Efforts to regulate free porn distribution

Lets not kid ourselves, if you use a word Voyeurism, you are projecting very specific image associated with with it, words have meaning. Your position is to show pornography use as "bad" and you call anyone that uses pornography a Voyeur. If I walk outside and ask people to describe what the meaning of the word Voyeur is and what they believe Voyeurism is - you can be sure that they will not identify people using pornography as Voyeurs. Meaning of words is based on what people collectively agree they are and not what one person interprets them to be and in general population Voyeurism does not equal pornography use.
There are negative connotations associated with the word and if you called someone a Voyeur in person they may get aggressive with you, it is a demeaning term.
Yes you can twist the word and apply it to anyone using pornography but language use is defined by people and context not only by word definitions.
You can also call a police officer who killed someone when fighting for his life - a murderer, and theoretically you will be correct but none will agree with you, because murderer is not a word that fits the event although it fits the description.

Person higher in this thread said to you:
Because watching something in real life and watching something on a video isn't the same thing. So we need a different word or our language is diluted.

To which you replied:
The human brain will make no distinction whatsoever. If you've read YBOP you will know.

When someone says "watching something in real life and watching something on a video isn't the same thing" and you reply "The human brain will make no distinction whatsoever" I make logical assumption that you imply that they are the same thing. Because term "no distinction" means no difference and lack of difference naturally means similarity. So YES your writing said they are the same.

Please let me know which ideas in your arguments I did not understand.

 

^ The officer would be a killer (caused biological death) and not a necessarily a murderer (illegally caused biological death) in your example. Might want to edit that to stay ahead of the derail that will most likely follow.

 

Educated adults take responsibility for health and well being of their kids, and help them navigate these issues. Uneducated adults often do not even talk to their kids about sex and avoid these "difficult" topics, they do not know any better.
This very forum is built on the premise that people are unaware, and the very first thing people write in their posts is - if only I had this information before. Well who did not do their job? Government or their family?

 

Hehe, thank you!
Although!!!!
if I had to, I would build my defense of the fact that legality of actions is subjective and... for example a grieving mother of the deceased may still see the officer as a murderer!
Even in the face of overwhelming evidence!
Seeing his actions as a crime and in her eyes worthy of prosecution!!

 

Totally agree

absolutely. I discovered porn when I was 10 years old! It destroyed my life and the reason behind all my shame anxiety and depression and no energy. I think we should protect the children.

 

Pure accussation on your side. Not true at all. Stay with the facts.

ZenAF brought up the exact same argument already, so I'll just repeat my response to him: "That's what you say. Do you have any data or source to back it up? I doubt it. You're argument is based on your subjective perspective on what voyeurism is and isn't. It doesn't follow any intrinsic logic in the sense, that the use of the term follows specific rules (e.g. does the action fit the definition?). I listed three definitions of the word from three different major dictionaries. Watching porn fit in every out of the three. So, where do these dictionaries get their defintions from? That must be the question. The answer is: From society. From the cultural consensus. So, that indicates that you're assumption probably isn't so clear as you might think it is."

And? People will most likely get angry for anything you tell them about themselves, which they consider "bad" not matter how true it might be. So I don't see how this "argument" has any value here.

First of all, legal terminiology is a very bad example since the general public mostly doesn't even have a clue what the terms mean and what their purpose is. Secondly: No, the term does not fit the definition as Recycled already pointed out. "Muderer" is a legal term, so it only applies when all the prerequisites are met. Since they are not met in such cases, the term is not accurate to describe the behavior. And just for your information: Since I don't live in the US and the criminal law systems are somewhat different from country to country, I can't speak for every country, but in Germany for example "killer" as Recycled called it, would also fail to describe the behavior.

That is your "defense"? Really? Don't you see how deeply flawed your line of thought is? First of all, legality is not subjective thank god. We have laws and a (mostly) functioning constitutional state for a reason. If legality would be a subjective matter, then welcome to pure dictatorship and arbitrariness. Secondly, subjective viewpoints do not have any weight when we talk about terms. The definition of the term doesn't fit, therefore we can't use the term to accurately describe the action. Whereas with porn use and voyeurism, it fits the definition perfectly and therefore we can use the term. Simple as that.

What?! I never said anything along those lines ever! You're literally making things up, thus you're entire last paragraph has absolutely no value at all. So, if you want to embarrase yourself futher by making up more stuff, then feel free to continue, but know that it doesn't serve you well in a discussion.

I'll try to explain my main arguments step-by-step, so that you can clearly see where you disagree.

1. So, we want to decide whether or not the use of the term "voyeurism" fits for the act of watching porn.

2. In order to do that, we first have to ask ourselves the question "What is voyeurism?".

3. To find an answer, we could just make up a definition on our own or use whatever we think we know about the term. However, such definitions are deeply flawed most likely because we didn't totally think everything through in great detail or we overestimated our knowledge about what society as a whole thinks about the term.

4. Therefore, it is a better alternative to look up a definition in a dictionary, since they derive their definitions from the cultural consensus among society. Even better would be to take a look in a couple different dictionaries and find the common ground between the given definitions. The common ground will serve as our definition. In our case, I listed a couple different definitions. The common ground among them all was this: "Voyeurism is the act of observing others in sexual context". Now we know what "voyeurism" is.

5. Now we have find out whether or not the action fits the definition. We have to ask "Do I observe others in sexual context, when I watch porn?". The answer is pretty obvious: Of course. So now we know, that watching porn fits the definition of voyeurism.

6. Therefore, it is plausible to use the term to describe watching porn.

7. If we don't like to use the same term (because "our language is diluted"), of course we can think of another one. That's always possible, but not necessary.

 

I'm all in favor of spreading knowledge and discipline and active parenting in addition. And also following the law itself takes discipline. There's no reason we can't do both.

 

Defining 'voyeurism' as simply watching others have sex is dishonest because you're intentionally omitting that the couple engaged in sex are unaware they're being viewed. Watching sex acts in person or on video where consent is given isn't voyeurism, watching the same acts without consent is voyeurism and in some areas is a sex crime.

This is why diluting things is important to avoid.

 

Whether or not voyeurism necessarily includes an element of secrecy is up for debate and not without question, like you seem to believe. Of the three different definitions, which I posted earlier, only one included such an element for example.

 

I can post three definitions that include the aspects that define it as a paraphilia because of the lack of consent. We all know that the everyday, common definition used in society includes that aspect, regardless of what a dictionary says, so why continue to broadbrush the word?

 

This is crucially and cruelly true. We can´t cover the world with our inner life. Thank you for that. I will remember you.

 

I will level with you one last time in an effort to hopefully find some common ground.

My opinion is that critical component of Voyeurism is the fact that person observed is completely unaware of being observed and second component is that the activity happens in real time and not being played back as recording.
This makes Voyeurism different from pornography, because Voyeurism is the activity of violation of someones privacy without their knowledge related to sexuality.

Voyeurism therefor has "sinister" note to it where Voyeur himself or herself takes steps to intentionally violate someone else's privacy without the person being aware and the actual physical act of doing so is what Voyeurism is.

Finally on the legal side, Voyeurism is often described as "Indecent Viewing" and prosecuted under statutes covering trespass, disorderly conduct, or breach of peace. Multiple states have laws prohibiting Voyeurism with significant penalties and even The Supreme Court looked at the issue.

Considering that Voyeurism is very specific behavior that is considered a crime in many developed countries and pornography use is not a crime, there is no logical reason to say that watching pornography is Voyeurism.
Voyeurism is the very act of going out to see or record unsuspecting people engaged in sex related behavior.

Do not know how else to clearly show that these two are NOT the same. If one will get you arrested and the other one does not - there must be a difference.

 

I think we reached a point of discussion, where nothing new is being said. Therefore, I'll just make this last post of mine regarding the topic:

We disagree on this point then. I think your definition is too narrow to accurately describe the core behaviors. No point in further discussion about this point though, since you won't change your opinion and I won't change mine. Let's just agree to disagree.

1. I didn't say the two behaviors are the same. They're clearly not, everone can see that instantly. But the core of the two is similiar enough to make it plausible to use the same term.
2. The simple fact, that one gets you arrested and the other doesn't, isn't really convincing. Buying drugs gets you arrested in most devoloped countries, buying alcohol doesn't. At the same time though, alcohol and (other) drugs are similiar enough in their effects and their behaviors linked to use, to call both "drugs". So, a difference in legal consequences doesn't necessarily mean, that there is a difference between the behaviors. That's not how the law works.

But as I already said: You won't change your opinion, I won't change mine. So, I suggest we just end the discussion right here and let it go.

 

Regardless whether you want to include the nuance of reality vs digital in the term or not: In almost every post I've either suggested or asked for a motive to ascribe the term voyeurism to watching porn in the first place. You didn't give me one good reason why you spend hours defending this point. What do you gain by calling the act of watching porn voyeurism?

 

He wants to make porn use even more demeaning and degrade people who use it further.
I do not think he realizes that though, and his internal position is to "show" people who they "really are" - they are not porn users - he says - they are all voyeurs!
He puts that out - people obviously disagree and he then gets involved in - "I ignore logic and say you are wrong" type of discussion.
I just did not know what he wants and wasted some time on him, he is just not able to have constructive discussion, and is more concerned about how he appears than anything else.

IR254 - You are wrong on this, and do not bother replying, I do not really care anymore what you think.

 

As I said: I won't say anything about the acutal discussion anymore, because everything has been repeated multiple times already. But I won't let myself be personally attacked without comment.

Funny how you think to know better what people think and want, than the people themselves. So, come off your high horse. You're not some kind of god, who knows everything. And your accussation is not even close to the truth. Honestly, I don't even know where you get this idea from. Since I'm not completley porn-free myself yet, I would degrade myself too. That's just bs. This is not about degrading anyone. If you don't understand that, the error is on your side.

First of all, quite a few people agree with me as indicated by their likes on my posts and some short comments during the discussion. Secondly, your accussation is simply ridicouless. If someone wanted to twist the discussion in such a way, then it is you (for a perfect example of your hypocrisy, see below!).

So, you don't get my arguments, as you just admitted. You start to get personal. You "cite" things "I said", although I never said them at all (as everyone in this thread can check!) and nevertheless I'm the one, who is not able to have a constructive discussion? Are you friggin' kidding me?

You're such a hypocrite, dude! Two sentences before you accused me of getting involved in a "I ignore logic and say you are wrong" type of discussion and now you explicitly say, that I am wrong! Maybe you should think about that for a moment, since you just made a complete fool out of yourself. And regarding your "suggestion": If you expect, that you can personally attack me (with things, which are more than ridicouless) and I won't defend myself, then I'll have to dissappoint you.

 

Like I said I do not care what you think, you are the definition of argumentative.

 

Let us not forget, in being adults today, that when we were children, the more you'd take something away from us, the more we sought it out.

Raise kids better.

That's a real solution. We have to be good parents or not have kids at all.

 

The original subject of this thread as stated by OP was:

"Anyone know of any legislative efforts (Bills in progress, etc.) which would regulate the distribution of free porn? I'm not an advocate of governmental regulation of the Internet in general, but I think making porn a "pay-for" would help with this epidemic we're all facing... Free porn is too easy to get to, in my opinion. Thoughts??"

Please keep the discussion on topic.

The definition of "voyeurism" is not the subject of this thread. You're ofcourse free to start your own thread about other subjects.
Please stay on topic in this thread and respect OP's intent and each other's points of view, thank you !

-Beamer
The Moderation Team

 

If you know even just the basics of supply and demand you will know that outright banning porn will just screw things up much harder. If you wish to attack the problem you must kill the demand for porn. But killing that demand doesn’t come from taking it away, it must come from a natural will for it to go away. Addicts will always find a way to satiate themselves, whether by finding it through a different form of addiction or do crazy things to find that same effect.

As for children I think the parents can do a much better job of guiding their children through matters of sexuality. We are living in a time of absentee fathers and bastard sons. I was never taught about porn, masturbation and what It could do to my body. The confusion was torment and I, like many others, have suffered from the cloud of shame that it brought. The only regulation I would like is just in how porn and sex is taught, and that can’t be done if nobody wants to talk.

It’s best government not be involved. I believe that porn, like many of society’s problems, stem from the failure of people at the individual level. There is no remedy the government can provide that we can’t provide ourselves.

There’s nothing dangerous about porn if you don’t use it. Just like there’s nothing dangerous about cocaine if you don’t use it.

I tried my best to explain how I was thinking.