Pornography is discriminating?

lazydaisy

Meaning is unstable and in flux.Symbolism changes. Whatever the Sile Na Gig symbol was intended to be, we can never know. How could you? Holding seances and asking the dead what they meant? Secondly, reception is as much a part of meaning as intention, that is if you accept intention, which many people dont, as the prime determinant of meaning. There is social context, historical contexts also to consider. Scrap the swastika example. Take the examples of the american flag, a red rose, the fall of the twin towers, a crucifix, or a christmas tree, and there are multiple meanings. People changing the use for a symbol as in the swastika is a good example lemming, even though you think that is exactly why it is a bad one.

Hepcat- everything is open to interpretation. There is no such thing as an absolutist meaning when it comes to art.

Theadall- your questions regarding my genitals- it is really non of your business. Do you know what yours look like? Does it look like the Sile Na Gig? I hope not. Its like the jack o lantern of vaginas! Am I offended by it? Dont make me laugh. It has far more to do with the cultural values of whomever uses/used the image far more than it has anything to do with reality of my very vagina. In other words to the people of ancient Ireland: thats just your opinion.

The fear of the feminine predates the victorians to at least the greeks, eg the medusa.

I will say it again. Hopefully this time, people wont project all over it. I was pointing out a similarity between the images, dirty, mysogonistic - ARE NOT MY WORDS. I did not label it.

Tallesein- I did not label anything as dirty. And you are wrong, labelling something as dirty doesnt make something pornographic. Stop making stuff up about what I said. So, by calling something dirty, it becomes porn. I just dont believe that. So, if you call the millenium spike dirty then that transforms it into something porn? Uh, no, no it doesnt.

Lemming- what do you mean my catholic guilt? I never said there was anything wrong with S&M or D&S. Maybe its your guilt that is leading you project that onto me? All I was wondering if is in S&M, the orgasm is connected to infliticting or receiving pain. Also- I am aware that something can have sadomasochistic value without it being sadomashicism, just as an activity may have therapeutic value without it being therapy itself.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

The fear of the feminine predates the victorians to at least the greeks, eg the medusa. .

Wrong again.

Medusa was originally a revered figure. She wasn't made a figure of fear until patriarchal greece and then it was a purely political move. Ancient symbols of female power and wisdom became totally unacceptable and as such the image of Medusa was tainted and violated.

It was never about a fear of the feminine.

Lemming

lazydaisy wrote:

Meaning is unstable and in flux.Symbolism changes. Whatever the Sile Na Gig symbol was intended to be, we can never know.

Ummmm, we do. It's called historical document.

Secondly, reception is as much a part of meaning as intention, that is if you accept intention, which many people dont, as the prime determinant of meaning. There is social context, historical contexts also to consider. Scrap the swastika example. Take the examples of the american flag, a red rose, the fall of the twin towers, a crucifix, or a christmas tree, and there are multiple meanings. People changing the use for a symbol as in the swastika is a good example lemming, even though you think that is exactly why it is a bad one.

Social context tends to follow historical context, save when it is deliberately perverted through a concerted deliberate effort, ie. the nazi party and the swastika or, if you want to look closer to home, the tri-colour by the IRA and their various off-shoot paramilitary organisations. The tricolour is inclusive. The orange stands for the protestant population. That little "fact" has been conveniently glossed over by those seeking to pervert the flag's meaning and twist it into something to suit their own ends.

As I've said, were it not for the willful manipulation by a small group of people, the Irish flag would not convey innuendos towards the British populace. That equally applies towards the loyalist paramilitary groups.

Theadall- your questions regarding my genitals- it is really non of your business. Do you know what yours look like? Does it look like the Sile Na Gig? I hope not. Its like the jack o lantern of vaginas! Am I offended by it? Dont make me laugh. It has far more to do with the cultural values of whomever uses/used the image far more than it has anything to do with reality of my very vagina. In other words to the people of ancient Ireland: thats just your opinion.

Erm, the Sile Na Gig is a religious icon to people who to this very day practice old religious beliefs in this country lazydaisy. Like I said, the fact that your own mind places innuendos on it are your problem. Not anybody elses. How about we look at the cross? It looks a bit phallic doesn't it. There that wasn't so hard to do was it?

I will say it again. Hopefully this time, people wont project all over it. I was pointing out a similarity between the images, dirty, mysogonistic - ARE NOT MY WORDS. I did not label it.

But you are labelling it by your inclusion of it in such groupings. You've clearly stated what you consider it to be, even if you didn't outright label it.

Lemming- what do you mean my catholic guilt? I never said there was anything wrong with S&M or D&S. Maybe its your guilt that is leading you project that onto me? All I was wondering if is in S&M, the orgasm is connected to infliticting or receiving pain. Also- I am aware that something can have sadomasochistic value without it being sadomashicism, just as an activity may have therapeutic value without it being therapy itself.

I wasn't referring to *YOUR* catholic guilt lazydaisy. It was a glib remark about repressive catholic upbringing that is inherently predominant in most Irish people. Even the younger generations today, myself included. But I find your reaction to be most interesting. Very defensive. Very aggressive. But no, you're wrong about the orgasm being connected to the infliction of or receiving of pain. I'll add the caveat that I'm sure there is somebody out there for whom it does connect, but it's about something else that I'm not sure I can accurately convey.

lazydaisy

How was I wrong psi? I pointed to the medusa and to greece. And you verified it.

Youre under the impression that the Original meaning is the one and only meaning. So to you I say wrong again. It was in greece that that meaning developed and the meaning which supercedes the original one. Being a political move does not dilute the replaced meaning. Give up the myth origin. It does not hold.

It is inapppropriate for you to refer to previous arguments that we have had. Your choice of word AGAIN makes this reference. And in our last one, I was not wrong.

So dont call me wrong and then repeat what I said.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

How was I wrong psi? I pointed to the medusa and to greece. And you verified it.

You were wrong because you said that medusa was a symbol of fear of the feminine. It never was.

Youre under the impression that the Original meaning is the one and only meaning.

Erm no, I'm just pointing out how and why it became a symbol of fear. As an example you put forth, its an incorrect one.

So to you I say wrong again. It was in greece that that meaning developed and the meaning which supercedes the original one. Being a political move does not dilute the replaced meaning. Give up the myth origin. It does not hold.

Wha? Your posts are making less and less sense. I could give you a long and details analysis of how and why Medusa became an item of fear. She was always an emblem of death, but this was not due to her femininity. She is actually an offshoot of a Libyan goddess worshipped by Libyan Amazon - the snake hair was originally dreadlocks. She was part of a trinity of goddesses, each with a different aspectof the life cycle. Medusa was destruction or death.

As such your example of her being fear of femininityis wrong.

It is inapppropriate for you to refer to previous arguments that we have had. Your choice of word AGAIN makes this reference. And in our last one, I was not wrong.

Well I meant wrong like you have been so many times in this thread. Particularly about SnG. But it tends to be the only consistent thing about your posting so, hey stick with it.

Oh and you were wrong before

lazydaisy

psi-

First you said the medusa was never a symbol of fear and then you said you described how it became a symbol of fear. What? These are entirely contradictory and oppositional.

I didnt say fear of femininity- I said fear of the feminine, they are different terms.

Wrong about SnG. That is your opinion. Interpretation is not factual. You cant be right or wrong about it. You are wrong for calling anyone wrong when it comes to interpreting art.

No I wasnt wrong before.

lazydaisy

How can I be wrong about something when I was asking a question about it. you keep on saying that and yet you dont explain much about S&M. Dont I have to make a statement to be wrong?

There's a historical document attached to the SnG? Where is it? Well, doesnt that have to be interpreted too?

No,no Im not labelling it nor did I include it any groups. What was I was trying to illustrate is that we accept many images that are in classical art and when we find the same or similar or resonant ones in modern popular images [erotic, porn, whatever] we are repulsed. It was a comparison. I dont care who practices what with the Sile Na Gig. Thats their business and no concern of mine. If I cared, I would ask what your point is. The cruxifix, well, no, its not phallic. But New York jews dont exactly get excited when they see one, and to them it doesnt mean resuurection or sacrifice, it means something else and to vampires or bram stoker something else again. My point was illustrating a relativity in meaning and symbolism.

The Irish Flag, thats fine that thats what it means, the green, white and orange, but does the meaning change when you cross the border? What about the union jack, dont you think that means something different to britons than it does to the irish?

The american flag. Fifty stars for 50 states, to invoke e pluribus unum. The stripes for the 13 colonies. For people who burn the flag it probably has a very different meaning than for those who display it proudly in 4th July.

Take even the Bible, is there one interpretation and are you really going to base it on originial intention to secure an absolutist meaning? Scary if you say yes.

I cannot have a discussion with people who have cudgels out at every moment. I am also wasting my breath. You have already decided what you are going to believe and are going to stick to it. Discussing things on this board is like talking to fundamendalists about the Bible. Your way or the highway.

GuanYin

lazydaisy wrote:

psi-

First you said the medusa was never a symbol of fear and then you said you described how it became a symbol of fear. What? These are entirely contradictory and oppositional.

My goodness! You do waste alot of time trying to nit pick at points off topic and it only further spirals your posts into the nonsensical abyss.

If you are bothered to read. my first comment was "medusa wasn't afigure of fear until patriarchal greece".

Thats from my first post on the topic. I bet you can't find the bit where "I first said it wasn't"

I didnt say fear of femininity- I said fear of the feminine, they are different terms.

Ohkaaay. If you really want to go and split hair over the terms I'll say so what, you're still wrong in both cases.

Wrong about SnG. That is your opinion. Interpretation is not factual. You cant be right or wrong about it. You are wrong for calling anyone wrong when it comes to interpreting art.

So its your opinion against all the experts and literary sources.
Fine. A post like that tends to make it look like you might have your head in the clouds.

No I wasnt wrong before.

Ah you were, but I admire your attempts to continue making it look like you have a leg to stand on, with any of your arguments.

Vangelis

I like to say to those who have righteously criticised my use of sources:
Find good sources yourselves for whatever your arguements are. Instead of taking pride in debunking someone's wrongful statements or use of inaccurateo or false sources, provide something that proves otherwise instead of having this "I told you so"-attitiude. Being proud of one's own knowledge is little helpful and doesn't create a good atmosphere in the debate.

I have retreated as I understand I need more education on the subject and am currently occupied with other things so it's only fair that I leave. But that is not to say that everyone else is omni-potent: I see little sources given by other people to refute my statements. Neither am I asking for people to harrass me with any "I told you so"-attitudes, or like Lemming said on the previous page: "No denials or refuttings... That's interesting." That is the kind of comment that makes me pewk with resentment, and isn't that full of selectiveness and manipulation, like I have been accused of as well?

You presume that I keep silent because I don't know how to defend myself. Well, I have now openly admitted that it was silly of me to mention the example that I mentioned, as it doesn't speak for all people who practise S&M. I am not defending myself now. But are you, Lemming, capable of providing something that speaks for S&M-practitioners in general? If so, I suggest you post that instead of complaining to me for not being fair to the debate. Do you know anything yourself?

And peckerhead said that I have been misquoting the Bible: I haven't. And neither am I hiding behind an excuse that English is not my first language. Other people here came up with that idea and he used this against me as if I was using this excuse. I wasn't. peckerhead seems to have selectively interpreted this as if I have been hiding behind it. So who says anything about being selective or manipulative?

And if no one can come up with a better arguement against porn or whatever, other than verbally harrassing/ridiculing someone(speaking in general) - there isn't much of a debate. peckerhead, you haven't done much else in this debate than pointing at my flaws, which makes me think that you are reading this thread to criticise me only. Not very good. Do you have something to contribute with that is better than what I have said, then it is very welcome.

And also about the inaccurate Wikipedia: I understand that it is not a reliable source. But PSI, instead of spending a whole post on telling how inaccurate it is in percentage, in comparison with the EB and so on, why not privde a more reliable source to make up for my mistake? That way, the debate might become more efficient.

I see you are discussing mythical figures at the moment. How the IRA and loyalists came is a puzzle. But I don't think it's fair to reduce this debate to mythical figures. Porn is much more than that.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

And also about the inaccurate Wikipedia: I understand that it is not a reliable source. But PSI, instead of spending a whole post on telling how inaccurate it is in percentage, in comparison with the EB and so on, why not privde a more reliable source to make up for my mistake? That way, the debate might become more efficient.

Because I don't agree with the point you're making. Why would I try back it up? More than that, I don't think I *COULD* find reliable sources to back up your arguments.

I'm taking in most of the posts and alot of what I think has been said by other posters.

You miss the main point of debate here and in general, laisydaisy falls down here too, its a common enough thing with posters in humanities and politics, hell boards in general, but I single out you too because your posts are frequent and the situation I describe is abundant in both your posts.

You appear to come in with your mind already made up. You, in the posts I've seen from you, approach a debate with the attitude that its a contest about "providing the best evidence" to an argument.

The thing is, its not, or at least it should never be. Its about looking at all the evidence/arguments provided and picking the ones that are strongest. If you are not willing to conceed your argument may be flawed when it is challenged in a manner that you cannot defend, then you shouldn't be in a public forum debate, you should instead be preaching from a pulpit.

If people point out where your arguments are weak, its not a criticism of you, more so a contribution to the debate.

Dades

Vangelis wrote:

But I don't think it's fair to reduce this debate to mythical figures. Porn is much more than that.

In real life most people don't have porn star figures. Doesn't that make them mythical? :v:

lazydaisy

psi-are you even reading the thread.

The thread has bifurcated. There are two parts two it.

1. Arriving at an agreement on what is porn. Which no one has done yet. Are we talking soft, hardcore, mainstream, film, literary? Hetero, gay? what?

2. Then determining if it is degrading to women. And if so, who is doing the degrading?

No one is missing the main point of the thread except possibly you.

You fall down in knowing right from wrong and when it is appropriate to apply those criteria. Its not math. Its art. There is consensus and and then there is deviation from that consensus. I suggest you brush up on your literary/art theory.

Your contribution so far is to hover around like a gadfly and self appointed referee without offerring any perspective on the subject yourself.

You seem to think there is some sort of establishement commitee when it comes to interpretation. There isnt. Even Sile Na G- there is no uniform "wisdom" on the figure. All the experts and literary sources? Which ones would those be? Art historians would tell you that "fertility figure" is a term that is thrown around to cover up" haven't got a clue".

So the porn debate shouldn't be a problem for you, you should just accept what the establishment say is porn and what isnt and you should just accept whatever the majority say is degrading to women. You can just consult the "experts."

Your illustration of the medusa figure does not contradict anything I said. Somewhere in your reading of my posts you have come up with your own assumptions. What you call nit picking - whats that saying about pot and kettle? Fear of the feminine and fear of femininity - they are very different and specific things.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Because I don't agree with the point you're making. Why would I try back it up? More than that, I don't think I *COULD* find reliable sources to back up your arguments.

I was referring to pornography in general, not something to prove that Wikipedia is a reliable source.

You miss the main point of debate here and in general, laisydaisy falls down here too, its a common enough thing with posters in humanities and politics, hell boards in general, but I single out you too because your posts are frequent and the situation I describe is abundant in both your posts.

I think lazydaisy has done well in this debate, far better than me and she knows more than me too.

You appear to come in with your mind already made up. You, in the posts I've seen from you, approach a debate with the attitude that its a contest about "providing the best evidence" to an argument.

I am sure you have an 'allready made-up mind' on certain things yourself that you debate. No one embarks on a discussion without some kind of an opinion. No one here is a blank sheet of paper awaiting to be coloured by other knowledgeable people and sources. And there is no problem with that! As long as one is prepared to view a case from different angles, and I AM. It's just that I lack the knowledge to do it.

The thing is, its not, or at least it should never be. Its about looking at all the evidence/arguments provided and picking the ones that are strongest. If you are not willing to conceed your argument may be flawed when it is challenged in a manner that you cannot defend, then you shouldn't be in a public forum debate, you should instead be preaching from a pulpit.

No need to offend me with the 'preaching in a pulpit'-thing. That's a lowly comment. But give evidence then! Instead of repeating your complaints about my lack of knowledge. Do you know anything yourself?

If people point out where your arguments are weak, its not a criticism of you, more so a contribution to the debate.

It had better be! Because I have been attacked personally a lot in this thread and it doesn't seem like everyone is like that. And I second everything that lazydaisy said.

Lazydaisy, out of curiosity - I'm full of it! - how do you discern between fear of the feminine and fear of feminity?

GuanYin

You're having an awful lot of last contributions

Vangelis wrote:

I think lazydaisy has done well in this debate, far better than me and she knows more than me too.

well the yard stick you defined limits your praise.

I am sure you have an 'allready made-up mind' on certain things yourself that you debate. No one embarks on a discussion without some kind of an opinion. No one here is a blank sheet of paper awaiting to be coloured by other knowledgeable people and sources. And there is no problem with that! As long as one is prepared to view a case from different angles, and I AM. It's just that I lack the knowledge to do it.

Never said you need to be a blank sheet. You just need to be receptive to the chance you may be wrong, or that everything you thought you knew is wrong.

No need to offend me with the 'preaching in a pulpit'-thing. That's a lowly comment.

How is a lowly comment. Did I say you preached from a pulpit? Did I accuse you of anything. It was an expression.

But give evidence then! Instead of repeating your complaints about my lack of knowledge. Do you know anything yourself?

I have done/do give evidence.

I know plenty thanks.

It had better be! Because I have been attacked personally a lot in this thread and it doesn't seem like everyone is like that. And I second everything that lazydaisy said.

I've never attacked you personally. I've made comments about your posting style and attitude but thats a different thing and if you take it personally, then its your own sensativities.

Lazydaisy, out of curiosity - I'm full of it! - how do you discern between fear of the feminine and fear of feminity?

I'm interested in this one too.

Nevyn

fem·i·nine

1. Of or relating to women or girls. See Synonyms at female.
2. Characterized by or possessing qualities generally attributed to a woman.
3. Effeminate; womanish.
4. Grammar. Designating or belonging to the gender of words or grammatical forms that refer chiefly to females or to things classified as female.

feminity

\Fe*min"i*ty\, n. Womanliness; femininity.

hard to dicern what you meant in terms of those two words never mind the dear of either of them tbh.

peckerhead

psi wrote:

You miss the main point of debate here and in general, laisydaisy falls down here too, its a common enough thing with posters in humanities and politics, hell boards in general, but I single out you too because your posts are frequent and the situation I describe is abundant in both your posts.

You appear to come in with your mind already made up. You, in the posts I've seen from you, approach a debate with the attitude that its a contest about "providing the best evidence" to an argument.

The thing is, its not, or at least it should never be. Its about looking at all the evidence/arguments provided and picking the ones that are strongest. If you are not willing to conceed your argument may be flawed when it is challenged in a manner that you cannot defend, then you shouldn't be in a public forum debate, you should instead be preaching from a pulpit.

If people point out where your arguments are weak, its not a criticism of you, more so a contribution to the debate.

Following a couple of heartfelt pms from you, Vangelis, I promised not to 'attack/hurt/offend' you any more — so I won't. But, since you've pm'd me again since and have addressed your complaints to me on-thread, quoting the terms of my reply to your pm (your side of the deal was to quit bleating and sending me annoying pms, remember?) — I hope you won't mind if I agree wholeheartedly with psi's contribution above? You won't take it as a wilful, personal attack, 'needle-picking in the wounds' or whatever?

To my 'comerades in the conspiracy in the porn-thread' :rolleyes: — I'm afraid I'll have to withdraw from this discussion now.

shaneo3

Sangre wrote:

Well considering that Jenna Jameson is a billionaire I'm not going to feel too bad for being degraded.
The women have a hard to achieve body ideal and are paid accordingly.

sangre is gay:p

hepcat

lazydaisy wrote:

Meaning is unstable and in flux.Symbolism changes. Whatever the Sile Na Gig symbol was intended to be, we can never know. How could you? Holding seances and asking the dead what they meant? Secondly, reception is as much a part of meaning as intention, that is if you accept intention, which many people dont, as the prime determinant of meaning. There is social context, historical contexts also to consider. Scrap the swastika example. Take the examples of the american flag, a red rose, the fall of the twin towers, a crucifix, or a christmas tree, and there are multiple meanings. People changing the use for a symbol as in the swastika is a good example lemming, even though you think that is exactly why it is a bad one.

Hepcat- everything is open to interpretation. There is no such thing as an absolutist meaning when it comes to art.

Theadall- your questions regarding my genitals- it is really non of your business. Do you know what yours look like? Does it look like the Sile Na Gig? I hope not. Its like the jack o lantern of vaginas! Am I offended by it? Dont make me laugh. It has far more to do with the cultural values of whomever uses/used the image far more than it has anything to do with reality of my very vagina. In other words to the people of ancient Ireland: thats just your opinion.

The fear of the feminine predates the victorians to at least the greeks, eg the medusa.

I will say it again. Hopefully this time, people wont project all over it. I was pointing out a similarity between the images, dirty, mysogonistic - ARE NOT MY WORDS. I did not label it.

Tallesein- I did not label anything as dirty. And you are wrong, labelling something as dirty doesnt make something pornographic. Stop making stuff up about what I said. So, by calling something dirty, it becomes porn. I just dont believe that. So, if you call the millenium spike dirty then that transforms it into something porn? Uh, no, no it doesnt.

Lemming- what do you mean my catholic guilt? I never said there was anything wrong with S&M or D&S. Maybe its your guilt that is leading you project that onto me? All I was wondering if is in S&M, the orgasm is connected to infliticting or receiving pain. Also- I am aware that something can have sadomasochistic value without it being sadomashicism, just as an activity may have therapeutic value without it being therapy itself.

Would have classed Sile na Gigs as Antiquities rather than art, and while much of modern art has the "you take what you want from it" thing going on, the same is not true of antiquities and ancient symbols. They had a definite meaning and in their time they represented images of female fertility.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

You're having an awful lot of last contributions

Is this an attempt to tease me?

well the yard stick you defined limits your praise.

I'm not looking for praise. Are you?

Never said you need to be a blank sheet. You just need to be receptive to the chance you may be wrong, or that everything you thought you knew is wrong.

I am, and I was wrong in bringing about Wikipedia-shyte.

How is a lowly comment. Did I say you preached from a pulpit? Did I accuse you of anything. It was an expression.

You STRONGLY indicated that I did. Or so I felt.

I have done/do give evidence.

What? I see only chit-chat about irrelevant mythical figures Where is the real contemporary pornography in magazines and movies. Is it degrading?

I know plenty thanks.

Let's hear! What do you know about pornography and the feminist debate and whether it is degrading to women or not?

I've never attacked you personally. I've made comments about your posting style and attitude but thats a different thing and if you take it personally, then its your own sensativities.

You've been close to offending me. Not everyone have the same limits as you have. Maybe you are a die-hard, I am not. At least not when talking to someone I don't know and try to have a discussion with him/her/it.