Porn

[bed_of_nails]

Due to the budding argument started earlier today, I wish to spawn an argument on the acceptance of porn. I am posting this in OI because I want to get everybody's views on the subject.

I find it acceptable and in no way demeaning as long as both parties are enjoying the act. People were comparing porn to exploitation of workers and saying it was completely immoral, yet I find this hard to believe.

If two consenting adults (or one) wish to have sexual intercourse on camera, then I see no reason why to discourage that.

[KC]

There have been repeated discussions on this. Here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=af815fdbd89e62dbc1e7ce0883529164&search_in=titles&result_type=topics&highlite=porn)

[redstar2000]

Just as a matter of interest, I've been informed by many "tech people" that porn sites are infamous as a source of computer viruses.

For that reason alone, links to porn sites are NOT to be posted on this board under any circumstances.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 08:00 PM
Just as a matter of interest, I've been informed by many "tech people" that porn sites are infamous as a source of computer viruses.

For that reason alone, links to porn sites are NOT to be posted on this board under any circumstances.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I always figured it was because this place is often swarming with people under 18.

My computer is filled with Viruses then. I scan it weekly and It always finds a few questionable things which I handle though.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:47 PM
There have been repeated discussions on this. Here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=af815fdbd89e62dbc1e7ce0883529164&search_in=titles&result_type=topics&highlite=porn)
Look at how many new people rotate in and out of here every month.

I highly doubt anyone that missed that thread randomly types "Porn" into their search queries for this site.

[Antiks]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:00 AM
Just as a matter of interest, I've been informed by many "tech people" that porn sites are infamous as a source of computer viruses.

For that reason alone, links to porn sites are NOT to be posted on this board under any circumstances.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
You might see a few viruses, but mainly you'll get tons of spyware as a result. Get a free firewall (Zone Alarm), and a free spyware cleaner like spybot. Also, please ditch Internet Exploder and use Firefox.

[KC]

I know. I just thought you wanted to hear people's opinions on it. So I gave you a resource to find this.

[bed_of_nails]

So now we are discussing how to find porn, and the risks of surfing it.

Not where I intended for this to go.

[KC]

Who said anything about how to find porn?

[bed_of_nails]

At least it has 50 views.

Let me go find some Stalinists to start this argument.

[Teflon]

I don't see the urge to ban porn. Just as long as the people in the porn are consenting, I don't have a prob with it. It isn't breaking my legs.

[*Hippie*]

If two consenting adults (or one) wish to have sexual intercourse on camera, then I see no reason why to discourage that.

It is when PROFIT comes in when it becomes EXPLOITATION. If the people are there willingly doing their thing and are free of any profit or transaction or exchange of money or coercion of any kind and it is just a natural expression of their sexuality then I see nothing wrong with it. I just hate when the capitalists put a price tag on everything sacred and special like sex. They take sex and make it a job, it shouldn't be, it should be a natural and pure act.

[KC]

Then the porn industry isn't the problem, it's capitalism itself.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by *Hippie*@Aug 9 2005, 06:36 AM

If two consenting adults (or one) wish to have sexual intercourse on camera, then I see no reason why to discourage that.

It is when PROFIT comes in when it becomes EXPLOITATION. If the people are there willingly doing their thing and are free of any profit or transaction or exchange of money or coercion of any kind and it is just a natural expression of their sexuality then I see nothing wrong with it. I just hate when the capitalists put a price tag on everything sacred and special like sex. They take sex and make it a job, it shouldn't be, it should be a natural and pure act.
Sex is sacred and special?

[quincunx5]

t is when PROFIT comes in when it becomes EXPLOITATION. If the people are there willingly doing their thing and are free of any profit or transaction or exchange of money or coercion of any kind and it is just a natural expression of their sexuality then I see nothing wrong with it. I just hate when the capitalists put a price tag on everything sacred and special like sex. They take sex and make it a job, it shouldn't be, it should be a natural and pure act.


Woah, that's just hilarious. Sex as a job? pure? natural? what are you talking about?
If people are there willingly doing their thing and getting paid that's even better. How is it not? Getting paid does not take away the human nature aspect. Having sex works exactly the same whether or not you are paid.

You know some people are just natural exhibitionists. Why should they be denied the opportunity to make money while they do it?

The capitalists put a price tag on it because they have to film it, edit it, and make many copies. People buy it because they want to see it. Simple.

[Shaun Goldstein]

Pornography is capitalist exploitation of females and must be stopped.

[Taiga]

Originally posted by Shaun [email protected] 9 2005, 11:52 AM
Pornography is capitalist exploitation of females and must be stopped.
Why just females, I wonder?

[fernando]

that's like saying that labour is the capitalist exploitation of men...

a very black and white picture you are presenting us here...

[Bannockburn]

I have read the comments on this board, and so far I don't see anything controversial. Personally, sex for me is not special, unique, or has a moral significance. In fact, these are criteria that Christianity has placed on sex in order to control the behavior within a Christian framework. Before that, there was no such criteria, and today we are slowly, in reducing that influence.

Anyway, I have no problem with pornography per se. And the size of this industry infers that a lot of people don't either. If you have two consenting adults willing to have sex on camera to be distributed for viewing, then I don't see a problem, and I don't see where the state, or the church should have a say in me viewing it. However, I do think there is a problem with pornography. Not so much about sex, but the image that it produces.

First you have magazines. These pictures are glossed over, enhanced and manipulated to make women conform to a certain idea of beauty. This idea being within the male mind, or male patracentricity. The legs are computer elongated, the lips are computer highlighted to make them seem fuller, the waist is extended with the breast enlarged, and make up is applied everywhere to make the illusion there her skin is flawless. Females are made to look a certain way and create an illusion of beauty. Its an image instead of a person.

Now, when men buy these magazines, we view the images. We enjoy this illusion, and frankly we masturbate to the image. While viewing this material, we nevertheless create a link between sexual desire, and the perceptive correlate...namely the image. Our sexual behavior and desire is linked to the idea of that image, of that beauty. It is then disseminated along with our developed sexuality into the social sphere. When we are in that social sphere, we reduce actual women, to our perceived image of beauty, and sexual desire. In all honesty, its a form of sexual control. Our sexual behavior is molded within a framework of illusion and imagery, and trying to have the real live up to that ideal image. Something which is impossible, and I think harmful to both men and women.

Now, don't get me wrong, its not just porn that does this. Its clothing, its fashion, its what we see on magazines like...oh I don't know those magazines you see people buy at the check out. Whatever you call them. Its this certain framework of sexuality and beauty that is induced on our psyche and to create a want which is in the realm of fiction. What does this all lead too? Well mostly women feeling “inadequate” to this image through various different mediums. They might feel over weight and starve themselves. They have a body image problem. They wear makeup which is a form of deception for both females and males. For the females believing this is what “makes them attractive”, or whatever. And males under the illusion and deception. Hair is dyed. Fake breasts are implanted. Plastic surgery left and right on any “flaw” which is not ideal. I think you get my point

The cosmetic industry is a billion dollar business. So is hair color, shampoos, and other body modifying products. We live in an age of counterfeits> I think this is extremely harmful for both males and females.

[Publius]

It is when PROFIT comes in when it becomes EXPLOITATION. If the people are there willingly doing their thing and are free of any profit or transaction or exchange of money or coercion of any kind and it is just a natural expression of their sexuality then I see nothing wrong with it. I just hate when the capitalists put a price tag on everything sacred and special like sex. They take sex and make it a job, it shouldn't be, it should be a natural and pure act.

What a bunch of psuedo-philosophical blather.

I thought you commies relied on reason, not on shitty cliches and 'emotions'.

Sex may be natural, but so is dying.

Sex isn't any more 'pure' than eating.

Sex is just a bodily function. Get over it.

[*Hippie*]

Sex is sacred and special?
Maybe not to you but to many people it is. Personally, I don't want to spread my legs for every hot guy I meet.


Sex is just a bodily function. Get over it.
I am sure your wife, girlfriend, or partner would love to hear this.

Sorry for being one of the last of a dying breed of people who actually only want sex with a partner who I love! :rolleyes: What a horrifying suggestion!

If people want to be exhibitionists, then they can do that. In porn, you basically have to have sex with who they tell you to do it with. And it is not enjoyable. I have read books by a few pornstars and they didn't do it because they enjoyed it, it was just work for them.

[Bannockburn]

Maybe not to you but to many people it is. Personally, I don't want to spread my legs for every hot guy I meet.

Well certainly. That is your choice, and you are liberty to adopt that behavior. Of course, this behavior is link to what you think. I think thats obvious. I think skydiving is foolish and dangerous, therefore my behavior keeps my feet firmly planted on the ground. Likewise, you have a certain model of thinking towards sexuality, and it controls your behavior. Nevertheless, there is a good chance that your mode of thought has been modeled according to certain institutions whether is by the family, the school, Christan morality, the State, even science, etc. you must take that into account of how you have incorporated and internalized certain patterns of thinking towards your sexuality.

Take this for example:


Sex is just a bodily function. Get over it.

Well no, that is not true. As you can see, the original poster has used a scientific bio-physiology argument. He's incorporated the institution of science to control and influence his thought accordingly. That, likewise will influence his behavior. However, it has reduced sexuality into a certain category of just reproductive function. Yet, sex is much more than that. Its also forms a pleasurable experience, and erotic communication between individuals or groups. It seems like he's excluded that, and has reduced sex to simply a mechanical function.



Sorry for being one of the last of a dying breed of people who actually only want sex with a partner who I love!

Love is just a polite word for sex. A socially acceptable function. I had a philosophy professor say that to me one time. However, its hard to say if there is such thing as love, so it may have some merit.

[*Hippie*]

Love is just a polite word for sex.
It is a stretch to say all porn stars "love" each other.
And I am tired of people thinking I am a prude or beorgeoisie just because I don't want to have sex with everyone I meet. I have had been invloved in bad situations before with (A) cheating and promiscuity that ended in hurt feelings
(B) perverted guys who I ended up feeling objectified and disgusted by and I don't want to get any STDs or diseases. The only guy I WANT to have sex with is my boyfriend and he feels the same way, I don't see what is unnatural or wrong about that.

As for porn, the negative effects are well known, I don't think we would want that in socialism. If it is there, it would not be for profit. The state would have more important businesses to run than state owned sex trade. What about the WASTED LABOR of sex workers? They could be more useful in other positions maybe in healthcare or education or something more beneficial to all the people.

[Bannockburn]

It is a stretch to say all porn stars "love" each other.

Well even though that is not what I said. Its not like they are equivocal terms or analytic. Hardly, and far from it.


And I am tired of people thinking I am a prude or bourgeoisie just because I don't want to have sex with everyone I meet.

Well that is there problem and not yours. Its hardly bourgeoisie or close within that framework of thinking. Rather, if you didn't prop up my argument as a straw men, and look what I said.


A) cheating and promiscuity that ended in hurt feelings
(B) perverted guys who I ended up feeling objectified and disgusted by and I don't want to get any STDs or diseases. The only guy I WANT to have sex with is my boyfriend and he feels the same way, I don't see what is unnatural or wrong about that.

Well certainly I can understand your position. But you must realize where that position is coming from. Promiscuity is looked down upon because of Christian morality and indoctrination disseminating throughout the social body. Its doesn't what sect of morality, its generally all the same. However, I bet you a million bucks if the moral majority and its was socially acceptable, then your hurt feelings resulting from promiscuity wouldn't be there whatsoever. Take for example the tribal people of Papal New Guinea. During the emergence of puberty the adolescences have group oral sex and swallow “man's milk” or semen. This is healthy, acceptable, and considered appropriate. There is no hurt feelings. There is no psychological trauma. Zero. Same deals applies.

Secondly, if you read my posts properly, both of them, you will certainly show how I think the objectification of women is wrong, and something inherently harmful for both females and males Women aren't looked as people, or individual persons, but objects. Unfortunately, women also play within this role, and advance this objectification.

Sure you can have sex with your boyfriend. There is nothing wrong with that. But again, where is that perspective coming from?

[*Hippie*]

Even if my views on sexuality were conditioned by society, it doesn't make them any less real or my feelings any less valid. It makes me angry to see people have no regard for the relationships of others, people cheating and breaking up relationships. Maybe those children of New Guinea wouldn't be doing those things if it wasn't acceptable in their society. Because of the way our society works, it is harmful for children here to engage in those acts.
I don't know why the porn argument comes up so often, is it really that important? Do people really worry about what they will masturbate to after the revolution? :unsure:
I think if the majority of people want it and are ready to accept it, then it should be state owned and socialized. Until then, it should be banned.

And I agree the problem with porn, at least in our culture, is it is not just sex, it is degrading and turning the participants into commodities. Sex is often used to *sell*, a function it will no longer need under socialism. I want to embrace this, once sex and money are not in the equation together, people will truly be free to do whatever they want sexually. If people want to have sex, they will do it regardless if money is involved and at least you will know it is sincere then.

Here is a good article about a woman who was sold to the sex trade in Chicago:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-traffic07.html

[MoscowFarewell]

It really depends on the people starring in it. I know three people who have and still willingly make porn, just because. They don't care for the price, they don't care about most things involved with it, other than the fact they enjoy making it and they enjoy having sex. So basically, its like art for some people. My girlfriend is an artist and she'd make her art regardless of any price or anything in general, other than the fact she is good at it and she loves doing it. These three are like that in every sense. I couldn't really consider it as exploiting, since some porn stars are very well paid. It just really depends on who and how it is done.

[quincunx5]

I couldn't really consider it as exploiting, since some porn stars are very well paid.


Couldn't it be argued that exploitation still takes place because the capitalist who owns the means of production (camera, dvd copiers, dildos, etc.) gets to keep all the profits?

Just pointing out the obvious.

Do I have to state your marxist point of view for you?

[quincunx5]

I want to embrace this, once sex and money are not in the equation together, people will truly be free to do whatever they want sexually.


Once sex is out the equation there is no sex. Make some sense.



I think if the majority of people want it and are ready to accept it, then it should be state owned and socialized. Until then, it should be banned.


That's just brilliant. Then when the majority of people want to stop homosexuality, there goes that freedom.

Then just to be completely arbitrary the majority will decide that they are going to relax their restrictions. Anal sex will be allowed on alternate random tuesdays between blue moons but only between same sex partners who have been together for at least 3.9 years, if they are at least 19 years old and no more than 5 years apart in age. Oh and it must be done in public so that everyone can witness your shameful act. You are not allowed to close your eyes either, or be within 1 kilometer of any children below 17.

Sex being owned and socilized by the state will do nothing but pervert it.



Sex is often used to *sell*, a function it will no longer need under socialism.


You really hate freedom don't you?



Do people really worry about what they will masturbate to after the revolution?




Until then, it should be banned.


Your revolution will not come (no pun intended), because people will choose to do what is in their best interest. In this case they will masturbate.



And I agree the problem with porn, at least in our culture, is it is not just sex, it is degrading and turning the participants into commodities.


The porn industry created new and novel ways for us to pleasure ourselves and our partners (plural as well). The porn industry gave us what we "collectively" (through the sum of our individual actions) wanted. It did so through the market, there was demand and supply. If you don't feel it did, then you are not a socialist, you are an Authoritative bigot.

[*Hippie*]

Once sex is out the equation there is no sex. Make some sense.
Sorry, I am not allowed to make a typo! You knew what I meant. ONCE MONEY IS out of the equation.


Sex being owned and socilized by the state will do nothing but pervert it.
And I don't want it to be. However, I think it is just as perverted under private owned business.


It did so through the market, there was demand and supply. If you don't feel it did, then you are not a socialist,

So everything the free market allows to be supplied is good? And if I don't believe that the free market is good then I am not a socialist? :unsure:

The fact is porn has negative effects on many people in society. It is not good for the whole of society and it benefits noone. If anything, it costs more in healthcare to cure the people addicted to it and to those traumatized by it's effects.


The porn industry created new and novel ways for us to pleasure ourselves and our partners
Because we would never figure out how to give a blow job on our own, right? :rolleyes:

[quincunx5]

And I don't want it to be. However, I think it is just as perverted under private owned business.


Hmm, that only makes sense if you view privately owned business collectively. If you do not like the porn one shop makes you go to the one you like. Porn varies extremely widely. It is in fact a very competitive industry with many niches in between. Why else would there be so much free porn on the 'net.



So everything the free market allows to be supplied is good?


You are not one to judge what is good or bad on behalf of everyone else.

The market supplies good and bad. If I look at what it supplies I will see things I like and things I dislike. Another person will do the same. You may also do the same. But the likes and dislikes will vary from person to person.

The fact that the market supplies, is a good thing.



It is not good for the whole of society and it benefits no one.


Check with every living person and then get back to me with the result.

There are many societies, which one are you talking about?



If anything, it costs more in healthcare to cure the people addicted to it and to those traumatized by it's effects.


Costs who more in health care?

What addiction? and why is it unhealthy?

What traumatic effects?



Because we would never figure out how to give a blow job on our own, right?


Right. Many can perform fallatio or cunnilingus but does that make them any good? Not to mention the many that would not have figured it out, and the many that STILL have not figured it out.

You obviously haven't been following the sexual revolution or the porn industry if that is the best example you can come up with.

What about gay/lesbian/tranny porn, or interracial porn. The mere presence of these has directly resulted in more acceptance of alternative styles by those who previously had very narrow mainstream beliefs. How can expansion of alternative styles be a bad thing?

[*Hippie*]

You are not one to judge what is good or bad on behalf of everyone else.

I am not. If you look around, you will see many horrorr stories about the effects of porn on children. Families break up because of it. Children are kidnapped, molested and murdered. And if you type "porn addiction" into Google you will see many links to information about the addicition. Did you even read the article above about the woman who was lured from Latvia and forced to be a stripper in Chicago? The porn industry and the sex trade have many devastating effects. The bad far outweighs any good effects I have seen and many people do agree.

You can't just deny and not acknowledge that it has harmed many people.


Costs who more in health care?
The state if it was socialized. That is what the discussion is about, if there will be porn under socialism.

I don't see why people will defend porn until their death, is it really that important? Is it that much a part of your life you can't see the harm?

[quincunx5]

I am not. If you look around, you will see many horrorr stories about the effects of porn on children. Families break up because of it. Children are kidnapped, molested and murdered. And if you type "porn addiction" into Google you will see many links to information about the addicition. Did you even read the article above about the woman who was lured from Latvia and forced to be a stripper in Chicago? The porn industry and the sex trade have many devastating effects. The bad far outweighs any good effects I have seen and many people do agree.


Your are a fool. Many horror stories? Horror stories are news, benefits of porn will not yield stories in the news. No I did not read your link. I would learn nothing new.
According to National Crime Victimization, US Dept of Justice, the number of victimizations in the US for Rape, Attempted Rape, and Sexual assult add up to 198,000 in 2002-03. There is nearly 300 million people in the US. You are telling me that the misdeads of less than one percent of the population should restrict the freedom of the rest? There is no justice to that at all.





Costs who more in health care?

The state if it was socialized.


The state does not create wealth. It sucks it out of every person. Some more than most.

You have not proved to me the harmful side effects, besides victims of crime.



I don't see why people will defend porn until their death, is it really that important?


Yes, it is that important. It's freedom.



Is it that much a part of your life you can't see the harm?


This doesn't make sense.

[quincunx5]

The bad far outweighs any good effects I have seen and many people do agree.


You haven't seen it all. you never will. Many people with similar view points agree with you? That's a shocker.

[*Hippie*]

You haven't seen it all. you never will.
And you have? What makes you all knowing? The porn and sex trade industry has hurt many people, the worst victims are innocent children. I don't know how someone can support an industry that kidnaps and rapes children, makes people slaves, puts people at risk for STDs and AIDs, causes marriages to break up due to addiction and loses some people their jobs. It has many negative effects, I don't know how you can deny that bad things happen in the sex industry. Maybe someday it will effect your own life and you can see it for what it really is.

If you think people should have the "freedom" to make and distribute porn FOR PROFIT, do you also think people should have the freedom to steal, murder, sell cocaine and herion?

[fernando]

And you have? What makes you all knowing? The porn and sex trade industry has hurt many people, the worst victims are innocent children. I don't know how someone can support an industry that kidnaps and rapes children, makes people slaves, puts people at risk for STDs and AIDs, causes marriages to break up due to addiction and loses some people their jobs. It has many negative effects, I don't know how you can deny that bad things happen in the sex industry. Maybe someday it will effect your own life and you can see it for what it really is.
Many things in the world hurt other people, does the entire porn industry survive on kidnapping children and turning them into sex slaves? IIRC they had STD tests all the time on porn movie sets etc. Yes bad things happen, but bad things also happen in a mine or where ever. Shit happens on the road while you drive, should we now forbid driving and close down all roads?



If you think people should have the "freedom" to make and distribute porn FOR PROFIT, do you also think people should have the freedom to steal, murder, sell cocaine and herion?
sell cocaine and heroin? Sure I think we should legalize all drugs, give people some responsibility of their own, you want to use heroin? Go for it at your own risk. Perhaps this is my right wing side, but its something that bugs me about many leftists, the attempts to enforce a certain morality upon everybody on that level. Sure we should all have the same chances and all have food/healthcare and all that, but please let the people keep the freedom to destroy themselves if they want to.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by *Hippie*@Aug 10 2005, 10:20 AM

You haven't seen it all. you never will.
And you have? What makes you all knowing? The porn and sex trade industry has hurt many people, the worst victims are innocent children. I don't know how someone can support an industry that kidnaps and rapes children, makes people slaves, puts people at risk for STDs and AIDs, causes marriages to break up due to addiction and loses some people their jobs. It has many negative effects, I don't know how you can deny that bad things happen in the sex industry. Maybe someday it will effect your own life and you can see it for what it really is.

If you think people should have the "freedom" to make and distribute porn FOR PROFIT, do you also think people should have the freedom to steal, murder, sell cocaine and herion?
;) Dont waste your time trying to debate this guy, I am still waiting for him to respond to my last post in "Healthcare" thread.

Porn has also affected my life negatively, it is a shameful disgrace to the people who are its victims.

[fernando]

But is there always a victim in porn?

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 12:51 PM



It is when PROFIT comes in when it becomes EXPLOITATION. If the people are there willingly doing their thing and are free of any profit or transaction or exchange of money or coercion of any kind and it is just a natural expression of their sexuality then I see nothing wrong with it. I just hate when the capitalists put a price tag on everything sacred and special like sex. They take sex and make it a job, it shouldn't be, it should be a natural and pure act.

What a bunch of psuedo-philosophical blather.

I thought you commies relied on reason, not on shitty cliches and 'emotions'.

Sex may be natural, but so is dying.

Sex isn't any more 'pure' than eating.

Sex is just a bodily function. Get over it.
That is soooo true. I mean it really is just a bodily function and seriously what is "sacred" about it unless you&#39;re a religious person. Then I can understand but other then that and how is it a special act? Its slightly based on love and mainly based on lust. Oh and this thing about it being socially acceptable is an understatement <_<.

PS: Is this how bored you people are with your "revolution" that you have to argue about sex? I mean why not continue your quest to overthrow this fucking fascist government, defeating capitalism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, protesting the war and so on and so forth?

[Publius]

Sex CAN be an act of love.

Or not.

Sex has no innate, natural value.

It has the value ascribed to it by the participants.

The value in porn is obviously very different than the value that you and your partner give it.

Both are perfectly valid.

[Black Dagger]

Sex CAN be an act of love.

Or not.

Sex has no innate, natural value.

It has the value ascribed to it by the participants.

The value in porn is obviously very different than the value that you and your partner give it.

Both are perfectly valid.

Agreed.



In porn, you basically have to have sex with who they tell you to do it with. And it is not enjoyable.

It&#39;s &#39;not enjoyable&#39;? What? Never?

I don&#39;t think there is anything inherently &#39;bad&#39; about pornography, the &#39;problems&#39;/&#39;horrors&#39; that do occur within the industry are largely conditioned by capitalist society, such as the exploitation involved and so forth--- not by filiming people having sex.

*Hippie*, should pornography be banned? Should prostitution?

[*Hippie*]

I think Swingers Clubs and filming sex and other consensual expressions of desire and love will and should be allowed in Socialism as long as it is not for profit. But then again, no business or industry under Socialism will be for personal profit. That will be illegal. That is what we are trying to abolish. Capitalism makes sex dirty and bad, just like it makes every other industry it touches dirty and bad.
I think once the *for profit* part is gone and it is completely consenual with no monetary coersion, it will be perfectly acceptable.
I think the original question was would it be socialized by the state. And I still say no. It will not be an industry for people to be *employed* in, but rather for people to enjoy, participate or not participate in freely.


Sex has no innate, natural value.
Well, most people do put a value on it for whatever reason. And that is not going to change very quickly it seems.

[*Hippie*]

Should prostitution?

Yes&#33; How can you be a Communist and support prostitution, the selling of bodies by Capitalists? :o
If you don&#39;t support them selling us anything else, how can you justify them selling sex? Private property will be abolished and porn is a HUGE part of private business in the U.S.

[Hiero]

Sex may be natural, but so is dying.

Sex isn&#39;t any more &#39;pure&#39; than eating.

Sex is just a bodily function. Get over it.
Yes that is true, it is nothing more then a body function.

But when people die do we just leave them to rot, when we eat don&#39;t we follow certain rules on what to eat and how to eat? No, our culture dictates how we act.

To the question, as socialist we need to think about the cultures of sex in capitalism and question if these will change in a socialist soicety.

I think that porn has no reall value in society, so i don&#39;t see it continuing in a socialist society.

[fernando]

But entertainment doesnt contribute to society either and porn is entertainment...should we now abolish all entertainment? And then let people only work, eat, sleep, work, eat, sleep?

[Black Dagger]

Capitalism makes sex dirty and bad, just like it makes every other industry it touches dirty and bad.

That&#39;s a broad brush. I assume when you say &#39;sex&#39;, you mean prostitution and porn. So sex is &#39;dirty and bad&#39; when it&#39;s paid for? If i&#39;m living in a post-capitalist society under-going a localised crisis, food is scarce and so forth, i&#39;m not allowed to offer sex in-exchange for some of someone elses&#39; food?



I think the original question was would it be socialized by the state. And I still say no.

I agree, although with the state abolished, the question is nullified.



Yes&#33; How can you be a Communist and support prostitution, the selling of bodies by Capitalists? :o

Prostitution is not the &#39;selling of bodies by capitalists&#39;, it&#39;s the selling of bodies by the poor. Prostitutes are exploited in the system of money, wages and so forth, as are all workers. Supporting it&#39;s prohibition in a capitalist society, only serves to add to the exploitation. Creating a workplace that is less safe, in terms of health, physical safety and so forth, it&#39;s the same with drug prohibition. Conditions of illegal labour favour capitalists, not workers. I can understand wanting to abolish moneyed-exploitation, but until capitalist itself is abolished, outlawing prostitution makes no sense.



If you don&#39;t support them sellin us anything else, how can you justify them selling sex?

Whilst i don&#39;t support capitalism, i live in a capitalist society. That&#39;s like saying &#39;why do you buy consumer goods if you don&#39;t support capitalism&#39;? Because unfortunately i live in a capitalist society, and i want to survive- which means i have to enter wage slavery, and i have to consume. It&#39;s the same for any person who becomes a prostitute, you&#39;re denying them that, why?

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

Interesting thread, one thats become incredibly side tracked but never mind&#33;
I believe sex should be an act only with an individual you love. I know not everyone subscribes to that view, but i think it is one that should be encouraged due to facts like STD&#39;s and unwanted pregnancy. Such promiscuity can have negative consequences upon society as a whole.
Back to the point, pornography has no real place is Socialism, SOME people are exploited by it, but everyone doing such a job in a socialist society would surely be better else where, providing food, education, health care and so on are so important they must never be over looked. Pornography encourages a promiscous view point, it never deals with emotions.

[*Hippie*]

So sex is &#39;dirty and bad&#39; when it&#39;s paid for?
Yes, because it is exploitation.


Prostitution is not the &#39;selling of bodies by capitalists&#39;, it&#39;s the selling of bodies by the poor.

Under socialism though, the state will provide food, housing, education, healthcare.
So people will not need to sell their body. If they want to have sex, it will be a free exchange where both partners want to do it equally.

[quincunx5]

Porn has also affected my life negatively, it is a shameful disgrace to the people who are its victims.


What about the non-victims? You want them to become victims of your state?

How has it affected your life negatively? And why does your misery need to be reflected onto others?

You have not answered this very simple question.


P.S. I like your argument that I&#39;m not worth debating with because it took me a while to give you a good response on another thread. Nice&#33;

[*Hippie*]

Here is what Engels had to say about it, and think he about sums it up~


And here is the answer to the outcry of the highly moral philistines against the “community of women”. Community of women is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it.

[quincunx5]

Here is what Engels had to say about it, and think he about sums it up


A mid 19th centurty writer is irrelavant. He knew nothing about Women&#39;s Suffrage nor the porn industry.

[eukreign]

Abolishion is violence in a pretty package. You are just a bunch of violent thugs if you support banning and stealing of property&#33; It is really that simple.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 12:40 AM
But entertainment doesnt contribute to society either and porn is entertainment...should we now abolish all entertainment? And then let people only work, eat, sleep, work, eat, sleep?
There is some entertainment that contributes to society.

[*Hippie*]

You want them to become victims of your state?

Now someone is a "poor victim" because we took away their porn&#33; Go cry your river elsewhere&#33;


A mid 19th centurty writer is irrelavant.

Are Adam Smith&#39;s writings irrelevant as well then? ;)


He knew nothing about Women&#39;s Suffrage nor the porn industry.

How do you know he didn&#39;t know anything about it? Do you know anything about it?

[quincunx5]

Now someone is a "poor victim" because we took away their porn&#33; Go cry your river elsewhere&#33;


Yes you trampled on their rights to engage in what ever activity they choose. They want to watch porn that was produced by someone else.

Now you want me to go away? Sorry, it doesn&#39;t work that way.



Are Adam Smith&#39;s writings irrelevant as well then?


To this discussion, yes&#33;



How do you know he didn&#39;t know anything about it? Do you know anything about it?


Uhm porn industry is wholly in the late 20th century, one that Engels never saw.

[Black Dagger]

*Hippie*, please address my argument.

i.e.

-"If i&#39;m living in a post-capitalist society under-going a localised crisis, food is scarce and so forth, i&#39;m not allowed to offer sex in-exchange for some of someone elses&#39; food?"

-"Supporting it&#39;s prohibition in a capitalist society, only serves to add to the exploitation. Creating a workplace that is less safe, in terms of health, physical safety and so forth, it&#39;s the same with drug prohibition. Conditions of illegal labour favour capitalists, not workers. I can understand wanting to abolish moneyed-exploitation, but until capitalism itself is abolished, supporting the outlawing prostitution makes no sense".

-"Whilst i don&#39;t support capitalism, i live in a capitalist society. That&#39;s like saying &#39;why do you buy consumer goods if you don&#39;t support capitalism&#39;? Because unfortunately i live in a capitalist society, and i want to survive- which means i have to enter wage slavery, and i have to consume. It&#39;s the same for any person who becomes a prostitute, you&#39;re denying them that, why?"



Under socialism though, the state will provide food, housing, education, healthcare.
So people will not need to sell their body. If they want to have sex, it will be a free exchange where both partners want to do it equally

What if i want to sell my body, for some extra goods/cash? Will I be thrown into a state &#39;provided&#39; prison?

[quincunx5]

What if i want to sell my body, for some extra goods/cash? Will I be thrown into a state &#39;provided&#39; prison?


Yes. And there you will get gangbanged for free.

If you go to a private cell, you will get a chastity belt put on you.

[Freedom Works]

Because unfortunately i live in a capitalist society, and i want to survive- which means i have to enter wage slavery, and i have to consume.

These are CHOICES. You do not HAVE to do anything&#33; Ugh, collectivism is so ridiculous.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 06:13 AM
I don&#39;t see the urge to ban porn. Just as long as the people in the porn are consenting, I don&#39;t have a prob with it. It isn&#39;t breaking my legs.
there shouldnt be porn here cause this is a site for talking about leftism. we arent the damn shopping mall.

[quincunx5]

there shouldnt be porn here cause this is a site for talking about leftism. we arent the damn shopping mall.


I understand now:

The reason you had to collect goverment aid is because you can&#39;t read.

[dietrite]

Sex has no innate, natural value.


Well, most people do put a value on it for whatever reason. And that is not going to change very quickly it seems.

I don&#39;t think that&#39;s considered natural value, hippie *****.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 09:20 PM


What if i want to sell my body, for some extra goods/cash? Will I be thrown into a state &#39;provided&#39; prison?


Yes. And there you will get gangbanged for free.

If you go to a private cell, you will get a chastity belt put on you.
Spam.



These are CHOICES. You do not HAVE to do anything&#33; Ugh, collectivism is so ridiculous.

The choice of being exploited and alienated from what i produce or starvation. What shit &#39;choices&#39;.

[quincunx5]

Spam.

Reality.



The choice of being exploited and alienated from what i produce or starvation. What shit &#39;choices&#39;.


Always black and white with people like you.

[Black Dagger]

Reality.]

Yes, because getting &#39;gangbanged&#39; in a prison run-by a socialist nightmare-state is a daily &#39;reality&#39; for me :rolleyes:

Stop spamming.


Always black and white with people like you.

Alright captain cliché, explain to me the &#39;joys&#39; of choosing labour/wage exploitation or starvation.

[quincunx5]

Alright captain cliché, explain to me the &#39;joys&#39; of choosing labour/wage exploitation or starvation.


You still make only two choices available when there is always more.
Exploitation does not exist. It is purely socialist propaganda.

Read my other posts for your answers.
I advocate Libertatrianism, Minarchy, and to a lesser degree: Anarcho-Capitalism.

[*Hippie*]

-"If i&#39;m living in a post-capitalist society under-going a localised crisis, food is scarce and so forth, i&#39;m not allowed to offer sex in-exchange for some of someone elses&#39; food?"

If that was really your only last option available to survive, I wouldn&#39;t deny anyone the right to do that. I believe everyone has a right to food and life.
But I would hope it would be a very last resort. If it was a direct exchange, it would be less exploitative than a "pimp" making money off of you.


-"Supporting it&#39;s prohibition in a capitalist society, only serves to add to the exploitation. Creating a workplace that is less safe, in terms of health, physical safety and so forth, it&#39;s the same with drug prohibition. Conditions of illegal labour favour capitalists, not workers. I can understand wanting to abolish moneyed-exploitation, but until capitalism itself is abolished, supporting the outlawing prostitution makes no sense".

I don&#39;t believe that porn and prostitution should necessarily be abolished under capitalism but it should be discouraged. I agree the safety and protection of the workers is the primary concern.


-"Whilst i don&#39;t support capitalism, i live in a capitalist society. That&#39;s like saying &#39;why do you buy consumer goods if you don&#39;t support capitalism&#39;? Because unfortunately i live in a capitalist society, and i want to survive- which means i have to enter wage slavery, and i have to consume. It&#39;s the same for any person who becomes a prostitute, you&#39;re denying them that, why?"

I am not denying them that under capitalism, but under socialism, I don&#39;t think prostitution should be acceptable.


What if i want to sell my body, for some extra goods/cash? Will I be thrown into a state &#39;provided&#39; prison?

I imagine your punishment should be similar to anyone else trying to sell things and start a business. Whatever that punishment would be would depend on what the state decides I suppose.


I don&#39;t think that&#39;s considered natural value, hippie *****.

Although this comment doesn&#39;t deserve a reply, my point was there will most likely always be a value placed on it whether or not it is a "natural value".

[fernando]

Originally posted by Hiero+Aug 14 2005, 05:10 AM--> (Hiero @ Aug 14 2005, 05:10 AM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 12:40 AM
But entertainment doesnt contribute to society either and porn is entertainment...should we now abolish all entertainment? And then let people only work, eat, sleep, work, eat, sleep?
There is some entertainment that contributes to society. [/b]
Do you say that all entertainment should contribute to society? So all entertainment should be there to keep the people obedient to the state?

Give me examples of entertainment that contributes to society?

[Black Dagger]

I don&#39;t believe that porn and prostitution should necessarily be abolished under capitalism but it should be discouraged. I agree the safety and protection of the workers is the primary concern.

But you said earlier in this thread that,

"I think if the majority of people want it and are ready to accept it, then it should be state owned and socialized. Until then, it should be banned."

Correct if i&#39;m wrong, but the above statement is saying that prostitution should be banned, at least until it can become &#39;state-owned&#39;. No to mention this, [in response to my question, &#39;should prostitution be banned?], you said, "Yes&#33; How can you be a Communist and support prostitution, the selling of bodies by Capitalists?".

Your statements are inconsistent. Which is it? Should prostitution be banned or not? In a capitalist society, and in a socialist society what is your answer?



If that was really your only last option available to survive, I wouldn&#39;t deny anyone the right to do that. I believe everyone has a right to food and life.
But I would hope it would be a very last resort. If it was a direct exchange, it would be less exploitative than a "pimp" making money off of you.

Ok, you said,

"But then again, no business or industry under Socialism will be for personal profit. That will be illegal. That is what we are trying to abolish."

and later, "I am not denying them that under capitalism, but under socialism, I don&#39;t think prostitution should be acceptable."

But now you&#39;re saying you &#39;wouldn&#39;t deny anyone the right to do that&#39;? So which is it? Are people allowed to sell their bodies if they choose or they not? In the featured quote you said they could, but in the two quotes about you said that this sort of &#39;private business&#39; would be illegal, and that prostitution is should not be &#39;acceptable&#39;.

And then later you said,

"I imagine your punishment should be similar to anyone else trying to sell things and start a business. Whatever that punishment would be would depend on what the state decides I suppose."

Now you&#39;re saying i&#39;ll be punished [locked up?] by the state if i choose to sell sex for food because i&#39;m starving?

The bankruptcy of &#39;socialism&#39;, the nanny state, and bourgeois moralism.

[dietrite]

Although this comment doesn&#39;t deserve a reply, my point was there will most likely always be a value placed on it whether or not it is a "natural value".

Shut up hippie, you smell of fish and okra.


So all entertainment should be there to keep the people obedient to the state?

Yes. Yes. That&#39;s exactly what he said. Psycho *****.


Give me examples of entertainment that contributes to society?


Theatre, opera, film, folk entertainment (circus, whatnot), most things that are entertaining are also beneficial. They are almost always corrupted in other, somewhat corporate-flavored forms. But most are beneficial at origin-point.

[fernando]

Theatre, opera, film, folk entertainment (circus, whatnot), most things that are entertaining are also beneficial.
So why is that kind of entertainment beneficial and pornography not? <_<

[OleMarxco]

Obviously, because he didn&#39;t dsay so, he said ALSO ;)
Well, &#39;neway&#39;s, because some cocky people up in&#39;tharr "Culture Department" obviously think&#39;s that porn&#39;s too "unhealthy" and "wildly dirty" for people&#39;s moral etc., to see it, meanwhile "regular" entertainment withouth sex&#39;s not...despite the subliminal undertone&#39;s, huh? It&#39;s the question of theeblebum or theebledumb here. Do I want full-fledgled but acted-upon phoney-sex or an entertainment program with referances-to-sex every odd 5 minutes? HUH&#33;? Gimme a call, iffya agree ;)

[dietrite]

Personally, I don&#39;t want to spread my legs for every hot guy I meet.


Yes, you do.

Sluut.

[caliban]

Porn is fine until your daughter tells you about the first d.p. scene she did for &#036;1000. :lol: