Ok... do you think I was right or wrong?

Just going on your example Dok'

Even if the participants 'get something out' of the porn industry, it doesn't stop the images from contributing towards the objectification of women.

Explotation , women will do anything for the right price ?

Using human bodily secretions to humiliate

Dominance , helplessness and a man forcing his will upon a woman

All that is extreme and very degrading, but their are many magazines that cater for that kind of thing with a womans full consent , and not millions being payed , probably a few thousand (its called a pay check).. IMHO you used a extreme example of the woman having no will of her own , and merely doing what a man wishes .. putting the man in control and the woman in a submissive posture.. yeah all that you describe is degrading because i think your saying the woman has no control ?. If your scenario was against the womans wishes this falls into the 'misery' i spoke of. The objection to your rationale i have is that woman have no control and should not have any control to do whatever they wish ?. You (i think) are trying to protect a womans morality and dignity , wich is fair enough.. but in doing so your displaying almost 19th century attitudes to the role of a woman and her place in a mans world... wich inmo is worse than the degradation that you speak of ?, because far from freeing a woman your taking a womans power away from her ....

'people have to learn for themselves' What do people have to learn for themselves ?.

 

Nice, matthew. "Ner ner, you started it"? Can't you manage anything a little more mature? You're the one who's always calling anything faintly left of centre 'extreme'. I don't think I accused page 3 pornography of being 'extreme'?

Of course I did. Extreme examples are how we clearly illustrate points.

No, you're completely failing to understand the very, very simple point that I'm making. I'm not discussing the pros or cons involved in the production of pornographic images. I'm explaining to you how, regardless of the process of their creation, the end result can still be degrading to women. Many women find the display of naked girls draped across car bonnets or other such tedious teenage fantasy to be not only childish, but insulting. The nature of such images is that it objectifies women so that they're seen as passive participants in the sexual arena, willingly waiting to 'service' any man that comes (fnar fnar) their way. That perpetuates the idea of the man as a sexually dominant predator, for whom the woman simply exists to satisfy his needs.

Huh? I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm trying to explain a concept to you.

Oh gimme a break. Would you care to explain what you mean by '19th century'? Actually, don't bother. I assume that you're so profoundly failing to understand my point that you're confusing a dislike for pornography with prudishness. Are you suggesting that page 3 images that perpetuate a shallow and immature attitude to sexuality are somehow more progressive and '21st century'?

So your idea of a woman's power is the power to have her naked picture pinned up to a garage wall? That's a very strange idea of empowerment.

 

I agree some woman And men do see pornagraphy in the way you explain. Glad we , well i finaly see your point.. It is not your cup of tea , fair enough.
Pornagraphy also involves men doing the same things , and i would assume you would agree demonstrating the same kind of notions ?. Men and woman on a equal footing .. great i say ?.

 

i'm not sure replacing it would be a good idea...an eye for an eye would make the whole world blind (Ghandi)


i would of taken it down and destroyed it, then confront him about it. if he put it back up then i'd report it, as i can't be bothered with people who don't have respect for those who deserve it

 

you were right , i agree