Go to Fishing in the Rivers of Light
- Add a comment
- Go to SEX & VIOLENCE
This has been a useful discussion.
Let me add that there's a feminist critique (uh oh, there's another label!) of porn that is not entirely different from the critique often considered "conservative" or "puritan": that the image of women's bodies being portrayed to stimulate a sexual response objectifies and demeans women. This is one of those issues on which adept conservatives in the U.S. will gladly take the feminist-left rhetoric to its advantage: "Not only is this filth immodest and immoral, but it demeans women by portraying them merely as sexual objects!"
Your view of labels makes sense, though. For one thing, labels dehumanize. They treat people as quantities to be defined for political purposes. Thus "The left-wing" or "the right-wing", on top of oversimplifying the issue, gets to disguise personal insult as political argument. I still catch myself doing this.
For another thing, labels are so loaded with emotional meaning, including hidden or latent meaning, (hence why even liberals tend to shrink from the name, while conservatives gladly embrace theirs because the Reagan revolution successfully defined the word "liberal" as pejorative). As you say, the labels get in the way of an enlightening discussion.
I think it's partly because many people desire to associate with a group that offers them moral support, and the attendant satisfaction of feeling outraged and superior toward the opposing group. I absolutely cannot back this up, but I really think there's something to this theory. It would explain the rhetorical hoops and contortions people go through to stay in line with their group when logic clearly would lead them elsewhere.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on
September 10, 2005
at
12:16 PM
| |
reply
Damon,
thanks for educating this American on hand-canons. I truly did NOT know!!!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on
September 7, 2005
at
7:07 PM
| |
reply
Damon
The Daily Mail especially is very fond of starting wars against video games to the point where it's become a standard joke amongst those who write for video games magazines and such like. I don't buy newspapers to read, but I do buy them for my puppy to piss and shit over.
posted by
chris2303
on
September 7, 2005
at
1:58 AM
| |
reply
JanesOpinion...
...OK, that makes sense. You did leap to a conclusion, didn't you? For future reference, it's highly unlikely that a British writer like myself would talk in terms of liberal and conservative, terms that seem to carry much weight and emotion in the US, as Dylan pointed out earlier. We just don't really 'get' your labelling system and, personally, I find it kinda gets in the way of any true discussion. This one, for example, is around sex and violence, and why it is we react so much more strongly against depictions of sex - a natural act - than we do against violence. And thank you for your contribution to it! But for me, as soon as we start labelling a position, we close it right down to the listeners understanding of that label and no more.
A hand canon? For someone who lives in gun-totin' US of A, I'm stunned you're unfamiliar with this term for a very large handgun!
Thanks very much for your interest and comment.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on
September 7, 2005
at
1:19 AM
| |
reply
Chris...
...thanks for your comment - though I struggle to get the newspaper connection. Do you buy them? Which ones? I pride myself on not having bought on of any kind since 2000.
Cheers!
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on
September 7, 2005
at
1:12 AM
| |
reply
Ah yes, well let me clarify my statement
(and hopefully make a point) . . . You mentioned in your opening paragraph something about the good and the righteous getting all excited about the contents of this video so my mind jumped right over to the religious right and similar terms that Christians have gotten pegged with. Perhaps I jumped to conclusions, but it is often Christian conservatives who rail against both porno movies AND violence so I came to the conclusion that you were speaking out against conservatives . . . which is why I mentioned Clinton. My apologies for taking a flying leap and perhaps landing on my face.
But weighing in with my own opinion, I would say that as a Christian I definitely condone neither violence nor porn in movies. Both can be destructive. Watching violent movies actually causes a release of hormones into the brain and has a physical effect on the brain chemistry and function of a young person. I'm sure this is one cause of all the horrific violence in this country, particularly in inner cities although that's not the only reason.
But studies have also shown that porn has a similar effect leading to a bunch of oversexed young men, likely leading to increased numbers of STDs, rape, unwanted pregnancies, etc. Furthermore, studies have shown that men who spend a lot of time watching porn are less satisfied with the sex life shared with their own spouse.
Having said all that, though, I do find it suspect that people would be in an uproar over a video that is notorious for its horrific violence -- with one subliminal sex scene added in. One could easily conclude that it's rather banal to get all excited about this subliminal scene when the videos are known for their violence and corrupting ways. Having never seen the video in question, I'm not a good one to speak!
Violent or horror movies and porno movies have one thing in common: they have the potential to become highly addictive. I'm sure the producers know this, which is why they bend over backwards to make subsequent movies even more violent or sexual. Rather than being addicted to pain killers or sleeping pills, people become addicted to these movies. There's no difference!
OK, I'm jumping off my soap box, but first I must ask you, what is a "hand canon"?
posted by
JanesOpinion
on
September 6, 2005
at
4:04 PM
| |
reply
Damon
Yes but Damon, think of the poor newspapers. If we didn't let them publish a complete and utter load of bollocks every day then how would they make any money? More importantly, how would we know what to think? It's not as if God leaves clear instructions...
posted by
chris2303
on
September 6, 2005
at
6:52 AM
| |
reply
Ca88andra...
...and that's another thing about this. The games especially, and films / cartoons to a lesser extent, hold their interest with violence. But the games seem to be the most addictive, with level after level after level keeping them driving for a bigger and bigger score.
There's also a concern around imprinting. I once played a moto-cross computer game for some ridiculous (for me) period of time like four or five hours! The reason I stpooed is that the screen appeared to be flickering. Actually, my eyes were getting locked into the pulse of the display! Then, when I went to bed, all I could 'see' when I closed my eyes was terrain and bikes and tracks! That stuff was imprinted on my brain, and it took me a good hour to fall asleep.
If kids are spending hours on violent games on a daily basis, what on Earth is that doing to their little minds??
Thanks for the comment, m'dear.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on
September 6, 2005
at
4:07 AM
| |
reply
My youngest son wants that game and he's not quite 13 yet! Naturally we have said no to him. But some of his friends have it so of course he's played it before. I think I would rather have the boys watch sex than violence, if I had to make the choice. But I know they would be bored with sex after awhile, whereas violence - especially the violence on games - just seems to hold their interest.
posted by
Ca88andra
on
September 6, 2005
at
3:55 AM
| |
reply
Pat B...
...thank you for your take and insight on this. It seems I've hit a topic that is close to many hearts, and yet seems rarely talked about, at least in this context.
Cheers!
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on
September 6, 2005
at
2:12 AM
| |
reply
Here's the thing...
some people think the sex act is to be hidden from children under 13. These same puritans read every gory detail of any rape reports or news about the abuse of children, etc. -- it's their way of watching porn. Ain't it awful, they say, and gossip about the story ad nauseum. They're the ones who get their panties in a bunch about someone's wardrobe malfunction in the midst of the healthy violence and weird ads at the super bowl. I can't understand why it's okay for twelve year olds (and younger) to watch vicious slasher movies, but one flash of a nipple during a dance number is a moral outrage. Which is the long way of saying ditto to your comment and questions.
posted by
Pat_B
on
September 5, 2005
at
4:39 PM
| |
reply
And Another Thing...
...when you wrote "and/or the logical stimulation that may accompany it" I don't think I've ever heard wanking referred to in such an academic way!
Cheers!
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on
September 5, 2005
at
10:33 AM
| |
reply
Dylan...
...I'm keen to learn more about that phenomena.
See, it really confuses me when folk leap in and thwack labels on me, on others, on a post, on a position. What does it achieve, I find myself asking, other than dumbing down complex issues into basic questions around Us and Them?
This is a classic example. I neither mentioned liberal or conservative, nor did I mention any individuals to point the finger at, nor did I mention religion. And yet Jane leapt in with a name and a label for that name, as if that explained everything.
I still suggest it explains nothing. It is, to me at least, completely irrelevent! It does nothing to explain this dichotomy of how we deal with sex and violence so differently, and it advances our collective understanding not one iota.
Thanks for the insight!
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on
September 5, 2005
at
10:30 AM
| |
reply
And another thing:
As to Jane's point, the point is that since it was a liberal getting her panties in a wad about this, that we shouldn't blame religious conservatives for this kind of overreaction. Conservatives interpret liberals' behavior in whichever way is convenient depending on circumstances: if it validates the right's opinion, then the right uses the left's rhetoric to fuel its own case; if it challenges the right's opinion, the right decries the liberal rhetoric that it would otherwise use to its advantage. It's hard to explain, but the phenomenon is very powerful in this country.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on
September 5, 2005
at
9:14 AM
| |
reply
Damon,
I actually suspect Kooka's reaction is more common than you think.
For a dad to catch his adolescent son in the act of watching porn (and/or the logical self-stimulation that may accompany it) is proof that the son is not gay. In the U.S. that is still a relief for many dads.
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on
September 5, 2005
at
9:11 AM
| |
reply
JanesOpinion...
...interesting, but what's your point?
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on
September 5, 2005
at
12:45 AM
| |
reply
ginnieb...
...thanks for the insights - we live in a strange world, for sure.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on
September 5, 2005
at
12:43 AM
| |
reply
kooka...
...a refreshing attitude indeed - but not a very common one, I suspect!
Thanks for reading.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on
September 5, 2005
at
12:42 AM
| |
reply
Ah, just to clarify something . . .
it was our very own Senator Hillary Clinton who was all up in arms over the video game and its hidden porno. And she, I shouldn't have to remind you, is as liberal as the day is long.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on
September 4, 2005
at
5:03 PM
| |
reply
Excellent post Damon...
...this is something that bothers me as well. When my children were young I did my best to keep them from watching violent acts on television and belonged to a group that was against violent toys. While I may have sheltered them too much in this way (though they now say they agree with this 'sheltering') I always thought it ridiculous that censoring sex,which as you say is a natural part of life was grouped right in there with censoring violence. When with my stepdaughters..who are younger...and picking out movies or going to the cinema...we look at the ratings according to violence not sex. An "R" rating could mean someone said the 'f' word or there is a scene depicting intercourse or that it's violent as hell! They are grouped under the same ratings! If it's "R" for violence then I don't even want to see it. I agree...it's really stupid!
posted by
ginnieb
on
September 4, 2005
at
8:16 AM
| |
reply
I've never understood that fear of sex myself
And if I caught my 13 year old son watching porn in his room, I would close the door and back away. I would then break down in laughter and think 'He's just like his dad.' I very much would not take it seriously at all.
posted by
kooka_lives
on
September 4, 2005
at
7:22 AM
| |
reply
Copy (or write down) this comment's web address (URL), which is:
Next, go to the email or web page where you want to link to this comment, and paste
(or type) the web address.
