Latest Stats and Facts on Punography

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Debate is a good thing, neeless to say. But your proposed "debate" is nothing but inanity. There is no point in dignifying the university's position by calling its censoring a work of artistic genius debateable. All the more so given BYU's claim to being a university. I feel sorry for the craven art faculty. I wonder if they had the gumption to use this as an object lesson for good and evil. Maybe that famous clip of Nazis throwing books into a bonfire would have been a good visual aid. There was nothing motivating BYU's decision other than empty puritanism.

First off, I don't know if BYU's decision was nothing but "empty puritanism." I tend to agree with BBB, in that BYU just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of the puritanical members complaining to them. It's the same reason why caffeinated drinks aren't sold on campus. They view the benefit as marginal and not worth the hassle of dealing with the puritanical faction of the church.

In hindsight, the decision was an exceptionally poor one. 1) The benefit to displaying Rodin's statues is probably something above marginal; 2) The publicity that resulted from BYU not displaying the statues was widespread and negative, made the university look bizarre and probably hurt its academic reputation.

[wuapinmon]

First off, I don't know if BYU's decision was nothing but "empty puritanism." I tend to agree with BBB, in that BYU just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of the puritanical members complaining to them. It's the same reason why caffeinated drinks aren't sold on campus. They view the benefit as marginal and not worth the hassle of dealing with the puritanical faction of the church.

In hindsight, the decision was an exceptionally poor one. 1) The benefit to displaying Rodin's statues is probably something above marginal; 2) The publicity that resulted from BYU not displaying the statues was widespread and negative, made the university look bizarre and probably hurt its academic reputation.

Noted.....isn't Rodan one of Godzilla's enemies?

[Commando]

yes he was...

on another note, does anybody remember the Simpsons where Marge became the lead crusader for decency but loses her throne when she refuses to protest Michaelangelo's David visiting the Springfield museum?

[RobinFinderson]

First off, I don't know if BYU's decision was nothing but "empty puritanism." I tend to agree with BBB, in that BYU just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of the puritanical members complaining to them. It's the same reason why caffeinated drinks aren't sold on campus. They view the benefit as marginal and not worth the hassle of dealing with the puritanical faction of the church.

In hindsight, the decision was an exceptionally poor one. 1) The benefit to displaying Rodin's statues is probably something above marginal; 2) The publicity that resulted from BYU not displaying the statues was widespread and negative, made the university look bizarre and probably hurt its academic reputation.

Of course it was "empty puritanism." BYU is an institution, not a person. It doesn't have motive and second thoughts. It is defined by what it does, not the rationale of the individual decision makers. Maybe a few people with influence on the choice thought one way, and a few other felt differently. That doesn't make the final choice nuanced. It was an institutional choice to reflect the values of those people who would not see the value in Rodin's work.

[wuapinmon]

I just realized that SU killed this thread by breaking Godwin's Law. Thanks, dude....now d-hole's dream will wither on the vine.


Unless we talk about porn some more.

[SeattleUte]

I just realized that SU killed this thread by breaking Godwin's Law. Thanks, dude....now d-hole's dream will wither on the vine.


Unless we talk about porn some more.

Professor, you don't understand Godwin's Law.

The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases in direct proportion to the length of the discussion. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

My comparison was apt. A "university" censoring an artistic work of genius is deplorable. You aren't supposed to overuse comparisons to Nazis so that comparisons such as mine resonate. By the way, we have an understanding here that if you don't respond to a post of mine it means you agree with it.

The fact that you, a PhD or PhD candidate in humanities, can't spell Rodin's name really says it all about BYU.

[SeattleUte]

Here is my source on Godwin's law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[wuapinmon]

The fact that you, a PhD or PhD candidate in humanities, can't spell Rodin's name really says it all about BYU.

I assure you that at one point in my life, I knew it was Rodin; today it wasn't a lapsus calumni, I merely forgot the spelling of an artist's name who I never really studied, in depth, in a non-phonetic language which isn't one of the three I speak, fluently.

You don't like BYU....we get it. And, my PhD isn't from BYU.

[wuapinmon]

Here is my source on Godwin's law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

My usage is mentioned amongst the corollaries, and I was trying to inject a little humor back into this thread.

Shall I fellate Borges now or later?

[SeattleUte]

My usage is mentioned amongst the corollaries, and I was trying to inject a little humor back into this thread.

Shall I fellate Borges now or later?

I think you've done your part as far as injecting humor in this thread. I think you and woot do a great mutt and jeff (sp?) (LA, lighten up!). But please, give us more if you're not tapped out.

[wuapinmon]

I think you've done your part as far as injecting humor in this thread. I think you and woot do a great mutt and jeff (sp?) (LA, lighten up!). But please, give us more if you're not tapped out.

In the spirit of the thread, "yea, I tapped that."

[wuapinmon]

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition = porn?

[beefytee]

Does anyone else foresee SU's image being photoshopped so that John the Baptist is giving us the finger.

I have to do a double take every time to make sure it isn't the middle finger.

Maybe that is what BYU found borderline inappropriate.

[KillerDog]

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition = porn?

I wish. Alas, it is little more than a magazine issue that get's more attention than it should because of mother's who don't want to admit that junior spanks the salami.

[Rosebud]

Pornography, fantasy and masturbation

Hi all... thanks for the interesting thread. I decided to quit lurking and put in my two cents to see if the thread will come to life again (for D). Maybe I should have made my introductions before jumping into this, oh well...

Although pornography, fantasy and masturbation often occur together, it stands to reason that they have different affects on human relationships. Therefore, it seems to me that in the discussion of pornography, there may be something to be learned from evaluating the photos and videos themselves separately from fantasy and masturbation.


In regards to the images:

The pornography industry victimizes innumerable young people who work as models -- many of whom, no doubt, have been physically and/or psychologically coerced into the work. This is obviously true in the case of child pornography, but it is still difficult to argue that a model legally old enough to pose (etc.) really has had the opportunity to make a choice in his or her own best interest. Those who view pornography for pleasure surely have a different experience with it than those in front of the cameras. It is reductionistic to discuss pornography without seriously considering the horror of the real lives of the models. Pornography users would do well to remember this anytime they view or discuss porn.


In regards to the affects of fantasy and masturbation on human relationships:

(Please consider these thoughts completely separately from my thoughts on pornography above.)

Fantasy and masturbation are an individual activity that don't require any social interaction. As such, maybe they should be evaluated based on their affect on the individual's present or future relationships. As a woman I'm not sure if I have any solid answers here... so I'm going to pose my thoughts as questions in hopes that some of you men may decide to answer them . Are teenagers who regularly fantasize and masturbate less likely to engage socially and does their habit therefore diminish their interpersonal relationships? If a teenage boy excessively fantasizes and masturbates, does this habit affect his adult sex life? If so, how? Does excessive early fantasizing and masturbation in males contribute to adult sexual problems like premature ejaculation? Are these uncomfortable questions?

Some of my hard-core feminist friends view female masturbation as an individual activity that liberates them from men because it allows them to discover their own bodies and not be bound to men to have their sexual desires taken care of. This is especially important to those who don't have the opportunity to engage in positive relationships with men. Does this use of masturbation undermine natural human relationships, or does it allow people (women and men) to be independent when there is no better option?


Wow... now that I've written this I am even more sure that it is a risky first post to make. Once again... oh well... .