Kaychum = Caterham.

Sade = Sharday.

People are weird.

>> ^zaust:

This is like Dr Doolittle crossed with the Marquis De Sade


hHehhehheh! Marquis De Doolittle-"Talks" to animals to get information!!

This is like Dr Doolittle crossed with the Marquis De Sade

*drugs
*love

The gold roads sure a long road
Winds on through the hills for fifteen days
The pack on my back is aching
The straps seem to cut me like a knife
The gold roads sure a long road
Winds on through the hills for fifteen days
The pack on my back is aching
The straps seem to cut me like a knife

Im no clown I wont back down
I dont need you to tell me whats going down
Down down down down da down down down
Down down down down da down down down

Im standing alone
Im watching you all
Im seeing you sinking
Im standing alone
Youre weighing the gold
Im watching you sinking
Fools gold

These boots were made for walking
The marquis de sade dont wear no boots like these
Golds just around the corner
Breakdowns coming up round the bend

Sometimes you have to try to get along dear
I know the truth and I know what youre thinking

Down down down down da down down down

Im standing alone
Im watching you all
Im seeing you sinking
Im standing alone
Youre weighing the gold
Im watching you sinking
Fools gold

Fools gold

Im standing alone
Im watching you all
Im seeing you sinking
Im standing alone
Youre weighing the gold
Im watching you sinking
Fools gold

I've lived a very sheltered life. Father de Sade keeps me locked in the basement, mostly.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
What, you've never got on top of anything before?! I find that hard to believe

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Being a total slacker, I actually don't know how it is. But I'll take your word for it.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
God, you know... I'm doing my diploma in youth work and i've neglected it lately, procrastination being my middle name. So just getting on top of that really, you know how it is

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Where have you been?

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
Oh pffft

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
This is a story that has you written all over it.

>> ^Bidouleroux:
Someone is wrong on the Internet again, so here goes another long reply... *snip*

Ok, so you try to suggest that I'm linking things together that you never did... let's go back to your original post:

"Well, let's consider this: suddenly people have an urge to see homeless people so they can laugh at them. An industry emerges, paying homeless people a pittance for the right to film them. The films are silent and only show homeless people doing what they do everyday: being homeless. No first-hand degradation, no violence. Would Chomsky approve? No, and for the same reason he doesn't approve of pornography."
You're creating these ridiculous analogies and hypothesis that really have no baring on this. Again, you're assuming the thing being filmed is wrong. You, here are saying that homelessness and being homeless is wrong/degrading, so you're trying to link 'laughing at homeless people' with 'watching people have sex'. You're assuming that the people having sex should feel ashamed or watching them having sex is the same as laughing at homeless people.

It's not.

In any way, so you can just stop trying to create these ridiculous links.

Would Chomsky approve then of a silent documentary showing the hardships of homeless people? Yes. Would Chomsky approve of erotic literature, photography and film? My guess would be again yes. It's all in the message and reception thereof.
I truly get the impression he dislikes anything to do with sex in media, at least he pretends to, tries to sound morally outraged. The thing is, it's shown to be so often the case that the ones screaming the loudest over these 'moral issues' are closet consumers of some of the worst stuff. Time and time again men of the cloth or other 'moral crusaders' have been shown to be engaging in, or consuming exactly the stuff they publicly decry. It seems to be that these people are brought up with the skewed moral stance of 'sex is wrong unless it's with the light off, between man and wife', and yet they have these attractions to sexual material. Their given solution? Try to blame anyone who created the sexual material as if it's their fault that they were 'tempted', rather than seeing that sex in and of itself is not wrong.


"I would guess that for the majority of men, seeing women as objects stems from the primal urge to simply fuck everything that moves. This can also apply to a lesser degree to women in regard to men. It depends on both nature and nurture. Sade even showed us quite graphically that we as a species are the most prone to criminality, in a very wide archaic sense, when we fuck (as it would seem we are wired not to care about anything else but attaining an orgasm)."
See, you, here equate sex with violence. You certainly come across as having the opinion that sex is bad because it makes us all criminals and violent. Absolute bullshit.

Yes there are those who completely succumb to 'primal urges' and are violent to people and forcibly have sex with others... but just because some people are like that you're going to label everyone like that? You use examples from Sade, from the 18th and 19th centuries... people were a LOT less educated, a LOT less enlightened, and a LOT more prone to act out anything they felt.

The deal with education, with being taught about the feelings of others, about becoming more enlightened people is this: We don't have to be violent, we can manage our anger if we get annoyed, we can get aroused by someone and yet know it's not appropriate to just try and have sex with them. This is because we have been brought up to be able to empathize and think 'hmm, I probably wouldn't like to be fucked by this other person just because they want to. I'd prefer to be able to chose who I have sex with'.

However it doesn't mean that pornography, which caters to our sexual urges, is not degrading and objectifying women (here pornography should be taken to mean something along the lines of "the pornographic industry, including the viewers and the profit makers"). Pornography is something that ultimately should not exist in a civilized society, like violence and crime. No one would say violence and crime are needed in a society so that we may quench those violent and criminal urges we have, although most of us are indeed sometimes violent and criminally inclined. We are after all animals, programmed to survive and replicate (be violent and fuck, basically). But staying at the level of animals because it is pleasurable is ridiculous. If everyone thought like that, we'd still be living in trees.

See, reading that, I don't know how you can suggest that you haven't equated pornography with violence. You try to create some weird definition of what pornography is to be included in this thing. I say that pornography is something that is made with the sole intention of arousing the viewer/reader, whereas erotica is something which is more artful, but can still be arousing. Neither of these are inherently wrong.

Insert violence or degradation into them and they are, but you seem to think the very act of recording people having sex is degrading, so you're viewpoint is quite, quite skewed.

You bring up the Marquis a fair bit, you try to equate watching people have sex with watching people being homeless... you have some issues regarding sex, you do, no two ways about it, and that's not me drawing some weird links, that's just reading what you've written.

Someone is wrong on the Internet again, so here goes another long reply...

>> ^spoco2:
But, see, you're taking the stance that images or movies of people having sex is inherently wrong. WHY?

Where exactly do I say that? Please enlighten me. I took the time to define pornography as something that doesn't include the sexual images themselves and you somehow twist this and dare say that I think images and movies of people having sex are inherently wrong? Great non sequitur! Images of violence and criminality aren't inherently wrong either, but see, that doesn't mean violence and criminilaty themselves aren't wrong and that certainly doesn't mean that condoning violence and criminal behavior isn't wrong too. The latter point is the most relevant to pornography, since the sexual act itself isn't what is at stake here. But the act of pornography, defined to incorporate the objectification and degradation of women in a process of sexual gratification is inherently wrong, yes. If your images and movies do not objectify or degrade women for sexual gratification, then don't call it pornography.

Come on, if all the parties in the photos/videos are happy doing so, and no-one is hurt, no-one is treated badly, why is it wrong? Trying to build the fallacious argument that adult entertainment = violence and crime is ludicrous.

I am not equating "adult entertainment" to "violence and crime". Stop trying to subtly change the terms, you're not fooling anyone here (I would hope so). I am making an analogy between pornography and violence/crime. If you don't know the difference between "to equate" and "to make an analogy", I'm sorry for you.

Violence and crime are doing bad things to other people, pure pornography, just showing people having sex is not. It CAN be if the acts depicted are violent or degrading, but that's swinging back to the violence and crime angle. If what's displayed is two people enjoying being with each other, what is wrong with that in any society?

"Pure pornography" doesn't exist. It's your own little semantic wet dream. In any form of communication there is always a message that is inherent in the message itself, given by the outside context or a combination of both. When the context changes, for example when society evolves, the same message can mean other things that what was intended at first. Sade is a great example: condemned as immoral scum by even the most liberal representatives of the Enlightenment, he was then seen simply as a curious pathological case and then recently as a literary genius. Still, his books and their contents haven't changed in 200 years.

You seem to dislike sex because it's a primal' urge and therefore wrong... so, we shouldn't eat then? Or at least not enjoy eating? We shouldn't have sex at all then?
To try and suggest that a civil society has no enjoyment for the sake of enjoyment is missing the point of life.

I would suggest you acquaint yourself with the philosophy of Epicurus. Of course his views are dated now, but you could certainly use a confrontation with a well thought out viewpoint on pleasure and enjoyment that doesn't involve giving way to every desire that comes across your primitive mind.

If you start from the point of view that THERE IS NOTHING wrong with sex, then as long as all people involved in the creation of porn are happy and healthy and enjoying themselves, then THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PORN.

Ok then, if I start from the view that THERE IS NOTHING wrong with lying (a natural action for all of us), then as long as all people involved in the creation of propaganda are happy and healthy and enjoying themselves, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PROPAGANDA? (and here I use propaganda in its pejorative sense, obviously) Your logic is spotless, but your premises are false.

It's just sad that there is a lot of mistreatment in the industry, but that doesn't mean the entire genre is wrong, just many of the people producing it.

The misapplying of an idea or concept by some individuals does not in anyway guarantee the correctness of that idea or concept. I do not see how you could present this blanket statement as an argument. The following is also not an argument concerning pornography by the way: "It's just fun that there is a lot of happiness in the industry, but that doesn't mean the entire genre is right, just many of the people producing it." You just threw something about pornography in the middle of something irrelevant about mistreatment in pornography. In other words, you've put a red herring in your straw man. Again, you're not fooling anyone.

Well, let's consider this: suddenly people have an urge to see homeless people so they can laugh at them. An industry emerges, paying homeless people a pittance for the right to film them. The films are silent and only show homeless people doing what they do everyday: being homeless. No first-hand degradation, no violence. Would Chomsky approve? No, and for the same reason he doesn't approve of pornography.

Would Chomsky approve then of a silent documentary showing the hardships of homeless people? Yes. Would Chomsky approve of erotic literature, photography and film? My guess would be again yes. It's all in the message and reception thereof.


I would guess that for the majority of men, seeing women as objects stems from the primal urge to simply fuck everything that moves. This can also apply to a lesser degree to women in regard to men. It depends on both nature and nurture. Sade even showed us quite graphically that we as a species are the most prone to criminality, in a very wide archaic sense, when we fuck (as it would seem we are wired not to care about anything else but attaining an orgasm).

However it doesn't mean that pornography, which caters to our sexual urges, is not degrading and objectifying women (here pornography should be taken to mean something along the lines of "the pornographic industry, including the viewers and the profit makers"). Pornography is something that ultimately should not exist in a civilized society, like violence and crime. No one would say violence and crime are needed in a society so that we may quench those violent and criminal urges we have, although most of us are indeed sometimes violent and criminally inclined. We are after all animals, programmed to survive and replicate (be violent and fuck, basically). But staying at the level of animals because it is pleasurable is ridiculous. If everyone thought like that, we'd still be living in trees.

this sounds like a Sade song.

i wonder if I could get a Sade track onto the sift... worth a shot!

I should mention that the film is "loosely based on two short stories by Edgar Allan Poe and inspired by the works of the Marquis de Sade."

In reply to this comment by Zifnab:
No, I haven't seen that film, I'll have to check it out if I get a chance. He has a very distinctive style, thanks

In reply to this comment by dotdude:
Have you seen Jan Švankmajer's feature film from 2005 called "Lunacy"? The film is interspersed with animated pieces of meat and tongues. The minute I saw the short, I knew it had to be the same director.