English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-07-13 22:08:15 · 12 answers · asked by nunya 3 in Society & Culture Other - Society & Culture

Replies so far seem....ugh. I think the reason we may not mind the pornography is due to the fact that in many ways we are repressed. If we weren't, the images wouldn't be so prevalent.

2006-07-13 22:19:41 · update #1

12 answers

If you mean, is anyone else sick of being told that images of a naked or semi naked human body is pornographic, then yes.

If you mean am I sick of seeing naked or semi naked images in mainstream media, I do not see them.

If you mean to interpret models touting underwear or scantily clad people as pornography, then unfortunately you are mistaken.

Prior to popular culture in American society,
nudity has been completely acceptable and did not incite any type of arousal, nor was it meant to.
Prior to civilization, humans didn't wear any clothes, and seeing nudity still didn't incite any type of response other than the ability to tell ones gender without interference.

Pornography is a concept that arose during the Victorian era when prudish people became the popular culture. Victorians were so prudish they covered up chair legs and table legs because they felt they suggested nakedness.

In the rest of the world other than America, most public access television stations allow breasts to be shown, and it does not cause even the slightest social upheaval, whereas showing a woman in a bikini in America on TV brings cries of pornography.

The truth is the only thing that suggests any type of sexual inference is forcing society to 'cover up' any reference to sex. By covering it up you allow people to become more sensitized to moments where they actually do see it or think of it, and thus create the very situation you are trying to prevent.

Try going to a nude beach sometime, you can remain clothed if you want to. The sight of normal people naked in all their splendor, sagging breasts, wrinkled leather like skin, hairy backs, and beer belly appearance will definitely put you off of the idea that nudity is somehow pornography.

Showing sexual interaction is pornography, and I believe the day that it is allowed on mainstream TV that we are going too far, but until then I will enjoy the fact that I'm an American prude, and accept that some people are more comfortable showing their body than I am, and appreciate art for art while appreciating propaganda designed to make me buy things as just that, propaganda.

2006-07-13 22:31:30 · answer #1 · answered by Demosthenes&Locke 3 · 3 0

I trust the final public who've already responded. convinced! that is easily ridiculous. there is of route a reason the media is leaning in route of Obama....possibly because Republicans have led to not something yet damage to our us of a? At any cost, what I hate the most is even as a Republican parrots bill'O, Glenn Beck, or Limbaugh and include "the significant flow media" into their argument.... they're PARROTING the significant flow MEDIA!!! It comes right down to exhibiting some G*d damn compassion... The greed pours via a number of those commentators, no matter if that is Orally preserving, "So Obama needs to strengthen taxes on me, the wealthy guy", or Limpbaugh signing a four hundred-million dollar settlement for mendacity on the radio....they have the BALLS to tear on Warren Buffett who convinced, is wealthy, yet is conscious that the little guy takes it interior the butt more suitable frequently than not.

2016-12-10 09:25:59 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Sick of it? I live for it. Each night I turn on my TV knowing that I'll see raging, hardcore gay-porn in the media that I can happily bust a nut to.


You're insane, aren't you. Someone tell me, what porn are they talking about. I've yet to see it. 19 years of life. Loads of time watching TV. Not once have I seen porn in the media (Aside from news stories caused by people... like you).

You people are so embarrassed by the human body that you think a little 'wardrobe malfunction' is going to ruin the sanctity of your red neck child.

Gaaah.

2006-07-13 22:15:16 · answer #3 · answered by Thript 2 · 0 0

Yes! Some of the ads on billboards and in magazines are so concentrated on the sexual overtones that it is hard to see what the ad is supposed to be selling. In this era that is rife with AIDS, HPV and other veneral diseases, you'd think the ad companies would be a little more conservative (and I hate that word being a liberal) in their imaging.

2006-07-13 22:15:54 · answer #4 · answered by Hillaryforpresident 5 · 0 0

not me, I think that if it were not taboo or forbidden people would lose interest. The allure of porn is that it is something forbidden. When I was young getting a Playboy was a big deal now that I am an adult and can buy it any time I want I have no need for it.

2006-07-13 22:13:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

everyone has sex. sweeping it under the rug and making it taboo is not a good idea.

2006-07-13 22:13:38 · answer #6 · answered by Dorkchop 2 · 0 0

Not enough I say

2006-07-13 22:13:02 · answer #7 · answered by Whodaman 4 · 0 0

nope - not sick of it at all, I'm just plain SICK ! LOL

2006-07-13 22:12:29 · answer #8 · answered by L A 3 · 0 0

Heck no... we should have access to even more stuff.

2006-07-13 22:11:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

asdf

2006-07-13 22:11:19 · answer #10 · answered by me.. 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers