Last 40 Messages
Last 100 Messages
Last 250 Messages
Last 400 Messages
Days prior to yesterday:
Melon Farmers (Dave) [29761. Posted 28-Nov-2013 Thu 22:34]
No mainstream films are not caught up by the dangerous pictures ban.
Banned images are those that are pornographic AND obscene AND extreme
- Pornographic means material that is intended to sexually arouse
- Obscene means is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character. Up to the magistrate or jury but standard hardcore is no longer considered `obscene`
- Extreme means that it realistically depicts bestiality, necrophilia, or or threatens life or serious injury to genitalia, breasts or anus
phantom [29760. Posted 28-Nov-2013 Thu 14:55]
Well, as I alluded to in earlier posts, I cannot stand some of the `academification` of feminist doctrine. (hey, if they can make up words, why can`t I?)
Here`s one particular thing that sticks in my craw.
The terms `sex object` and `objectification`.
These terms were made fashionable among the feminist ranks by leading feminists like Andrea `all-sex-is-rape` Dworkin.
But – and this is important – people like Dworkin had in fact `borrowed` it from someone else.
From whom, I hear you ask. Well, from Immanuel Kant.
So, why Kant? Well, Kant was a leading mind of 18th century German enlightenment. He is deemed a profound intellect and is widely regarded as a razor sharp `definer` of subjects and their nature.
So, to borrow from Kant is to sprinkle your work with gravitas. And it was in fact Kant who spoke of the `sex object` and `objectification`. So folks like Dworkin are `standing of the shoulders of giants` to paraphrase Newton. Or so they would have us believe.
For, pray, what was the context of Kant`s mentioning the `sex object`?
Kant was speaking of sex outside marriage. Yep. Nothing to with the `male gaze` per se. No universal victimhood of woman. No, Kant was an 18th century Prussian, Christian gentleman with the moral views of an 18th century Prussian, Christian gentleman.
It was in that context that Kant spoke of sex outside marriage being merely to sate lust. Whomsoever and whatsoever your partner was, he or she would be a mere sex object through which to satisfy oneself. (I`m sure his bishop approved heartily.)
Now, please, what does this tell us more about? The moral maze of adultery and pre-marital sex; or the individual religious morality of Immanuel Kant?
Yes, Kant mentions pornography, but clearly it is being seen through the prism of sex outside of marriage. The context is perfectly obvious.
So to try to build on Kant is facetious. You can only do so if you accept his basic moral premise; that sex outside of wedlock is morally wrong. Good, wholesome, Christian stuff.
As such, the section on sex outside marriage is hardly viewed as one of Kant`s grand statements. At best it`s an aside which today grates rather badly. But then no historical figure should be condemned for being a product of their times. Kant undoubtedly was a great man. It just does not therefore automatically follow that everything he ever uttered was great.
But here`s the onion.
Do feminists who constantly spout the term `sex object` mean to tell us they strongly disapprove of sex outside marriage? Because this was Kant`s context.
If not, then why are they using Kant`s terminology?
What they claim ties in with the intellectual giant`s work, in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Dworking & Co were pretending to be disciples of the same intellectual tradition, whereas they were perpetrating an intellectual fraud.
Does Harriet Harman know the slightest thing about Kant? Or is it official Labour policy now to deem sex outside marriage an abomination, - in keeping with the views of any right thinking 18th century gentleman?
So there you go. Next time you here a Maria Eagle, or Dianne Abbott et alia rant on about women being seen as `sex objects` you know where the term originates: A blatant misuse by seventies militant feminists of a term coined by an 18th century Prussian professor about sex outside marriage.
tonyinengland [29759. Posted 28-Nov-2013 Thu 13:15]
Violent ` porn ` - very confusing picture. Reference to the UK Extreme Porn Law: The internet , Television is awash with violent pictures / films and You tube videos, eg, War films,horror films, etc, all of which depict life threatening images.
Can anyone confirm if I would be arrested for watching Band of Brothers ( war film ). Also there was a recent film on Horror channel where a guy gets strangled and stabbed...... I presume its illegal, because the guy obviously dies ( acting )
Okay, so I like that stuff and you can see it on main TV channels as well as Internet.
Tony in england