<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, maybe I missed this, but when did a show that accurately portrays the investigation and conviction of perpetrators of truly heinous - but realistic - crimes become vulgar or vindictive entertainment? Maybe I’m horribly desensitized, but it seems to me that SVU does the exact right thing, and portrays such violence accurately while absolutely not glorifying it - unlike many other forms of entertainment.</p>
<p>IN MY OPINION, depicting accurate realistic violent crimes is pornographic, whether or not the perpetrators get punished or whatever. It’s the realistic depiction that bothers me. You can say it doesn’t glorify it, but it does desensitize us to such images.</p>
<p>dmd, </p>
<p>Your usage made me go back and review the meaning of “pornography” which in essence means no redeeming social value. I think you should re-think your slang usage of it, as it contradicts your own philosophy of desensitization (which I agree with, BTW). </p>
<p>Pornography = bad, in my mind. It only exists to satisfy prurient interests and based on my own experience, the realistic portrayal of pornographic sex really does de-sensitize the average viewer to the positive, beautiful side of human sexual relations. I most certainly would prefer that my sons and daughters not view pornographic sexual imagery until AFTER they have experienced a positive real-life sexual relationship. I know I am naive, but I can hope, can’t I?</p>
<p>Legal definition of OBSCENITY is no redeeming social value. The definition of pornography is as follows: “sexually explicit material: films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal” [pornography</a> definition - Dictionary - MSN Encarta](<a href=“http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861737876/pornography.html]pornography”>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861737876/pornography.html)</p>
<p>If you think SVU isn’t intended to be arousing… you’re far less of a cynic than I am.</p>
<p>Western Eurpoeans must think we’re thye biggest prudes on the planet, they show full frontal on regular t.v.</p>
<p>Post #105:
“Western Eurpoeans must think we’re thye biggest prudes on the planet, they show full frontal on regular t.v.”</p>
<p>A lot of people you encounter in the U.S. hold a “sky is falling” mentality when it comes to the topic of sexuality and the portrayal of it in the media. They seem to feel that the very fabric of “civil” society hinges on certain ideals.(such as limiting knowledge/awareness of sex in all its beauty, as well as its perceived ugliness) </p>
<p>I find it comical that people lump violence and sex together. </p>
<p>I am also amused by those that wish to bury their heads in the sand to the inherent ugliness of existence. Life is a duality of subjective filth and beauty, simultaneously present in a chaotic mish-mash of other individual lives. Sheltering yourself and your children from the ugly under the guise of the “family” is just a small step towards an idealism based on denial. In the end, children raised in such an environment are only being short changed, for when they truly face trauma that life holds in store, they will be in for a rude awakening…</p>
<p>This is mainly a philosophical point, and I’m probably being a tad cynical. I just think that in any familial unit, the child shouldn’t be shielded from every “bad” thing. Children in the past(and in many countries today) grew up in wretched conditions facing(among other things) famine, slavery, disease and war. Those that escaped and transcended these conditions were stronger for it. </p>
<p>Today what dangers affect children of white suburban America? Why the evils of internet porn of TV violence!!!</p>
<p></p>
<p>I do not perceive full-frontal nudity to be the least bit pornographic. I already said I think the human body is beautiful. It is the way sexual relationships are portrayed in pornography that bothers me - as a completely unfeeling, disrespectful, selfish end-in-itself act.</p>
<p>I absolutely believe that children should be sheltered from the shock of some peoples’ ugly existences. They have enough to learn about living well without having to worry about the awful side of life, at least until they are old enough to understand it.</p>
<p>dmd - okay on your definition of porn. Dictionary.com had another one - more in line with my understanding of it.</p>
<p>I would like to apologize to anyone I have offended in this thread recently. I’ve had a lot of catty high school drama going on, and I think it’s making me say some things I wouldn’t normally say. 
I’m going to back out of this thread now before I say anything else that I might regret later.</p>
<p>The OP’s son is 18. He may not be a “sovereign adult” like someone claimed, but chances are he’s seen a vagina before.</p>
<p>Why do I get the feeling that we, as a nation, are consenting to have our sexual mores dictated to us by a small group of evangelicals and post menopausal women?</p>
<p>Full frontal nudity can be pornographic, beautiful, obscene or one or two or all three… It depends entirely on circumstances.</p>
<p>Why do I get the feeling that we, as a nation, are consenting to have our sexual mores dictated to us by a small group of evangelicals and post menopausal women?
Which of those groups decided that sex education in schools needn’t be accurate?
Which group decided that Viagra would be covered by insurance but pharmacists could deny filling contraceptive prescriptions?
Which of those groups decided that selling thongs ( underwear not flip flops) to young girls was a good idea.
Which group gave us [Li’l</a> Kim](<a href=“http://news.softpedia.com/news/Lil-Kim-A-Good-Role-Model-Despite-Jail-9061.shtml]Li’l”>http://news.softpedia.com/news/Lil-Kim-A-Good-Role-Model-Despite-Jail-9061.shtml) as a role model?</p>
<p>Why do I get the feeling that those who are more comfortable with women as pin-ups and as one- dimensional as possible ( except for the blow up dolls) are the ones who are complaining about negative attention surrounding attempts to [sexualize 10 year olds.](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602263.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602263.html</a>), because they don’t have a chance with an adult woman.</p>
<p>SVU
seriosuly?
how the hell is that arousing?
its DEPRESSING! and most definitely unappealing!</p>
<p>
I don’t know, but apparently porn turns men into crazy perverts who obsess over 10 year old girls, have no chance at adult women, and cannot function properly in society. I mean, it is not racism, or poverty, or AIDS or religious fundamentalism that I’m upset about. This is clearly what is wrong with America today. Our dear boys are just so damn dull and slow that there is no way in hell they would be able to tell the difference between the sexual objects they see on a computer screen and the girls that live in the next room over. Therefore, individuals who watch porn see women as one dimensional pin-ups with vaginas and are all depraved, bad, bad people that can’t get any action. Basically, our generation is f*****. So let’s not push the subject and just give ourselves over to Jesus and listen to Mommy. Because us boys, we’re nothing but a bunch of horndogs that think with our friend in our pants. We’re just too damn stupid to differentiate entertainment from reality. And that is why we need postmenopausal moms and crazy bible thumpers to tell us how to live our lives.</p>
<p>What bothers me a lot more than porn are video’s of people getting hurt or worse. There was one such video advertised on tv years ago, the one with the man at a train station with his son, which revolted me even though it was skillfully edited avoiding any actual mayhem during the ad. Why anyone would choose to watch such a thing is beyond my comprehension.</p>
<p>And having been a teenage boy once myself, fascinated with Playboy and such, I am certain the internet would have been today’s substitute.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because unlike a great many in our society, they recognize there is “truth” as unpopular as that is to those who see everything as relative. And they also understand what the opposite of speaking truth is …</p>
<p>Indeed, the body of a woman is undoubtedly one of Creation’s lovliest. Unfortunately, if we are brutally honest, dare I say “truthful”, in most instances as men view it thru a Playboy magazine or Vic Secret catalog, that is the farthest notion from our thoughts.</p>
<p>Whistle pig I have also found that most men I know are a lot more romantic than women, women as the bearers of the DNA, are much more pragmatic.</p>
<p>Regarding high school boys and porn on the internet- I can only hypothesize, as I have been told men are more visual than women. I don’t think that mainstream pornography is going to make their hair fall out or warp them for life.
If.
But we have already seen several threads where boys usually are addicted to computer game playing to the point their parents are extremely concerned. What about the boys who then are addicted to finding porn online, and do so because it is easier in the short term, to pretend that, that gives them some sort of connection with another human.</p>
<p>Adolescents can be pretty highly sexually charged as it is, I really don’t think they need porn for sexual release, especially something that is less regulated than what is found in mainstream magazines.
As has been pointed out, previous generations have found Victoria Secret billboards and Playboy to more than meet their needs.</p>
<p>If my memory serves a fruit bowl with bananas and grapefruits is enough to set a teenage boy over the edge, I don’t think they should have access to the stuff on the internet, particulary as I think that much is deadening.</p>
<p>The connection between the barrage of female sexual images we are faced with daily and the age that is being lowered as to when females are to be considered by others as sexual is not a separate matter.</p>
<p>No, most boys who pass through adolescence will not become addicted to porn, will not rape and will hopefully find partners that are appropriate and loving.</p>
<p>However, the depersonalization of females as they are presented in our culture does encourage rationalization of treating them as " sexually available " at all times.</p>
<p>When we blame women( and girls) for sexual harrassment/abuse that they have experienced, if they are attractive, if they dress in a sexually provocative manner, if they had any sort of contact with the abuser previously.</p>
<p>I speak from personal experience, that just having large breasts, gives some boys and men, the idea that you are sexually available. Not only that, but your actions, such as fighting them, makes them reason that " you actually want it you just can’t admit it".</p>
<p>Women do not mean maybe when they say “no”, they do not mean " yes" when they say " no" and wearing a t-shirt, when your cup size is 32 E is not an invitation to grope them.</p>
<p>BTW- I am not post menopausal, I am actually still having regular periods thank you for asking & have a very active sex life. I see no connection between wanting human beings to want to have respect for themselves and others with a lower supply of sex hormones incidentally, perhaps someone could explain that line of reasoning?</p>
<p>( and since a lower amount of hormones is a natural part of the aging process, why is that fact used to scorn the opinion of those who have gained wisdom with maturity?)</p>
<p>“I am also amused by those that wish to bury their heads in the sand to the inherent ugliness of existence. Life is a duality of subjective filth and beauty, simultaneously present in a chaotic mish-mash of other individual lives. Sheltering yourself and your children from the ugly under the guise of the “family” is just a small step towards an idealism based on denial. In the end, children raised in such an environment are only being short changed, for when they truly face trauma that life holds in store, they will be in for a rude awakening…”</p>
<p>And yet, people persist in bathing in clean water rather than filthy water. Your argument, while reasonable on its face, is used to justify an entertainment diet that contains a disproportionate amount of ugliness compared to beauty. If every time a teenager went to see “Saw II” he was also required to go see “Chariots of Fire,” it might be a different situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>May I remind you again that this is a discussion of parental responses to the choices of offspring living at home, not the “sexual mores” of the “nation.” </p>
<p>It is amusing to me that so many are soooooo defensive and reactive about this.</p>
<p>I do not find the smirking insults and insinuations about women to be the least bit amusing, however. If regular viewing of porn turns adults into the type of misogynist we see here among some of porn’s most vocal defenders, those defenders are, perhaps, walking proof of porn’s alleged deleterious effects.</p>
<p>
I’ll bet Mrs. Spitzer didn’t find the ex Gov “romantic” once she discovered what was likely really in his brain when she put on that Vic Secret pushup. 
Yea, I’m plenty confident that most women find that really romantic … only if they’re thinking about Mr. Chipendale in the heat of passion. Wow, how genuinely intimate. What delusions we love. </p>
<p>
Not so. Studies, which are challenging to do and to uncover, show 70% of men with access to computer, in fact watch it. You may not call that “addiction” but many would and should.</p>