Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    How does the article scream 'not liberal'?

    Where in the article does it advocate porn censorship?
    It seems to advocate shaming people who like porn, or have anything to do with its production. It ignores the opinions of hundreds of porn stars who speak out about how they enjoy making porn, as if their opinions don't matter. I bet if the porn industry was mostly focused on male actors, they'd believe them if they said they enjoy it. Liberalism should encompass accepting people no matter their sexual persuasion. If some people find gratification from people watching them have sex, and if some people find gratification from watching sex, they should not have to be pressured into feeling ashamed about it. There are some very ethical studios out there now such as X-Art which provide pornography that appeals to both men and women, and which treats it's actors very well. Sure if you're watching some Russian bondage porn you might be watching something that wasn't made ethically, but not everyone, or even most people, who watch porn watches that stuff. Most people who watch porn actually search for specific porn stars. It's also worth noting that sites such as Pornhub have become very careful about not featuring porn which is unethical, and have banned search terms such as 'rape'.

    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Has it been listed under news?

    The article you cite can be found under ''Life & Style'', not ''News''.

    Since the Guardian has multiple functions (it's not just a news website) you should expect article that are not news stories.
    Well, whether you call it news or not, it's still a story, and it's still a really crappy one to use as an example of why porn is bad. It's one anecdotal story for Christ sake.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Ah ok, sorry I misunderstood you there.
    Not a problem, having seen your posts from time to time, I cannot foresee there being much that we would disagree on
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    It seems to advocate shaming people who like porn, or have anything to do with its production. It ignores the opinions of hundreds of porn stars who speak out about how they enjoy making porn, as if their opinions don't matter. I bet if the porn industry was mostly focused on male actors, they'd believe them if they said they enjoy it. Liberalism should encompass accepting people no matter their sexual persuasion. If some people find gratification from people watching them have sex, and if some people find gratification from watching sex, they should not have to be pressured into feeling ashamed about it. There are some very ethical studios out there now such as X-Art which provide pornography that appeals to both men and women, and which treats it's actors very well. Sure if you're watching some Russian bondage porn you might be watching something that wasn't made ethically, but not everyone, or even most people, who watch porn watches that stuff. Most people who watch porn actually search for specific porn stars. It's also worth noting that sites such as Pornhub have become very careful about not featuring porn which is unethical, and have banned search terms such as 'rape'.
    The article did not advocate shaming people who like porn. The article was just one persons advice to another. This included the opinion that porn is harmful to culture. At no point did the writer shame anyone for watching porn.

    The writer celebrated the fact that the 17 year old made her own decision to leave her boyfriend. That sounds quite liberal to me.

    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Well, whether you call it news or not, it's still a story, and it's still a really crappy one to use as an example of why porn is bad. It's one anecdotal story for Christ sake.
    Indeed. Mariella did not provide a good arguement against the use of porn.

    That being said I see no reason to ask as if this should be news when it clearly wasn't writen to be so.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    The article did not advocate shaming people who like porn. The article was just one persons advice to another. This included the opinion that porn is harmful to culture. At no point did the writer shame anyone for watching porn.

    The writer celebrated the fact that the 17 year old made her own decision to leave her boyfriend. That sounds quite liberal to me.



    Indeed. Mariella did not provide a good arguement against the use of porn.

    That being said I see no reason to ask as if this should be news when it clearly wasn't writen to be so.
    The problem though is that it was a crap piece of journalism, news story or not. And yeh I think it was valid that she left her boyfriend, but it's not particularly surprising given the fact the guy sounds like an absolute freak. But reading between the lines I sensed that the writer wanted to encourage all women to confront their boyfriends if they watch porn. Because the story isn't particularly remarkable, and it's not really surprising she left him (although I think the porn obsession part of it is simply part of him being a weirdo, last time I checked not many girls like weirdos), so I feel like she's just bringing it up because she wants to encourage people to shun those who watch porn.

    And saying that 'porn is poisoning our culture' sounds exactly like the kind of sensationalist hyperbole you'd expect from the DM or Mumsnet. We're living in culture which is increasingly accepting of women. Considering the prevalence of porn in society, I'd think if it was "poisonous" we would be seeing it causing dramatically negative effects, but the reality is that we aren't. Violence against women is going down, domestic violence rates are decreasing, and women are becoming more powerful and affluent every day. I also feel like this women has very little knowledge of porn or the porn industry. As I have said, there is lots of porn now which is very focused on being ethical, and there is even porn created by women, for women. Making such sweeping statements that seem to suggest that all porn is poisonous is extremely counter-intuitive and very irritating.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Huskaris)
    Not a problem, having seen your posts from time to time, I cannot foresee there being much that we would disagree on
    You're a Joy Division fan, so that's a very good sign.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Not as bad as when they publish jihadists.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Not as bad as when they publish jihadists.
    It seems that the Guardian loves defending fascist ideologies, ignoring the violence against Jews by Muslims across Europe, and encouraging people to shun those for their sexual persuasions. so le liberal.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It's an opinion piece and the main focus is probably actually on congratulating the girl for standing up for herself, not on the negative effects of porn. You do seem to be slightly aggressive towards this article.

    I don't think there's a total lack of evidence about the porn thing though.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    It seems that the Guardian loves defending fascist ideologies, ignoring the violence against Jews by Muslims across Europe, and encouraging people to shun those for their sexual persuasions. so le liberal.
    Well it doesn't apply its principles equally to everyone, which means that it doesn't really have any principles.

    The daily mail is no better. It supported fascists for a while before the war.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Well it doesn't apply its principles equally to everyone, which means that it doesn't really have any principles.

    The daily mail is no better. It supported fascists for a while before the war.
    The Daily Mail is worse, but luckily it's not considered credible.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    It's an opinion piece and the main focus is probably actually on congratulating the girl for standing up for herself, not on the negative effects of porn. You do seem to be slightly aggressive towards this article.

    I don't think there's a total lack of evidence about the porn thing though.
    There's just something about saying that porn is 'poisoning society' that sounds a tad hyperbolic and sensationalist to me. A bit like many other articles in the Guardian, which is why I find it so frustrating that it is considered so credible. Just my two cents though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The Guardian is a worse than the Mail. The Guardian gets away with so much hate speech and conspiracy theory simply because its targets are white people.

    The Guardian is not liberal. Spiked Online, is the closet thing to a liberal publication out there. Unlike the Guardian, its dedicated to free speech.

    http://www.spiked-online.com

    It recently did a brilliant analysis of one of the Guardians writers, Owen Jones.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/review_...en-jones/15775
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    The Daily Mail is worse, but luckily it's not considered credible.
    It's not worse with respect to the war on islamism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by capitalismstinks)
    The Guardian is a worse than the Mail. The Guardian gets away with so much hate speech and conspiracy theory simply because its targets are white people.

    The Guardian is not liberal. Spiked Online, is the closet thing to a liberal publication out there. Unlike the Guardian, its dedicated to free speech.

    http://www.spiked-online.com

    It recently did a brilliant analysis of one of the Guardians writers, Owen Jones.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/review_...en-jones/15775

    Wow, what a fantastic article. I thought that this brand of liberalism was pretty much dead, but maybe this site actually offers a bastion of hope.

    EDIT: Hmm, on further inspection the site seems to have a very strong agenda towards right-wing libertarianism which frankly gets pretty annoying. The article calling Bill Hicks a 'misanthrope' is utterly stupid. Back to Reuters it is.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    There's just something about saying that porn is 'poisoning society' that sounds a tad hyperbolic and sensationalist to me. A bit like many other articles in the Guardian, which is why I find it so frustrating that it is considered so credible. Just my two cents though.
    Oh, it's totally hyperbole. But you expect hyperbole in an opinion piece. It does not build too much on it, and it doesn't present a full argument to back it up- an offhand hyperbolic statement in an opinion piece is not something to get worked up over.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.