Latest Stats and Facts on Punography

[wuapinmon]

I will see it just because I respect Soderbergh's work. I don't really care where the line between 'porn' and 'art' is drawn. Some art is sexually graphic and some porn has artistic merit. The distinction between which is what only matters for people who set personal restrictions.

Thanks for the honest answer. If you'll allow a follow-up......you have no personal restrictions?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree with many of your points, but I'm afraid I don't agree at all with this. I think it sends a bad message to the men of the church "You can't be trusted", and I think it sends a much worse message to the women of the church "your husband can't be trusted, and you are responsible for keeping him in line". I think this would make it even worse for couples when the man does get involved in porn. If a couple wants to set something up like this on their own, more power to them. In my house, we have some software like this. Both my wife and I know the password. If she suggested that I should not have access to the password, I admit I would be a little put out.

I agree with Clark. I don't like the automatic assumption that all men need to be monitored by their wives.

[RobinFinderson]

Thanks for the honest answer. If you'll allow a follow-up......you have no personal restrictions?

I don't want to watch films that show real violence to people and animals. I guess that is a personal restriction.

[SeattleUte]

I don't want to watch films that show real violence to people and animals. I guess that is a personal restriction.

I call BS on this. Then again, reading more closely, it says "real violence." So I guess dramatized graphic violence is okay with Robin. (You have to read his posts carefully.) Has there ever been a film besides Apocalypse Now that depicted real bloodshed? Also, I bet someone can go over to CG and dig up one of Robin's favorite movie posts and AN will be on it.

[RobinFinderson]

I call BS on this. Then again, reading more closely, it says "real violence." So I guess dramatized graphic violence is okay with Robin. (You have to read his posts carefully.) Has there ever been a film besides Apocalypse Now that depicted real bloodshed? Also, I bet someone can go over to CG and dig up one of Robin's favorite movie posts and AN will be on it.

I watched AN, a long time ago, but don't remember the real violence to animals. I remember watching some movie where Gael Garcia Benel twisted the head off a chicken. That didn't seem to bother me. But I was thinking more of all of those web pages that show video footage of accidents and suicides. I've clicked a few links to that kind of stuff and it always made me sick to my stomach. So no more of that. Even that video someone posted on CUF of the night-vision scene where a suspect is fleeing on foot with a shotgun, and then clearly takes his own life... uggh. I was surprised that was on YouTube.

[ERCougar]

RF brings to mind an interesting question. Which is worse--violence or porn?
MBN mentioned the sacredness of the sexual act, so let's compare violence (which is likely simulated) to sex in mainstream movies (also likely simulated). I'm always entertained when someone says that a movie can be rated R "just for violence" whereas if there's a boob shot, it's suddenly a lot worse. Similarly, I think it's interesting that any lesson on "morality" is automatically assumed to deal with the law of chastity, but that's for a different thread.

EDIT: Really, this should be a new thread, but for D-hole's sake, we'll keep it here.

[SeattleUte]

RF brings to mind an interesting question. Which is worse--violence or porn?
MBN mentioned the sacredness of the sexual act, so let's compare violence (which is likely simulated) to sex in mainstream movies (also likely simulated). I'm always entertained when someone says that a movie can be rated R "just for violence" whereas if there's a boob shot, it's suddenly a lot worse. Similarly, I think it's interesting that any lesson on "morality" is automatically assumed to deal with the law of chastity, but that's for a different thread.

EDIT: Really, this should be a new thread, but for D-hole's sake, we'll keep it here.

No. Robin didn't raise that issue. He said that his sole self restraiint is that he doesn't like to see people getting maimed and killed for real on the Internet. That's where Robin draws the line.

[LA Ute]

RF brings to mind an interesting question. Which is worse--violence or porn?
MBN mentioned the sacredness of the sexual act, so let's compare violence (which is likely simulated) to sex in mainstream movies (also likely simulated). I'm always entertained when someone says that a movie can be rated R "just for violence" whereas if there's a boob shot, it's suddenly a lot worse. Similarly, I think it's interesting that any lesson on "morality" is automatically assumed to deal with the law of chastity, but that's for a different thread.

EDIT: Really, this should be a new thread, but for D-hole's sake, we'll keep it here.

I was talking with my son about this today. As an ER doctor you know better than most of us what it really means when a human body is pierced by a metal projectile shot from a miniature cannon (i.e., a gunshot wound). Destruction of skin, muscle, sinew, bone - plus shock, blood loss, and the like. It's really quite horrific when I think about it. But in movies, that supremely violent act has been made so commonplace that we hardly think about it.

Beyond that, how many movies have we seen in which 5-6 people are killed off at the end, many of them close friends and loved ones of the hero and/or heroine, and at the end the "winners" (usually the hero and/or heroine) are immediately happy, hugging, and kissing (often passionately) while the music rises and the closing credits roll? The intentional killing of a a human being is still a very big deal for most people, and it takes some time to get over it. But not in the movies!

Thanks for giving me my soap box moment of the day.

[RobinFinderson]

No. Robin didn't raise that issue. He said that his sole self restraiint is that he doesn't like to see people getting maimed and killed for real on the Internet. That's where Robin draws the line.

And animals.

[ERCougar]

No. Robin didn't raise that issue. He said that his sole self restraiint is that he doesn't like to see people getting maimed and killed for real on the Internet. That's where Robin draws the line.

No he didn't "raise the issue". He brought to mind the question, a fact that only I could really verify, right? Reread.

Wow...I'm kind of being a jerk. Apologies. Sort of.

[il Padrino Ute]

I was talking with my son about this today. As an ER doctor you know better than most of us what it really means when a human body is pierced by a metal projectile shot from a miniature cannon (i.e., a gunshot wound). Destruction of skin, muscle, sinew, bone - plus shock, blood loss, and the like. It's really quite horrific when I think about it. But in movies, that supremely violent act has been made so commonplace that we hardly think about it.

Beyond that, how many movies have we seen in which 5-6 people are killed off at the end, many of them close friends and loved ones of the hero and/or heroine, and at the end the "winners" (usually the hero and/or heroine) are immediately happy, hugging, and kissing (often passionately) while the music rises and the closing credits roll? The intentional killing of a a human being is still a very big deal for most people, and it takes some time to get over it. But not in the movies!

Thanks for giving me my soap box moment of the day.

I'm bothered less that 3 or 4 dozen people are killed by the hero brandishing a Glock than by the fact that he's able to get that kind of body count from a single 13 round clip.

[wuapinmon]

I don't want to watch films that show real violence to people and animals. I guess that is a personal restriction.

Your answer intrigues me. Certainly there has to be video of people who like to have real violence committed against them in the sexual act. Would this too be restricted, or if it's consensual would it be on the menu? Is it a clear line or more of a "I'll know it when I see it" thing?

[RobinFinderson]

Your answer intrigues me. Certainly there has to be video of people who like to have real violence committed against them in the sexual act. Would this too be restricted, or if it's consensual would it be on the menu? Is it a clear line or more of a "I'll know it when I see it" thing?

My answer was not all that intriguing, so I will have to assume that you are doing this for D-Hole, to keep his dream alive of having the most viewed thread. So I'll help, for D-Hole...

I'm not interested in watching real violence in any form for entertainment. I have to amend my original claim, because I have seen some documentaries that treat subjects where real violence against people is depicted (the planes crashing into the towers, the Columbine tragedy, something about teens paying homeless men to fight each other, etc). The performance artist Chris Burden incorporates consensual violence into some of his work. Three of his early pieces included 1. Having a friend shoot him in the arm. 2. Being nailed through the hands to the top of a VW Beetle. 3. Being kicked down the stair at a museum. I would probably watch these pieces. But I'm not interested in sex and violence. Anything consensual is technically on the menu, but my taste keeps me from ordering.

I also have to amend my original claim, because one of the best scenes in the film Old Boy depicts the protagonist eating a living octopus. The scene is phenomenal.

[wuapinmon]

My answer was not all that intriguing, so I will have to assume that you are doing this for D-Hole, to keep his dream alive of having the most viewed thread. So I'll help, for D-Hole...

I'm not interested in watching real violence in any form for entertainment. I have to amend my original claim, because I have seen some documentaries that treat subjects where real violence against people is depicted (the planes crashing into the towers, the Columbine tragedy, something about teens paying homeless men to fight each other, etc). The performance artist Chris Burden incorporates consensual violence into some of his work. Three of his early pieces included 1. Having a friend shoot him in the arm. 2. Being nailed through the hands to the top of a VW Beetle. 3. Being kicked down the stair at a museum. I would probably watch these pieces. But I'm not interested in sex and violence. Anything consensual is technically on the menu, but my taste keeps me from ordering.

I also have to amend my original claim, because one of the best scenes in the film Old Boy depicts the protagonist eating a living octopus. The scene is phenomenal.

It's intriguing because you seem to have thrown off the vestiges of the Mormon heteronomous morality for a Kantian autonomous one, and I'm not sure whether you have defined your new morality to yourself yet, or whether your viewing choices are a matter of personal taste. That's why I'm intrigued.

[RobinFinderson]

It's intriguing because you seem to have thrown off the vestiges of the Mormon heteronomous morality for a Kantian autonomous one, and I'm not sure whether you have defined your new morality to yourself yet, or whether your viewing choices are a matter of personal taste. That's why I'm intrigued.

The morality code is simple enough: I don't want to directly contribute to market forces that encourage real violence to people and animals.

The Bumfights videos are an example of what is off limits.