp, it is disgusting, what you hear in the DAY time as Radio commericials. Filth run's this nation, and until enough of U.S. raise up in the thousand's all the problem's will continue and our genocide will happen,if we allow it.. The teacher/union/money/prison like schools are a big part of the equation too.
2003-12-16 19:42 | User Profile
I like Playboy. Classy, hot women nude....gosh what's better than that? Great articles, too, no joke.
Anything beyond that is beyond me. Some stuff is so depraved, I wonder, how does that turn someone on? Seriously.
2003-12-17 04:26 | User Profile
I fail to see how pornography should not be classified as a form of prostitution. You have people debasing themselves in a lewd manner for other people's money. Porn is harmful to both women and men, and if negatively effects the way the sexes view each other.
2003-12-17 04:39 | User Profile
Playboy is alright, but does get a bit monotonous. Occasionaly, I prefer more petite models.
As far pornography debasing men -- how's that work, exactly? As far as it debasing the girls in question -- well, they get paid for something, after all. I don't think softcore is particularly degrading, and I wouldn't have any qualms about marrying a girl who had posed for it, given how relatively un-important such things are relative to what matters.
You can claim that porn negatively impacts the way the sexes view each other, but there isn't a lot of evidence for this claim. One could just as easily argue that porn makes apparent the sexual nature of gender relations that feminism attempts to obscure by claiming that women are just prettier, nicer men.
Porn is probably necessary for a multiracial society, just as birth control is. Porn is particularly useful in allowing desires for interracial sex to be safely satisfied, with no DNA exchanged.
2003-12-17 06:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=theaustrian]Porn is probably necessary for a multiracial society, just as birth control is. Porn is particularly useful in allowing desires for interracial sex to be safely satisfied, with no DNA exchanged.[/QUOTE] Sounds like you've been influenced a little bit by Frankfurt/Freudian theories of the unhealthiness of "sexual repression", etc.
2003-12-17 07:02 | User Profile
I didn't say sexual repression was unhealthy. I just implied that its not going to happen among large sections of the population.
What's 'unhealthy' are occurnaces such as Strom philandering, or blacks attacking white girls in their dorms, etc. Porn is better expression of sexuality than these sorts of behaviors.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Sounds like you've been influenced a little bit by Frankfurt/Freudian theories of the unhealthiness of "sexual repression", etc.[/QUOTE]
2003-12-17 07:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=theaustrian]I didn't say sexual repression was unhealthy. I just implied that its not going to happen among large sections of the population. It won't as long as people don't want it to happen
What's 'unhealthy' are occurnaces such as Strom philandering,(Excuse me?) or blacks attacking white girls in their dorms, etc. Porn is better expression of sexuality than these sorts of behaviors.[/QUOTE]You apparently assume that porn is a substitute for such behaviors - the old freudian logic of "relief of sexual tension". Which BTW is proven false.
That is, if your statement has any meaning. Otherwise it is just a logical fallacy, along the lines of killing one person is better than killing two people, so we should all go out and kill somebody.
2003-12-17 07:22 | User Profile
You assume that Freud invented the idea that there could be substitutes for sex that decrease the desire for sex. In any case, the idea that there are sexual tensions which are released is a very good one. Perhaps you don't find it valid, but I am not certain how that concerns me.
As to your equation of 1) a 'trade' of porn for murder and secret philandering with black women, 2) a 'trade' of a murder for another murder.....
2003-12-17 07:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=theaustrian]You assume that Freud invented the idea that there could be substitutes for sex that decrease the desire for sex. You're talking about the Freudian concept of sublimation. Its true about Freud inventing it of course.
In any case, the idea that there are sexual tensions which are released is a very good one. Perhaps you don't find it valid, but I am not certain how that concerns me. So what do you think about the Frankfurt School/Marcusian doctrine that right-wing authoritarianism is created inlargepart by sexual repression. (Re: Marcuse's polymorphous perversity)
As to your equation of 1) a 'trade' of porn for murder and secret philandering with black women, 2) a 'trade' of a murder for another murder.....[/QUOTE]Yes?
2003-12-17 07:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=theaustrian]You assume that Freud invented the idea that there could be substitutes for sex that decrease the desire for sex. In any case, the idea that there are sexual tensions which are released is a very good one. Perhaps you don't find it valid, but I am not certain how that concerns me.
As to your equation of 1) a 'trade' of porn for murder and secret philandering with black women, 2) a 'trade' of a murder for another murder.....[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=theaustrian]You assume that Freud invented the idea that there could be substitutes for sex that decrease the desire for sex. In any case, the idea that there are sexual tensions which are released is a very good one. Perhaps you don't find it valid, but I am not certain how that concerns me.
As to your equation of 1) a 'trade' of porn for murder and secret philandering with black women, 2) a 'trade' of a murder for another murder.....[/QUOTE]
Well, I disagree with the idea that pornography can somehow act as a "safety valve" for our desires. Human sexuality just doesn't work that way, IMHO. Pornography does two things: it (a) stimulates the sex instinct while it (b) sends the message that it's okay to indulge desires at will. It excites sexual desire even as it communicates the message that it's okay to indulge the increased lust. This leads to predictable results, which is an increase in socially harmful sexual activity in the population.
That includes a lowering of the race barriers, too. It's no accident that public acceptance of homosexuality increased in pace with increased acceptance of race mixing, divorce, adultery, and other harmful behaviours. These are all fruits of the same poison tree.
The only rational sexual standard for a healthy society is to reserve sex exclusively for the marriage bed, and the terrible stresses that this creates in individual lives must be contained by equally strong social pressure in support of marriage. There is no "safety valve" - there is only "grit your teeth and go through it" and any talk of "safety valves" undermines the sorts of social/state measures necessary to help people maintain standards that are healthy for society. The stablity of Victorian society can only be purchased with strictly enforced Victorian standards, and that means sexual longing supressed in often painful ways. It means a good deal of hypocrisy and furtive cheating - detailed in the great Victorian novels. But in my estimation it's worth the price.
No, pornography is bad for individuals and society, there's no doubt about that. We're talking zero redeeming social value here. Hey, I'm human with all the temptations that flesh is heir to, and that's the way it is for me. I think that a little experience and reflection is sufficient to prove this point.
The next question is whether the social benefits of regulating it exceed the social costs incurred thereby. Here reasonable minds can differ. My take on the question is that there will always be a demand for pornography, and of course modern technology makes the reproduction of pornographic images impossible to control, at least without threatening free speech in a fundamental way. The costs of banning it are simply too high, IMHO, and so we should settle for some intermediate form of regulation. That means things like reasonable measures to keep it away from kids, local zoning ordinances, brown paper covers in magazine racks, regulating advertising for sexual content (this is essential - but we'll only get that after something approaching a revolution. Abercrombie & Fitch are just the tip of the iceberg).
You know, I would add about this "safety valve" stuff that the Catholic Church in America (and no doubt elsewhere) really went off the deep end with this. There is a psychologist named Rogers who developed a whole theory about how sexuality is not a dangerous fire hazard that must be kept safe from sparks as the pre-Vatican II Church assumed, but rather was to be celebrated. Demonstrative hugs and kisses and bodily contact was encouraged. This was based on the Culture of Critique Fruedian notion that sex was a force like steam in a locomotive that could be diverted and sublimated and eased with proper instruction and "insight." This is wrong, of course. The tradition "fire hazard" notion was right on the money, and again the results were predictable.
Most folks nowadays reject this whole line of thought as "pessimistic" about human nature, but I'm convinced that any sober analysis of human nature can only be pessimistic. We're the products of millions of years of evolution, and the sex instinct is what got each and every one of us here in the first place. All of our ancestors - going back millions of years - were successful lovers. We have quite a pedigree in that department. As a result, we're all a bit nuts when it comes to sex, and the sex instinct takes on a life of its own and takes whither we would not go. I can only speak for myself, but when I think of all the - ahem - uncomfortable situations my sex drive got me into, I am tempted to dispair. Our instincts are clever, and they're patient. They let us think that we're telling our feet where to take us, but they're hearing and watching below the field of vision of our mind's eye, always trying take control when we're not looking.
This "safety valve" idea is dangerous error, IMHO. It really lies at the roots of many of our difficulties. It's a Culture of Critique thing, of course, but that's another discussion.
Walter
2003-12-17 19:13 | User Profile
Yannis, your view is well-presented and credible, and if we lived in a society where it was widely agreed that sex is to be confined to marriage, I think it would make a lot of sense. However, as stated, I don't see any reason to accept it. You claim that porn just builds up desires and lower standards; I say it both builds up desires and allows many of them to be released. As far as standards go, I would only say that it changes them: typically, such that males become more accepting of women with more body fat. There is also the possibility (at least in the case of white males living in N. America) of males becoming more psychologically comfortable with the idea of dating younger women, although I would say that plenty of the more televitz-ruled males also simply come to the conclusion that the 18-24 set is not to be touched by older males--that would be sexist--but only seen through the sacred lens of the digital camera.
There may be some more uniformily negative changes as well--what do you have in mind?--but it is hard for me to tell, as we live in such a porn drenched society of fashion models and explicity TV. I don't know what additional porn is thought to do to one in the way of 'lowering standards'--do you mean tolerating women dressing sluttily, vulgar language, etc.? I don't think that's the case, but I have no way of knowing what the effect of porn is on everyone.
Perhaps the effects of porn should be ranked on individual by individual basis.