Porn, what's your opinion?

[Klarinette]

I actually get kind of bored with porn. I'm pretty specific about what I like.

 

[KafkaOffTheBeach]

You changed the meaning of the term. That is what is not up for interpretation.

Gaining sexual pleasure from watching others who are not engaging in sexual activity does not change the meaning of the term, it just adds yet another layer to it or possibly would come under a different -philia. That is what I considered interesting. But you cannot change the term, which was coined as a description of the act. Voyeurism has never meant anything but deriving sexual pleasure from watching others engage in intimate activities.

I didn't change the meaning of the term. From the very start I changed the meaning of the reader, viewer, watcher etc. and what the act of 'watching' means to them on the very basest level.
...
Although reading back on it I can see where you might have got the impression that I was trying to change the term.

But even in the original post you keep on trying to refute the fact that the reader is the voyeur.
That is the part that is wrong, and the part that I took particular umbrage at, due to the fact that the reader is, indeed, participating in completely accurate and medically applicable voyeurism from a valid psychological and literary perspective.
Then I started arguing the semantics of the word for no real reason other than to try and show the idea of the reader as the ultimate voyeur - which spiraled into this.
This applies to you as well...

Actually, you are just wrong. The French Root is roughly 'to see' - yes, but the English term Voyeur means "a person who obtains sexual pleasure or excitement from the observation of someone undressing, having intercourse, etc" or, basically someone who engages in Voyeurism. Which means, guess what? Yes! Voyeurism means "the practice of obtaining sexual gratification by looking at sexual objects or acts, especially secretively.".

It's even in the DSM as a paraphilia, not to mention the ICD. You can say what you want; but it isn't going to make you right. What the word means isn't open for debate any more than saying the word Blue actually means Red. It's used inaccurately in common parlance, yes. Does that make that inaccurate usage correct?

No, no it does not.

Because - as a point of honour, I have not used the word or the term incorrectly in this entire 3:02am thread.
Although you've shoehorned the act of 'voyeurism' most inelegantly in a cage it doesn't fit in. The idea of voyeurism was always the sexual observation of intimate behaviours, not the sexual observation of sexual behaviours.
And you've ignored the last, and only, point of my post - that being the change of definition to the idea of the reader.
Which is something that people far more committed than me have written volumes upon.

 

[The Funslinger]

What a bizzare topic...anyway my opinion is that as long it's legal I have no beef with it...To remain tasteful I'll leave it at that.

This, basically. I think that the controversy found with porn in general is best left in the sixties, where it belongs.

 

[Jegsimmons]

as long as porn isnt like "a serbian film" or over the top disgusting, im fine.

 

[Genericjim101]

Quite enjoyable, need much more be said? X D Just as well the OP is only asking for opinions and not fetishes, this thread would take a dive so fast someone would think they'd been linked to /b/.

 

[Kinokohatake]

I am confused as to why voyeurism is getting a bad rap on here. As long as it's not illegal I should be allowed to voyeur away.

Porn is cool. I especially like porn with a bit of an edge as I am a bit of a fetishist. And enjoying it with the wife is always good.

Also hentai can be quite awful. I'm not a fan of rape, crying, incest, more rape, tentacle sex, or women being killed during sex. Or pee. Seriously hentai is a bit gross.

 

[erto101]

this topic reminds me of this video http://www.theonion.com/video/study-children-exposed-to-pornography-may-expect-s,14326/

in early high school it was great, now days i rarely watch it, and generally only watch it with my friends

Is that some sort of joke ?? The video I mean
EDIT: After watching another video (close range) I've come to the conclusion that it is in fact a joke

 

[Stasisesque]

You changed the meaning of the term. That is what is not up for interpretation.

Gaining sexual pleasure from watching others who are not engaging in sexual activity does not change the meaning of the term, it just adds yet another layer to it or possibly would come under a different -philia. That is what I considered interesting. But you cannot change the term, which was coined as a description of the act. Voyeurism has never meant anything but deriving sexual pleasure from watching others engage in intimate activities.

I didn't change the meaning of the term. From the very start I changed the meaning of the reader, viewer, watcher etc. and what the act of 'watching' means to them on the very basest level.
...
Although reading back on it I can see where you might have got the impression that I was trying to change the term.

But even in the original post you keep on trying to refute the fact that the reader is the voyeur.
That is the part that is wrong, and the part that I took particular umbrage at, due to the fact that the reader is, indeed, participating in completely accurate and medically applicable voyeurism from a valid psychological and literary perspective.
Then I started arguing the semantics of the word for no real reason other than to try and show the idea of the reader as the ultimate voyeur - which spiraled into this.
This applies to you as well...

Okay, I'll say it one last time - a voyeur, in English, does not mean someone who watches. It just doesn't, it has never meant that - it has been granted far too much poetic license and now is used as a synonym for one who watches, but it does not mean that. To say the reader is the voyeur is to say the reader takes sexual pleasure from the subject.

If that is what you mean, then okay you're quite right - but only because that is exactly what voyeur means (disputably can also mean to take sexual pleasure in viewing pain).

But no, simply watching someone's life does not make you a voyeur. It never will. Unless you're speaking in and of French.

 

[lord.jeff]

I don't see it as anything special, all genres are about invoking some kind of emotion, horror gets terror, action gets excitement, porn gets lust nothing special.

 

[Midnight Llamaman]

Because - as a point of honour, I have not used the word or the term incorrectly in this entire 3:02am thread.

You have - just because you (and many others) think an Apple is an Orange, it does not actually make the Apple an Orange.

 

[Alanj95]

I enjoy it's existence.

 

[Sojoez]

Links! Where are the links?? I was expecting tons of links with high quality fetish fuel!!!

I don't mind it. Whenever I see a middle aged man at the video store renting 20+ porn movies for the week I think: What a sad t*sser.. But then I think: At least he is just sitting inside masturbating instead of raping students.

I like porn. Its a good way to relieve tension if you are single. Or spice things up as a couple.
In the end it depends on the quality however.

Also... Porn is as old as humankind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Hohle_Fels

 

[ShakyFt Slasher]

It is a horrible thing that I wish didn't exist.

 

[KafkaOffTheBeach]

Because - as a point of honour, I have not used the word or the term incorrectly in this entire 3:02am thread.

You have - just because you (and many others) think an Apple is an Orange, it does not actually make the Apple an Orange.

But then - by that same argument - just because you think that an Apple cannot be an act of sexual release, doesn't mean that it isn't an act of sexual release.
People use it incorrectly because psychologists, theologians and literary theorists use it to describe the reader - by reading the reader so to speak - and so they, that same indelible 'they' of 'you know what they say...' fame, think that they can use it to mean any point of view. I've been using it from the perspective of the literary in changing the core nature of the reader and how we view the reader.
Apart from once where I used it as the French.

Okay, I'll say it one last time - a voyeur, in English, does not mean someone who watches. It just doesn't, it has never meant that - it has been granted far too much poetic license and now is used as a synonym for one who watches, but it does not mean that. To say the reader is the voyeur is to say the reader takes sexual pleasure from the subject.

If that is what you mean, then okay you're quite right - but only because that is exactly what voyeur means (disputably can also mean to take sexual pleasure in viewing pain).

But no, simply watching someone's life does not make you a voyeur. It never will. Unless you're speaking in and of French.

But when you read into the idea of the reader just a tiny little bit, then the reader becomes the voyeur in every sense of the word.
Although I do admit that my shit has gotten all muddled up in the wee small hours of the morning arguing semantics - the reader as a voyeur is an undeniable truth, unless one was to deny the reader the same dubious courtesy that they present to the author. Then the reader becomes no more than a camera and the words a lens.
And if I mention pornography now everyone will think that this is remotely on topic.

EDIT: Actually - apologies. If I don't sleep I'm probably going to die tomorrow.
To keep it on topic for the very first-ish time - I am going to look at Yaoi for a few minutes before I do.
So there.

 

[awesomeClaw]

It is a horrible thing that I wish didn't exist.

Why, exactly?

OT: Porn is totally fine. All "problems" it can cause are because of the mental attitude of the people watching it.

 

[Stasisesque]

Because - as a point of honour, I have not used the word or the term incorrectly in this entire 3:02am thread.

You have - just because you (and many others) think an Apple is an Orange, it does not actually make the Apple an Orange.

But then - by that same argument - just because you think that an Apple cannot be an act of sexual release, doesn't mean that it isn't an act of sexual release.
People use it incorrectly because psychologists, theologians and literary theorists use it to describe the reader - by reading the reader so to speak - and so they, that same indelible 'they' of 'you know what they say...' fame, think that they can use it to mean any point of view. I've been using it from the perspective of the literary in changing the core nature of the reader and how we view the reader.
Apart from once where I used it as the French.

Okay, I'll say it one last time - a voyeur, in English, does not mean someone who watches. It just doesn't, it has never meant that - it has been granted far too much poetic license and now is used as a synonym for one who watches, but it does not mean that. To say the reader is the voyeur is to say the reader takes sexual pleasure from the subject.

If that is what you mean, then okay you're quite right - but only because that is exactly what voyeur means (disputably can also mean to take sexual pleasure in viewing pain).

But no, simply watching someone's life does not make you a voyeur. It never will. Unless you're speaking in and of French.

But when you read into the idea of the reader just a tiny little bit, then the reader becomes the voyeur in every sense of the word.
Although I do admit that my shit has gotten all muddled up in the wee small hours of the morning arguing semantics - the reader as a voyeur is an undeniable truth, unless one was to deny the reader the same dubious courtesy that they present to the author. Then the reader becomes no more than a camera and the words a lens.
And if I mention pornography now everyone will think that this is remotely on topic.

A reader can be a voyeur, provided he derives sexual pleasure from reading about his subjects. However the acts those subjects are engaged in, if not intimate, would fall under completely different paraphilia headers, making Voyeurism, yet again, the act of deriving sexual pleasure from watching others.

Your entire argument, I'm afraid, is baseless and redundant. Voyeurism will always mean what it actually means, and a voyeur will always be someone who engages in voyeurism. This cannot change, it cannot be reinterpreted. You are trying to interpret the acts the viewed subjects engage in. This is a completely different argument.

Say you are the reader, to be a voyeur you would need to be sexually aroused by whatever it is you are watching. If this is anything but an intimate situation, anything we would label as erotic or arousing in a commonly occurring fashion (a massage, sexual intercourse, sexual imagery such as seductively sucking on a strawberry) then we are in the realms of paraphilia as an umbrella term. Voyeurism is a form of paraphilia, and I think maybe that is where you're getting confused.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

I don't see why anyone has a problem with it; it's a perfectly natural act, the people involved are doing it out of their own volition, people are not so psychologically brittle that watching it is going to have any impact on their attitudes toward the opposite/same sex/whatever you're into and it has kept roughly 85% of the male population company on many a lonely saturday night. If you don't like it, don't look it up. If you don't want your kids watching it, then use some fucking initiative and put parental controls/filters up.

It is a horrible thing that I wish didn't exist.

Are we sarcastic, troll, or a prude?

 

[A Free Man]

Yeh I think there's no problem with it. As long as the porn in question is legal then it's fine.

 

[Gigano]

Totally fine with it.

Whatever consenting adults get up to creating with each other - which is not forced upon anyone else - is for no one else to pass judgement on.

 

[Quellist]

I love it, as long as eveyone involved is consenting and hopefully enjoying it too. Hentai is good too though i freely admit there are avenues of hentai i wouldnt go near with an 11' pole...