Pornography

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Martin Willett

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 2:15:43 PM6/4/01
to
The problem with pornography is not that it is obscene or
degrading to women, the problem is the money, it is money that
drives the industry that churns out huge numbers of images of
people degrading themselves. Everybody loses, all concerned lose
their dignity, their self worth and the respect for themselves,
their bodies and their sexuality. The models, the distributors
and the users, all rendered grubby.

If I could set the rules I would simply ban the use of images of
a highly sexual nature from being used in advertising and make
the creation and trading for profit of such images an offence.
In addition I would make the copyright in such images
unenforceable. That way all the millions (hundreds of millions?
Billions?) of pornographic images around the world would become
at a stroke public domain. Nobody could charge for them or
suggest that they could supply such material for money. If you
had such images in your possession you could share them with
anybody.

My thinking is that if you are a thirteen year old boy with
access to a computer you will have a collection of pornography,
or at the very least will have seen dozens of pornographic
images that your friends have collected. There is nothing to
stop you getting hold of it at present. The huge number of
pornographic sites, the existence of “free sample” pages in
which all you have to do to prove your age is to click a link
and now the widespread availability of CD ROM writers means that
I would doubt the IQ of any teenager who could not get hold of
thousands of hardcore pornographic images if they had a mind to.
For the slightly more savvy computer nerds there are hundreds of
places to find passwords to porn sites that can be hacked in a
couple of minutes. A colleague of mine has done it several times
for the buzz of defeating the minimal security. My suggestion would
hardly increase the supply of such material, it would remove the
incentives to produce more. With no chance of selling images of
sex who would do it? People who enjoy sex. People who have sex
for pleasure and want to share that pleasure with others.
Strange people perhaps, but infinitely nicer people to share a
planet with than the current scum who run the industry.

Martin

Author of http://www.mememachine.cwc.net/

Michael Price

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 9:30:01 PM6/5/01
to
Martin Willett wrote:

> The problem with pornography is not that it is obscene or
> degrading to women, the problem is the money, it is money that
> drives the industry that churns out huge numbers of images of
> people degrading themselves.

How do you define "degrading themselves"? Just because you find
something degrading doesn't mean others would. The fact that someone is
doing something for money rather than love does not make it degrading,
otherwise we all would be degraded.

> Everybody loses, all concerned lose
> their dignity, their self worth and the respect for themselves,
> their bodies and their sexuality. The models, the distributors
> and the users, all rendered grubby.

In your definition not theirs. Why do you insist that all producers
of pornography lose respect for themselves? Is there any evidence that
people lose more respect for themselves doing porn than say,
door-to-door sales? The fact that you do not chose this career path
does not make it dishonourable. It is people like you that judge based
on hatred of sex or commercialism (or both) that make these people feel
grubby. You owe your existance and it's continuance on sex and
commercialism so stop being hippocritical.

>
>
> If I could set the rules I would simply ban the use of images of
> a highly sexual nature from being used in advertising and make
> the creation and trading for profit of such images an offence.

Why? Because other people making money offends you?

I'd rather have them than someone who wants to throw out property
rights because someone might use them to make money.

Martin Willett

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 4:06:54 AM6/5/01
to

"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B1D8798...@yahoo.com...

> Martin Willett wrote:
>
> > The problem with pornography is not that it is obscene or
> > degrading to women, the problem is the money, it is money that
> > drives the industry that churns out huge numbers of images of
> > people degrading themselves.
>
> How do you define "degrading themselves"? Just because you find
> something degrading doesn't mean others would. The fact that someone is
> doing something for money rather than love does not make it degrading,
> otherwise we all would be degraded.

Wrong. Not everybody does things only for money. The only thing I do for
money is work in a shop, nothing else, the rest of my life is free from the
taint of commerce. I don't run my website for money, I don't have sex for
money, I don't raise my children for money. Do you think a woman who has her
body shown under the caption "Pork this ugly fat bitch" isn't a tad degraded
by the procedure? I am not saying that all pornography is degrading to all
concerned, but a lot is.

>
> > Everybody loses, all concerned lose
> > their dignity, their self worth and the respect for themselves,
> > their bodies and their sexuality. The models, the distributors
> > and the users, all rendered grubby.
>
> In your definition not theirs. Why do you insist that all producers
> of pornography lose respect for themselves? Is there any evidence that
> people lose more respect for themselves doing porn than say,
> door-to-door sales? The fact that you do not chose this career path
> does not make it dishonourable. It is people like you that judge based
> on hatred of sex or commercialism (or both) that make these people feel
> grubby. You owe your existance and it's continuance on sex and
> commercialism so stop being hippocritical.
>

I don't have a problem with sexual images or with commercialism, but some
things do not mix well. Many people feel very squeamish about donation of
organs and blood being mixed up with commercialism, I think quite rightly,
again, I have no problem with people either buying or selling a pig's kidney
or giving away their own. Many things can be done either with or without the
profit motive, and the world would be a better place if money was not so
all-pervasive.

A lot of things that currently happen for money would still continue to
happen without money, and the world would probably be better for it. Just
think about wrestling, it has always been an Olympic sport, people don't
need TV and money to wrestle, and they do it better without. Not that I am
suggesting banning TV wrestling, but just to use it as a thought experiment.

I am not in favour of stopping people distributing images of naked adults
having consensual sex or images designed to stimulate lust. If the law
changed the way I suggest I would do it myself, collect tasteful but
stimulating images and share them around.

> >
> >
> > If I could set the rules I would simply ban the use of images of
> > a highly sexual nature from being used in advertising and make
> > the creation and trading for profit of such images an offence.
>
> Why? Because other people making money offends you?
>

Yes. Doesn't it offend you? Or are you just one of those dupes that thinks
your turn will come? (I am gambling that you are not a rich man, a risk, but
a reasonable one, only 5% or so of people could be fairly described as rich)
As we all know hypocrisy is the worst crime of all, the one nobody can
forgive themselves for, *anything* else can be justified. Hundreds of
millions of people in this world are poor and will die poor but will fight
for the right for other people to be rich, on the off chance that they might
get lucky. Just look at all those ghetto kids who look up to the rap
superstars in Ferraris and limos. I don't think Lenin would be very
impressed with their class consciousness.

You are welcome to them

Transcend

unread,
Jun 4, 2001, 11:59:20 PM6/4/01
to
Martin Willett wrote:

<snip>


>
> Yes. Doesn't it offend you? Or are you just one of those dupes that thinks
> your turn will come? (I am gambling that you are not a rich man, a risk,
> but a reasonable one, only 5% or so of people could be fairly described as
> rich) As we all know hypocrisy is the worst crime of all, the one nobody
> can forgive themselves for, *anything* else can be justified. Hundreds of
> millions of people in this world are poor and will die poor but will fight
> for the right for other people to be rich, on the off chance that they
> might get lucky. Just look at all those ghetto kids who look up to the rap
> superstars in Ferraris and limos. I don't think Lenin would be very
> impressed with their class consciousness.

Oh so you are a *complete* and total communist. Ok I understand where you
are comming from, you are comming from disproven economic and social
theories that have been drilled into your head by the Cult of Marx.

--
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

Martin Willett

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 3:47:28 PM6/5/01
to

"Transcend" <tran...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:9fi6ns$4902j$1...@ID-75240.news.dfncis.de...
You have judged me because I mentioned a Communist, if I mentioned the name
of a homosexual would that make me homosexual?

Well, I am whatever you say I am, if I wasn't then why would I say I am?

I believe that Marxism died with Groucho, but if that is too complex an idea
for you to handle don't worry about it. By the way, in a libertarian
dictatorship what is the penalty for being a Communist?

Transcend

unread,
Jun 5, 2001, 1:35:46 PM6/5/01
to
Martin Willett wrote:

Well for one thing "libertarian" and "dictatorship" are too words that
don't go together. For another you seem to accept the "class struggle"
ideals of Marx and Lenin as you are the one who brought them up. You did
*not* just casually mention something, you specifically went on an
anti-capitalist rant using Lenin as a basis for your argument. That points
to you being a communist sir.

Martin Willett

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 1:43:41 AM6/6/01
to

"Transcend" <tran...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:9fjmio$4h6mt$1...@ID-75240.news.dfncis.de...
And your signature points to you being a redneck psychopath. Same reasoning.

Transcend

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 12:55:29 AM6/6/01
to
Martin Willett wrote:

No my sig, which it is not really polite to debate about, points to me
being a realist. If someone breaks into *my* house I would rather have a
gun in my hand than the phone. If someone is on my property doing damage,
or stealing something I would rather have a gun in my hand than the phone.
If someone sudenly decides to come over to my place and beat the living
hell out of me a gun will do me alot more good then calling the cops
(response time is horrible where I live anyway). This does not make me a
redneck. Now if I was complaining about different races taking jobs, while
I had a couple cars up on blocks and another stripped for parts and half my
belongings out on the lawn and shooting at cars that drive by while
having sex with a relative then yes you might have cause to call me a
redneck. However I sir, am no redneck. Not everyone who is for owning guns
is a redneck.


However everyone who spouts off on the evils of capitalism while screaming
about class struggle and quoting Marx and Lenin most probably *is* a
communist.

nathan rankin

unread,
Jun 6, 2001, 9:22:44 PM6/6/01
to
Hey! Wheres' the damn pornography!?! N.R.
Martin Willett <Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:PTaT6.47094$D91.125121@news2-hme0...

Tony Veca

unread,
Jun 7, 2001, 2:52:28 AM6/7/01
to
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:15:43 +0100, "Martin Willett"
<Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:

>The problem with pornography is not that it is obscene or
>degrading to women, the problem is the money, it is money that
>drives the industry that churns out huge numbers of images of
>people degrading themselves.

And just who are you to decide what is and is not degrading? Is that a
choice best left to the individuals involved?

>Everybody loses, all concerned lose
>their dignity, their self worth and the respect for themselves,
>their bodies and their sexuality. The models, the distributors
>and the users, all rendered grubby.

Have you ever talked with the models? I have talked with some them and they
are all proud of what they do. From my conversations with exotic dancers,
model and actors, to them it is just a job and a way to make money and they
resent people trying to tell them what they are doing is wrong.

You are the type of moralist who thinks he knows how everybody else should
behave in order to be a good person, avoid Hell, fit into decent society,
etc., etc. You might even quite likely to feel that you are a valid
exception to all your own rules, since you can handle temptation and
control your outcomes. Your main characteristic is frantic paranoid
distrust of other people. No one should be seen nude, for instance, because
this would be un-bearably sexually arousing and lead to promiscuity,
neglect of ordinary duties, etc. You know you can control yourself, but
everybody else has to be "protected" from their evil impulses. The Ultimate
expressions of this type of thinking is wife-beating -- as one man said,
"When I walked into the self-help group I thought that when they heard what
I'd had to put up with they'd congratulate me for not having killed her."

In essence, the what you are saying "It can't be my fault (I'm not able to
face the idea that it might be my fault). It must be somebody else's fault.
If people would just follow these few simple rules, which I'll be glad to
explain to them, nothing would go wrong and I wouldn't have to feel
anxious. But since they won't all follow my rules, everything is their
fault, not mine, and I don't have to feel anxious."

To me this is nauseating. I have no idea how you or anyone else "should"
behave. From my POV, you are a type of reformer who creates misery. When
you say, "Something must be done!" I see someone with a head full of
vicious intentions that have no other outlet. What I see is nothing more
than a person with the desperate need to justify the violation of the
rights of the individual by chasing some imaginary and at its roots
mystical "Greater Good."

--
==============================================================
__ __ Tony Veca jav...@earthlink.net
/'( _ )'\ =============================================
/ . \/^\/ . \ "America is at that awkward stage. It's too
/ _)_'-'_(_ \ late to work within the system, but too
/.-' ).( '-.\ early to shoot the bastards. On the road
/' /\_/\ '\ to tyranny, we've gone so far that
"-V-" polite political action is about as
useless as a miniskirt in a convent."
-- Claire Wolfe
"101 Things To Do 'til The Revolution"
===============================================================

Michael Price

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 9:12:23 AM6/8/01
to
nathan rankin wrote:

> Hey! Wheres' the damn pornography!?! N.R.

Nathan, you don't want to see me naked.

Michael Price

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 9:45:25 AM6/8/01
to
Martin Willett wrote:

> "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3B1D8798...@yahoo.com...
> > Martin Willett wrote:
> >
> > > The problem with pornography is not that it is obscene or
> > > degrading to women, the problem is the money, it is money that
> > > drives the industry that churns out huge numbers of images of
> > > people degrading themselves.
> >
> > How do you define "degrading themselves"? Just because you find
> > something degrading doesn't mean others would. The fact that someone is
> > doing something for money rather than love does not make it degrading,
> > otherwise we all would be degraded.
>
> Wrong. Not everybody does things only for money.

But ever honest person does something (or did).

> The only thing I do for
> money is work in a shop, nothing else, the rest of my life is free from the
> taint of commerce.

But why is commerce a "taint"? What is so bad about material rewards?

> I don't run my website for money, I don't have sex for
> money, I don't raise my children for money.

Your choice, not mine. I don't do these things commercially either but I do
not forbid you from doing them or look down on others for doing them.

> Do you think a woman who has her
> body shown under the caption "Pork this ugly fat bitch" isn't a tad degraded
> by the procedure?

Is she more degraded than she would be by poverty? Is she more degraded than
she would be being paid minimum wage at a job she hates under the supervision of
people who don't respect her? That is her decision not yours.

> I am not saying that all pornography is degrading to all
> concerned, but a lot is.

"Everybody loses, all concerned lose their dignity, their self worth and the

respect for themselves, their bodies and their sexuality." Your words pal.
Besides your argument is that money is the degrading factor so ALL paid
pornography is degrading according to you.

>
>
> >
> > > Everybody loses, all concerned lose
> > > their dignity, their self worth and the respect for themselves,
> > > their bodies and their sexuality. The models, the distributors
> > > and the users, all rendered grubby.
> >
> > In your definition not theirs. Why do you insist that all producers
> > of pornography lose respect for themselves? Is there any evidence that
> > people lose more respect for themselves doing porn than say,
> > door-to-door sales? The fact that you do not chose this career path
> > does not make it dishonourable. It is people like you that judge based
> > on hatred of sex or commercialism (or both) that make these people feel
> > grubby. You owe your existance and it's continuance on sex and
> > commercialism so stop being hippocritical.
> >
>
> I don't have a problem with sexual images or with commercialism,

Then why do you say that other people making money offends you?


> but some
> things do not mix well.

I notice you did not answer my question. What evidence do you have that the
sex industry causes a lose of self-respect? Is this lose greater than would be
suffered if the people involved went into other industries.

> Many people feel very squeamish about donation of
> organs and blood being mixed up with commercialism, I think quite rightly,
> again, I have no problem with people either buying or selling a pig's kidney
> or giving away their own.

So squeamishness is a reason for banning something? My kidneys are my own. I
reserve the right to trade, give away, keep or bequeth them. There are problems
with such a trade from a prevention of fraud and misrepresentation standpoint
but they are not insummountable.

> Many things can be done either with or without the
> profit motive, and the world would be a better place if money was not so
> all-pervasive.

Why? What advantages occur when an area is forbidden to money? Hippocracy,
lies, intimidation and all the over things you probably think spring from money
existed before it did. Did not paying authors in classical times result in
better or more honest literature? In ancient Rome lawyers were not paid, was
the system cleaner or more efficent?

>
>
> A lot of things that currently happen for money would still continue to
> happen without money, and the world would probably be better for it.

It is not OK to ban things because the world would probably be better for it.

> Just
> think about wrestling, it has always been an Olympic sport, people don't
> need TV and money to wrestle, and they do it better without. Not that I am
> suggesting banning TV wrestling, but just to use it as a thought experiment.
>
> I am not in favour of stopping people distributing images of naked adults
> having consensual sex or images designed to stimulate lust. If the law
> changed the way I suggest I would do it myself, collect tasteful but
> stimulating images and share them around.

In other words you would benefit from the work of others without payment.
That is so like a socialist.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > If I could set the rules I would simply ban the use of images of
> > > a highly sexual nature from being used in advertising and make
> > > the creation and trading for profit of such images an offence.
> >
> > Why? Because other people making money offends you?
> >
>
> Yes. Doesn't it offend you? Or are you just one of those dupes that thinks
> your turn will come?

Why do you assume everyone who defends the right to get rich thinks they will
be rich? Is it because you only turned against capitalism when you realised you
had neither the talent nor energy to better your situation? I am unlikely to
become even above average wealthy and (due in large part to my own laziness)
face an eviction if I don't pay rent on the 14th.

> (I am gambling that you are not a rich man, a risk, but
> a reasonable one, only 5% or so of people could be fairly described as rich)
> As we all know hypocrisy is the worst crime of all, the one nobody can
> forgive themselves for, *anything* else can be justified.

Point to one thing I have said that is hippocritical.

> Hundreds of
> millions of people in this world are poor and will die poor but will fight
> for the right for other people to be rich, on the off chance that they might
> get lucky.

Others will fight because it is a right and rights should not be violated.

> Just look at all those ghetto kids who look up to the rap
> superstars in Ferraris and limos.

I hate rap and depise many rap singers especially "gangsta" rappers but they
have a right to keep the money they consentually gained.

> I don't think Lenin would be very impressed with their class consciousness.

They would not be very impressed with Lenin. The ghetto kids may not be well
educated but if you asked them if the State would give up power they would get
the right answer.

Michael Price

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 9:58:28 AM6/8/01
to
Tony, you've got this guy wrong. He is not objecting to pornography but PAID
pornography. He is a socialist/communist (see the Lenin reference). To him
anything done for money that is sexual must be degrading because money is a bad
thing. He specifically supports doing sexual things for no money. He
specifically supports stealling the intellectual property rights of thousands
of people and states that he will benefit from the theft.
He claims that benefits will flow from this but admits there will be less
porn. The consumers therefore will not benefit only the producers. They will
prevented from "degrading themselves" as they beg for change, they will "keep
their self-respect" while bill collectors ask them why they can't pay, they
will have "dignity" at their eviction hearing. Who will help us against the
helpers?

Tony Veca wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:15:43 +0100, "Martin Willett"
> <Martin....@cwcom.net> wrote:
>
> >The problem with pornography is not that it is obscene or
> >degrading to women, the problem is the money, it is money that
> >drives the industry that churns out huge numbers of images of
> >people degrading themselves.
>
> And just who are you to decide what is and is not degrading? Is that a
> choice best left to the individuals involved?

All choice is best left to the individuals involved.

Tony Veca

unread,
Jun 8, 2001, 1:42:21 AM6/8/01
to
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 23:58:28 +1000, Michael Price <nini...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Tony, you've got this guy wrong. He is not objecting to pornography but PAID
>pornography.

Michael, what is the difference? None from my point of view. Besides think
of the precedent, outlaw one type and it makes it easier to outlaw the
second type.

It doesn't change what I said about him, what I wrote can easily be applied
to both sides. Liberal Left or Conservative Right.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages