Originally posted by duecerIf material is (b) intended to cause sexual arousal, but fails to do so in nearly everyone, or (b) is not intended to cause sexual arousal, but manages to do so in nearly everyone, is it still porn? I think not in the former case, but perhaps so in the latter.
1. sexually explicit material: films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal
2. sexual images industry: the production or sale of sexually explicit films, magazines, or other materials
What if sexually explicit materal is intended to cause offence (i.e., depictions of Muhummad naked) or disgust (depictions of fat and ugly fat naked), but still either does or does not inadvertently cause sexual arousal in some people? Is it still porn?
It seems to be that the potential to cause disgust and offence in some (albeit it unintentionally) is as central to porn as the potential to cause (deliberately) sexual arousal in others. Why else would it be so controversial?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo.
Is this a dogma of infallibility similar to the Pope's ?
You make it impossible to discuss or debate any issue about moderation, because you believe you're always right and you seemingly won't ever change your mind, so I won't discuss it anymore.
You've also made your thoughts about moderation in general clear before too.
Therefore, post some links and see which one gets you banned.
Originally posted by CrowleyOf course, I believe I'm right; so does anybody who espouses a position. Don't discuss anything with me if you don't want to, but don't make such a lame excuse.
No.
You make it impossible to discuss or debate any issue about moderation, because you believe you're always right and you seemingly won't ever change your mind, so I won't discuss it anymore.
Therefore, post some links and see which one gets you banned.
Believe it or not, I don't post links with the idea of provoking a response from the Mods; I post links that are relevant to the discussion.
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe my wording wasn't perfect there - obviously you 'believe you are right'.
Of course, I believe I'm right; so does anybody who espouses a position. Don't discuss anything with me if you don't want to, but don't make such a lame excuse.
Believe it or not, I don't post links with the idea of provoking a response from the Mods; I post links that are relevant to the discussion.
What I mean to say is, you seem to come into this type of argument KNOWING you won't change your mind. Ever. No matter what anyone says. Which makes discussion from the mods' point of view pointless.
Originally posted by CrowleyIf you mean the Mods' point of view is that someone must change their position because the Mods say so, then you are right.
Maybe my wording wasn't perfect there - obviously you 'believe you are right'.
What I mean to say is, you seem to come into this type of argument KNOWING you won't change your mind. Ever. No matter what anyone says. Which makes discussion from the mods' point of view pointless.
If you mean that I won't ever change a position, then you are wrong. It does require some sort of logical argument rather than "This is the way it is, Gramps" though.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBut how can something like "What is porn" or "What is racist" ever be defined absolutely, black-on-white? It's impossible and subjective, in my opinion at least.
If you mean the Mods' point of view is that someone must change their position because the Mods say so, then you are right.
If you mean that I won't ever change a position, then you are wrong. It does require some sort of logical argument rather than "This is the way it is, Gramps" though.
Something is offensive etc. to me, but not to you. I'm sorry, but that is the best I can do...
We try to be as consistent as humanly possible, using common sense, taking into account the 'feelings' of this 'community', if you can call the alerts that.
Originally posted by CrowleyThere is some degree of subjectivity in any definition, of course. But when there are rules there is some attempt to define something in a way that is meaningful to the persons who are expected to abide by said rules. I suppose I'm asking for a "reasonable adult" standard. I do not regard the number of alerts here as representative of any type of community feeling as many of the alerters have axes to grind against particular users.
But how can something like "What is porn" or "What is racist" ever be defined absolutely, black-on-white? It's impossible and subjective, in my opinion at least.
Something is offensive etc. to me, but not to you. I'm sorry, but that is the best I can do...
We try to be as consistent as humanly possible, using common sense, taking into account the 'feelings' of this 'community', if you can call the alerts that.
By any reasonable standard, Playboy.com isn't pornography. If the Mods want to say it is unacceptable here, fine; it's not like I make a habit of linking to it (I did in the case discussed because it was relevant to the discussion, though the discussion was rather a lightweight one). But I do object to getting a threatening PM saying I might get banned for linking to "porn" because I linked to a photo of a partially nude woman. This is beyond silly; it is an abuse of the system. I'm somewhat surprised that CFT decided to flog this dead horse; the incident occurred about two months ago. You can hardly expect me to not give my opinion when the incident is dredged back up by a Mod for his own reasons.
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundFrame it if you desire; I've yet to hear a reasonable definition that would include it. The vast majority of the photos at Playboy.com aren't even semi-nudes and that site, unlike this one, doesn't give an age restriction in its Terms of Use.
This should be framed, and titled "No1's subjectiveness"
😛
Here's the definition of "obscenity" the US Supreme Court came up with in 1973 (it's still the legal definition):
"(a) whether the 'average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
If found obscene, a material is considered "unprotected speech" and sale of such can be banned by local laws. I have no doubt at all that if any community tried to ban the sale of Playboy as "obscene" the court proceedings would be extremely short.