| The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say. .
( Switch to Threaded mode | Reply )
< Down One | This Page's Threshold: 0 | Up One >
(Warning:this stuff might be beta right now)
|
Freakin' Guiliani! (Score:1)
by mholve (mike@nospam.eunuchs.org) on Thursday February 04, @01:55PM
(User Info) http://eunuchs.org
|
Not in NYC it won't... That rat bastard.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Freakin' Guiliani!
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:57PM
|
then move! I like the new NY. Nice, clean and lower crime
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
What does sex have to do with that?
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:14PM
|
I ain't movin but I'm still pissed that mayor-boy has clamped down on the sex. It has nothing to do with crime rates etc. The new NY is for tourists and pussies.
Sincerely,
Porn-boy
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I think Katz Dreams For A Logan's Run Reality (Score:1)
by Johnny Wad Holmes on Thursday February 04, @03:44PM
(User Info) |
Remember the Sexnet they had in that movie? You browsed people on line, and if you wanted to holmes them, you pressed a button and, BAM, they were teleported to your love den.. Even off their little Net, there were little psychadelic clubs where you could be on the crack and partake in a healthy orgy.. If only gettin ass were that easy..
On a realated note, I just wanted to say..
GOD BLESS PORNOGRAPHY!!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Why do we care about NetSex?
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @01:58PM
|
Really, C'mon. I have no interest in this whatsoever. This does NOT belong on a news for NERDS site.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
What kinda nerd are you?
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:03PM
|
if you dorks would actually get out of the house more often, you'd be gettin some... this is the next best thing
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Nerdsworthy News? (Score:1)
by Duke of URL on Thursday February 04, @02:06PM
(User Info) |
Yep I agree its not nerdsworthy news, but hey, oh well I'll read about it anyways.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Why do we care about NetSex? (Score:1)
by jpancake on Thursday February 04, @02:09PM
(User Info) |
You seem to be confusing the fact that nerds aren't getting any with the idea that nerds aren't interested in sex.
Transferring a latent sexual desire into a lust for machinery/computers/code/whatever is generally pretty unhealthy. E
ven worse is taking the Morrissey route and saying that one is 'asexual' -- which is just plain silly.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
pretty unhealthy huh
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:36PM
|
omg.. nerds have unhealthy attitudes and feelings surrounding sex... I think that's kinda what defines us. At least, it's a part of it. Nerds with girls are.. I don't know, isn't there a term for that?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
pretty unhealthy huh (Score:1)
by jandrese (jandrese@vt.edu) on Thursday February 04, @02:51PM
(User Info) http://www.cslab.vt.edu/~jandrese/
|
cured ;)
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
pretty unhealthy huh (Score:1)
by talks_to_birds (jsage@finchhaven.com) on Thursday February 04, @03:53PM
(User Info) http://www.finchhaven.com
|
an oxymoron?
--
ATTENTION: This posted message may go to thousands of readers!! Really post?? |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
there is a difference between...
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:13PM
|
... an interest in sex and an obsession with sex... I am interested in sex, just not obsessed with it. If I wanted to be aroused or find out the latest in the erotic world I'd head to playboy.com not /.org
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Why do we care about NetSex? (Score:1)
by DeadFish on Thursday February 04, @07:32PM
(User Info) http://www.tezcat.com/~aieeee
|
"Transferring a latent sexual desire into a lust for machinery/computers/code/whatever is generally
pretty unhealthy"
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it's incredibly profitable.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Actually you did have lots of interest (Score:1)
by Ash (nalonso@nospam.alasys.com) on Thursday February 04, @02:27PM
(User Info) http://
|
You read the post, clicked on read more, then clicked on reply. I'd say this caught your attention, either that or you have too much time on your hands.
-=-=-=-=-=-==--=-=-=-=-=-=- /bin/pub/source/ap/ash |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Actually you did have lots of interest
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @09:05PM
|
... probably has more than time on his hands (and keyboard)
:))
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
All together now. "Don't like it, Don't read it!" (Score:1)
by ||Deech|| on Thursday February 04, @02:52PM
(User Info) |
geesh! don't you have anything better to do then to read articles you don't like then complain about them?
BTW: Interesting read jon. Still like to read your stuff...
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
For once, I agree.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:40PM
|
I like most of the articles Katz has done for Slashdot, especially the ones about his experiences with Linux, but I agree that this article doesn't really fit here. Technology is really only a side issue, and your story has more to do with mainstream culture than with geek culture. Have you completely broken off your ties with NewsTrolls? That would seem to be the most appropriate site for this.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
now if they only had mp3s... (Score:1)
by lcracker (lcracker@thecult.ml.org) on Thursday February 04, @02:00PM
(User Info) http://thecult.ml.org/
|
Now all they need to do is put mp3s up on their web site, and they'd have quite some hits. It'd be the most popular site to show up in search engine queries, hehe.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Uhh... (Score:1)
by Velvet Elvis (cold@hex.net) on Thursday February 04, @02:07PM
(User Info) http://
|
Given up on reading about Linux and sitting back
lookin' at dirty .jpgs Katz? Does your wife know?
Sex and the Internet isn't anything new. Its not going to go "mainstream"... and I for one am glad.
I mean.. sheesh its busy enough on my favorite porn sites now, if everyone started hitting them it'd take *days* to download a decent vivio or mpeg.. =)
-vE "Ahh man.. Nuttin betterrr thuhn ah deepfried Peenutbuttah 'n Nanna sandwich!" |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Hey! That's not dog slobber, it's.....
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:34PM
|
...... ew.
Anyway, with that said. I think that rather than
go mainstream the new-puritans will eventually get
on the ball and start a healthy campaign of
repression. The good thing about the net is that
it will be nearly impossible for them to cary out
successfully. Very similar to prohibition when
you think about it.
But then, your favorite site will be a pain to
track down if it is always on the move to avoid
legal/social repurcusions.
(Note, I didn't even read the thing. No patience for it so my apologies if this is redundant)
-AC
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Sex?? Repressed??? (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:09PM
|
Umm sex isn't currently being repressed. It is not some secret taboo subject. On the contrary, it is being marketed and monopolized on. Everything in this media driven consumeristic culture is preeching the wonders of sex, and linking it to some candy bar, or some car, or something else. In todays world, sex is increasingly becoming less about individuals -- and more about belonging to a group. **SIGH**. While we stand by, our human heritage is being sold to us. Hold on while I go puke.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Sex?? Repressed??? (Score:1)
by willfe (choadster@earthlink.net) on Thursday February 04, @03:09PM
(User Info) http://lcdproc.omnipotent.net/
|
Wrong. When I can drive no more than a few miles
to pay for sex legally, *then* I'll accept that
sex is commerciallized. Until then, the fact that
I can be carted away to jail to pay for what I
could have for free (if the ladies were willing
:), then bugger off. Commercialized, my ass. It *IS* repressed, since one can't even *LOOK* at another person "wrong" in the workplace or in public.
I haven't paid for porn in a good long time, but
lo and behold I can still get it. Ever played
with the usenet newsgroups? Sheesh.
-- Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies. |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Sex?? Repressed???
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:33PM
|
| Perhaps Katz is talking about REAL sex. Yes, we're being told that consuming Brand X products makes you "sexier," but we're only recently actually shown sex, and always in a styilized Hollywood fashion. The marketers have absolutely zero interest in talking about real people and their real sex lives, since they're not as glam as the commercials and the movies. Katz is talking about the chat rooms that talk reality. Are you gay or not? Can't get any? What did that Viagra really do to you, anyway? That sort of stuff is only superficially addressed in the marketer-driven "mass" culture.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Sex?? Repressed?, Reply:bullshit, go to japan then
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:17PM
|
You've never been to Japan if you think the US is not sexually repressed, we still have problems with the idea of homosexual and pedophilliac relationships, age differences, and our bodies.
the US is extremely uptight.. but that is changing .. :)
isnt anime wonderful?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Katz ejaculates again.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:09PM
|
You have done it again, Jon. Posting brainless
articles like this, about how Limited's website
for their store chain that sells overpriced
chauvinistic vestments is a "Revolution on the
Internet" is simply too much scum for me to
accept. This does not belong on Slashdot. We
want nerd news, not more evidence of Limited's
marketing machine. Go play on your Macintosh.
Now go clean up the mess, flush your
browser's cache before mummy catches you.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Katz ejaculates again.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:18PM
|
100% agree!
If I want to read about that sort of crap I can go elsewhere.
I come to /. to get nerd news - Stuff that matters!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Katz ejaculates again.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:42PM
|
This is nerd news. Two things drive technological progress: 1) Sex and 2) Games. If it weren't for the demand for sex and games, nerds couldn't afford a computer, because the market would be too small, and your hobby would be scratching yourself with a soldering iron while trying to balance a pair of 813's in push-pull.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
ACs (Score:1)
by Ash (nalonso@nospam.alasys.com) on Thursday February 04, @02:29PM
(User Info) http://
|
It amazes me how much of a low life you are. You actually read the news post, clicked on read more, and then clicked on reply and spent about three paragraphs flaming Kats. Ever thought of getting a job?
-=-=-=-=-=-==--=-=-=-=-=-=- /bin/pub/source/ap/ash |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Please don't associate us Mac users with this guy
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:29PM
|
I am a Mac user, and I recognize that this is as News for Nerds site, not a pulpit for the Free Love movement.
I take any association between our two groups beyond his potential coincidental use of the platform as insulting as the traditional correlation between male and stupid.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Katz _________ again.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:00PM
|
Katz is so wrong. Not all nerds are pornographic, sex addicts. Some of us even have morals and are (*GASP!*) Judeo-Christians!
His article is wrong in other points, too.Most nerds like anime girls more than real ones anyways.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Katz _________ again. (Score:1)
by demon (dpates@acm.org) on Thursday February 04, @05:59PM
(User Info) |
His article is wrong in other points, too.Most nerds like anime girls more than real ones anyways.
Heh. Just cuz we don't have girlfriends, doesn't mean we wouldn't prefer REAL women. I certainly would. Don't open your mouth if you haven't got a clue, 'k?
The only intuitive thing in the world is the nipple. Everything else has to be learned. (with all credit to Ivan Tkvachev) |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I am Victoria's Secret (Score:1)
by Duke of URL on Thursday February 04, @02:09PM
(User Info) |
I am Victoria's Secret. Seriously, does anyone know what Victoria's Secret stock qoute is? I wanna see if the press covg. has caused it to go up. I think its interesting how the press has the power to do that.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
I am Victoria's Secret (Score:1)
by Fuzzyman on Thursday February 04, @02:20PM
(User Info) http://www.dumbentia.com
|
I found out Victoria's secret... She's a slut.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I am Victoria's Secret
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:31PM
|
Victoria's secret is owned by Intimate Brands inc i think, and their stock symbol is "ibi"
on monday, their stock was 38 bucks. After the internet thing, they got up to 45 bucks. Since september98, they've gone up from 18 and they're going steady. After it drops a little from this jump on the net (big deal), it should be a good buy in my expert 17 year old opinion. it's got a good acceleration base
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
I am Victoria's Secret (Score:1)
by cswiii on Thursday February 04, @03:41PM
(User Info) |
...clothing brands have a general trend of not doing well, though. Ralph Lauren and Donna Karan are notables...
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
expert 17 year old opinion. (Score:1)
by unitron (unitron@familycom.com) on Thursday February 04, @04:23PM
(User Info) http://
|
does that mean that you are 17 or just that you've been holding that particular opinion for the last 17 years?
"I wish I could change my sig file without the change being retroactive" unitron |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
sex/porn sells - nothing really new (Score:1)
by mackga (bmccarthy@nospam.ix.netcom.com) on Thursday February 04, @02:14PM
(User Info) http://pw1.netcom.com/~bmcarth
|
Ever watch the History Channel's show Automobiles? Even when the women weren't scantilly-clad, they were still used as "props" to sell cars. Sex sells. Heck, they prolly used nubile, barely-covered vixens to sell dried camel-shit in Babylon in 1000 BC! Nothing new that the 'net would cash in on that. Now, free sex on the 'net WOULD be stuff that matters, heeeheee.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
What the hell was this? (Score:1)
by Scott (raindog@SpamMeAndDie.gothic.net) on Thursday February 04, @02:14PM
(User Info) http://www.gothic.net/~raindog/process/
|
This article is one of those things that belongs on Dateline NBC, not a site that's devoted to technology and the open source movement. Everyone already knows about porn and the net, and the only people who care at this point are television executives trying to squeeze out another ratings point.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Mr. Katz... an objective critique (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:15PM
|
Mr. Katz -
Now you are starting to write about things that should hopefully be less controversial (what? less controversial than sex????)
You are now writing about pop culture, and not trying to pretend to be part of a culture that you are not. I am not trying to dog you here. Just pointing out that writing about Linux is not something you should really be doing at this point.
I have to point out that your stories really do need at least an attempt at editing before being published online. If I were handing this in for a college paper, it would have been graded harshly if for no other reason than the blatant grammatical errors.
The paper was heavily biased, but I don't think this is a fault. Your perspective is that America is full of sexually repressed people. On the contrary, I think that we are a whoremongering nation. We are way too sexual as it is already in public. Not that I didn't enjoy the VS superbowl commercial, but I definitely think it was targetted more at horny men than the women who would actually be wearing these things (look at all the cleavage shots where the undergarments were cropped out or out of focus).
All that said, I think that if you would simply edit the articles before publishing, and try not to pass yourself off as a "geek", your articles here will be most welcome if they are more like this one.
Light Blue
A Cowardly IBM'er
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Tragetted Advertising (Score:1)
by Cassius on Thursday February 04, @02:31PM
(User Info) |
Well of course they use sex to sell products during the superbowl. Look at the demographic - beer and boobs are the order of the day.
I agree though, that /. is in SERIOUS need of hiring a real editor (Rob, you must know PLENTY of english grads in need of work).
I simply will not accept /. as a serious zine until they can purge the grammatical errors.
You have to spend money to make it, guys. Hire an editor!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Targetted at men? (Score:1)
by kaisyain on Thursday February 04, @02:56PM
(User Info) |
Have you ever looked through a Vogue or Cosmopolitan? I'm guessing not a lot of men read those but they tend to have more breasts and half naked women crammed in one issue than you usually get out of a whole year of Playboy.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
What?!? (Score:1)
by WebFetus (mafisto@innocent.com) on Thursday February 04, @08:00PM
(User Info) http://
|
You think that America isn't full of sexual repression because of the overtly sexual imagery of the media? Overt slutiness and an oppressive guilt about it can coexist just fine. Go date a Catholic - you'll get all the repression learnin' you need.
...suckling from the sweet amnion of life... |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
its interesting (Score:1)
by hazard (hzdpersonal@null.net) on Thursday February 04, @02:16PM
(User Info) |
Actually, the story is interesting and well-written. I would say its a little bit offtopic from Slashdot, but again, maybe only because that word "sex" is a considered a taboo in on a good websites?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Check you assumptions (Score:1)
by Howard Roark on Thursday February 04, @02:17PM
(User Info) http://
|
While Jon spends considerable time justifying "legitimate" forms of sexual expression on the net, what exactly is wrong with pornography?
--
Howard Roark, Architect
I believe in a Man's right to exist for his own sake. |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Nothing (Score:1)
by Bill Currie (bill@taniwha.tssc.co.nz) on Thursday February 04, @02:24PM
(User Info) |
It's just been fudded to death.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
What "they" say (Score:1)
by Cassius on Thursday February 04, @02:26PM
(User Info) |
Whether you agree with them or not, prominent feminists will tell you that pornography leads you to objectify women. They see what one woman chooses to do as inherently demeaning to all women. Is it? Maybe. Should that curtail anyone's freedom? That's for you and the courts to decide.
Whether you agree or not, one thing is for sure, the sex industry is still a mightly sleazy place. Women still getting paid to do pornos with heroin instead of cash.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
What "they" say (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:36PM
|
On this issue, I suggest Nadine Strossen's book _Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and Women's Rights_. Ms. Strossen's argument (in brief) is that anti-pornography and other anti-sex laws, while touted as protecting women, have in fact been used to restrict and repress women (as well as other sexual minorities, such as gays and lesbians).
Read it. Learn it. Use it.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
sex fantasies about ayn rand?
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:42PM
|
heh. that's about as low as anybody can sink. i'm amazed that you're shameless enough to discuss it in public.
"Objectivism: The Cult of the Future! Cheaper than Scientology, more convenient than the Moonies"
yuck.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Check you assumptions
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:46PM
|
Um... you wouldn't happen to be an Ayn Rand fan, by any chance?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Check you assumptions (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:55PM
|
The porn industry is one that takes advantage of women and children that are in difficult circumstances in order to cater to the lustful of men. Would you want your daughter to foolishly run away from home at the age of 16 and end up being a sex slave to a bimbo pimp? Beaten when she doesn't do exactly as told. You're sick if you say yes and ignorant to the ways of the streets if you say that this doesn't happen.
How many women do you know that act like the image they portray in magazines? How many do you know that enjoy being stared at by strange men? I don't know one. And this doesn't even hit upon the subject of child porn.
Before you jump to conclusions that I am a female, or gay, or a purist or anything else other than a healthy young American male, I'll set the record straight. I am a 33 year-old male who is heteralsexual and married for 12 years. Yes I've looked at porn plenty. Yes I have the same biological desires as other men. We enjoy eating junkfood even though we know it's not good for us. Same goes for porn. I can admire a beutiful women's figure disrobed, but I know that the women was probably abused during the process of presenting the shot. When I stop and think of this it troubles me. I am dead set against the abuse of any person. The willingness and enjoyment must be two-sided. It's not fun unless it's fun for everyone involved.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Check you assumptions (Score:2)
by Cassius on Thursday February 04, @03:02PM
(User Info) |
How many women do you know that act like the image they portray in magazines? How many do you know that enjoy being stared at by strange men?
Your point is valid. Men have this notion of all these "sex positive intellectual" women out there and it somehow validates their habits. Its ridiculous. Every woman I know who I have respect for absolutely despises porn. Not that that means that I won't look at it, but I don't swallow the 90's postmodern garbage that women are turned on by porn, because the anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Check you assumptions (Score:1)
by willfe (choadster@earthlink.net) on Thursday February 04, @03:28PM
(User Info) http://lcdproc.omnipotent.net/
|
Must mean you won't have any respect for my wife. She's turned on like crazy by porn. More often than not, *she* initiates our intimate relations, and
quite frequently videos, print, or images from the 9.4GB collection of porn :) comes into play.
I'm sorry if your sheltered lifestyle or pathetic religion don't allow for open mindedness on this issue, but
please stop trying to ruin the ability of the rest of us to enjoy ourselves, and each other.
I get so confused about priorities in this country. Sex is, of course, legal. Married, or unmarried, a man and a woman can have sex. This is perfectly legal.
It's even legal for complete strangers to do so.
Now, take a picture of it. That's porn. That's wrong. WHAT?!?! Or how about paying for it? Oops. That's prostitution. That's wrong too. BULLSHIT! We're taking a "perfectly acceptable, normal" behavior, then tacking restrictions on it. It makes no sense. Taking a picture of a sex act does nothing to harm the world. Neither does paying for it, but I'll leave that alone for now :)
-- Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies. |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Check you assumptions (Score:1)
by Cassius on Thursday February 04, @03:43PM
(User Info) |
Sorry, I'm an atheist, so don't give me the usual bible-belt-buster bullshit.
I am open-minded on the issue - I'm not telling you not to consume porn. I'm simply telling you that most women I know aren't into it, and men who think that the only women who oppose porn are church ladies simply are out of touch.
There's a reason why most guys tuck the Hustlers under the mattress when they finally get a date to go home with them.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Check you assumptions
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:25PM
|
Okay. There's a reason men tuck their hustlers under their mattresses, and it's *BULLSHIT*.
You won't find any pornography hidden in my apartment. It's along with all the rest of the books and publications we own.
There is something inherently wrong with a society that makes a person feel "bad" or "guilty" for owning pictures of naked people. Men, women, it doesn't matter. Let's not forget that men who objectify women will do so whether or not they've got nudies to back them up.
It's not porn's fault. And I don't care if you're an athiest -- you're being just as whiny as most of the bible thumpers out there. You weren't "simply telling" us that most women you know weren't into porn, you very effectively implied that no women were, and further implied you would respect no woman who was into it.
Your loss, I suppose. :)
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Check you assumptions
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:47PM
|
There are many sex-positive women out there. But being sex-positive doesn't mean loving pornography. Most pornography (magazines like Hustler, cheap porn movies) are not designed for sex-positive people to enjoy. They are intended for horny men to masturbate to. They don't depict the most enjoyable or realistic sex (most men don't last that long, most women prefer to be treated a little more tenderly then that, etc), and they teach bad sexual values. Plus the sound and plots are usually bad too. :-)
There is better porn out there, look in a Good Vibrations catalog or something like that. Women can enjoy it more when the women on the screen are treated the way they want to be treated. Then it becomes fun fantasy for both genders.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Check you assumptions (Score:1)
by kaisyain on Thursday February 04, @03:07PM
(User Info) |
Wow. Where to begin? I wonder, have you ever spoken with anyone who works in adult entertainment (either movies, dancings, or whatever)? Have you ever read an interview with one who does? Listened to an interview? This is so off base that I can only hope it was intentionally written flame bait.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Check your assumptions (Score:1)
by Robin Hood (Robert.A.Munn@wheaton.edu) on Thursday February 04, @04:07PM
(User Info) |
Well, I haven't personally spoken with anyone who works in "adult entertainment" / pornography, but I have read books written by people who worked with street children, many of whom were forced into prostitution (both girls and boys -- we're not talking about women here, we're talking about 16-year-olds. They may be sexually mature, but in NO FREAKIN' WAY are they emotionally mature). They're being beaten by their pimps, they're being hooked on drugs so they'll be dependent, the whole shebang. These kids are VICTIMS, and the people who do this to them are scum. I wish I didn't feel obliged to use such strong language, but there it is. I think anyone who would take advantage of people in that way is just despicable.
Hopefully, not all the "adult entertainment" industry (I hate that phrase, by the way) is like that. There may indeed be women who enjoy posing naked for a camera to make thousands of men lust after them. I have actually read interviews (in Entertainment Weekly or somewhere, I don't remember where) of a few people -- both women and men -- who do porn movies. And they said they did it because they enjoyed it. But somehow I think the writers of the article had to search high and low to find those people, because I truly believe that most of the "sex workers" (prostitutes, etc.) are being victimized. And that's no different whether they're 16 or 35. And I think if you gave every single person in the sex industry a chance to start over with a new life, a new identity, a new home in a different city, and the guarantee that the people they "worked" for would never be able to find them, the overwhelming majority would leap at the chance. The porn industry is the modern equivalent of the slave trade.
Strong words, but that's my honest belief.
-----
"Chase the dream, not the competition." -- The Nemesis Air Racing Team |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Okay, how do you explain this? (Score:1)
by daviddennis (david@amazing.com) on Thursday February 04, @08:34PM
(User Info) http://www.amazing.com/david/
|
[Disclaimer: I have no contact with the adult biz; this is based on my voracious reading].
Porn isn't like street prostitution at all. Porn is more like callgirls, who need sexual talent and business savvy to succeed. Many callgirls charge in excess of $ 2,000 a night, and I don't think they have much resemblance to the poor exploited 16 year old. (Sad to say, this isn't written out of personal experience - I'm not in the $ 2k a night economic league :-( ).
One key to porn is that the pay is lower than that of a callgirl. A porn actress can get between $150 and $600 a night, according to Wendy McElroy's XXX. She found in her book that there seems to be a compelling attraction to porn work felt by many women. Now, obviously we're not talking about your friends, but clearly there is a real attraction to the field.
Go to the alt.binaries.pictures.personal newsgroup and you'll find plenty of people of all ages, sexes, levels of attractiveness, etc posing nude just because they want to be seen. The majority of them don't have web sites, so they have no way of gaining financially from their exhibitionism.
Just because you wouldn't do it in a billion years doesn't mean there aren't people who would do it gladly and happily. That's just the way the world works.
The adult biz has been chased by bluenoses since practically the day the first sexy magazine article was sold. If the industry worked by shanghaing girls against their will and plying them with drugs, you can bet the whole shebang would have been shut down decades ago.
Does this mean drugs are not present, or that the biz doesn't have enormous drug problems? Of course not. But drug problems exist among rock singers, baseball players and movie stars, too; it seems like virtually the entire class of people who entertain us is one big drug problem.
Are women exploited? Sure. Do women feel used when working in porn? Some do, some don't. Those who don't perform poorly and quit the biz early. Those with long careers genuinely enjoy it. And, I fear, most low-level workers, from the person who picks up your trash to the secretary of the Prsident, feel used at times. Porn isn't as unique as you'd like to think it is.
What does hurt porn people is the nasty stigma. Hopefully the greater acceptance of porn on the Internet will diminish it and give them more normal lives -- if, that is, porn folks even want them.
D
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Curious question
by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05, @12:13AM
|
Ok, both sides have been well explained, but it is impossible to fully explore both. There might be some important piece of logic we are missing; maybe even caused by our own sexual desire.
Anyway, my question is could we expect to see less abusive circumstances if sex, and everything sex related, becomes less taboo? More, perhaps? Or would it pretty much be the same?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Paranoia, Paranoia
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:17PM
|
| I'm sure that some of these people are abused or beaten, but that is the minority. You might as well not eat vegetables because some of them are picked by migrant workers who are mistreated and beaten. Oh, and don't buy any clothes or shoes... some of them are put together by poor people in 3rd world countries where they get their asses kicked if they don't work fast enough and they live in horrible conditions. Whatever....
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Check you assumptions (Score:1)
by willfe (choadster@earthlink.net) on Thursday February 04, @03:23PM
(User Info) http://lcdproc.omnipotent.net/
|
Hmmm. Perhaps you should ask my wife, who drives most of our "porn rag" purchases ...
I still do NOT see how a photo shoot of a nude woman constitutes abuse, either. That makes NO sense.
What are you suggesting? That the woman was raped or otherwise molested, then forced to slap a warm smile on her face and show her *unbruised* body off for the camera?
Get real. You name a critter outside of humanity that's ashamed of its form. Granted, they don't take pictures of themselves and distribute
them, but I don't see how that hurts anyone.
You forget that these people *CHOOSE* to allow themselves to take pictures. The photographers *CHOOSE* to take the pictures. The editors *CHOOSE* to print/distribute them.
Most importantly, both my wife and myself *CHOOSE* to purchase or download such imagery, and we both enjoy the hell out of it. So what's next? Is my wife "sick" because she finds women attractive?
Stop spreading FUD. If you don't like it, don't look at it. Why is this so hard to understand?!?!
-- Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies. |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Check your assumptions (Score:1)
by Robin Hood (Robert.A.Munn@wheaton.edu) on Thursday February 04, @04:25PM
(User Info) |
| I still do NOT see how a photo shoot of a nude woman constitutes abuse, either. That makes NO sense. It's abuse if she was forced into it. Whether that forcing is through someone exploiting her drug addiction, or her poverty, or threatening her with beatings later if she doesn't comply right now, it's all abuse. And if you don't think that goes on A LOT, then you have a much higher opinion of human nature than I do. What are you suggesting? That the woman was raped or otherwise molested, then forced to slap a warm smile on her face and show her *unbruised* body off for the camera? Yes. Not all abuse is physical. Verbal abuse, mental abuse, psychological abuse, all these leave NO marks on someone's body. And bruises can be hidden by makeup. You forget that these people *CHOOSE* to allow themselves to take pictures. That's where I disagree. A lot of "sex workers" (whether that means prostitutes or porn stars) don't want to be in the situation they're in, and would jump at the chance to leave if they thought they could get away scot-free. That's my honest belief. As I said above in another post, the porn industry is the modern equivalent of the slave trade. I could say more, but I've already said enough to get a lot of people angry at me, including you, I'm afraid. I'll shut up now. If there's more I need to say, I'll say it later.
-----
"Chase the dream, not the competition." -- The Nemesis Air Racing Team |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Check your assumptions (Score:1)
by Trepidity (delirium4u@theoffspring.net) on Thursday February 04, @05:19PM
(User Info) telnet://127.0.0.1/
|
What about all those people running "amateur" porn sites? They're not in the "sex industry," and probably don't make much money from it, so it would seem that they're taking pictures of themselves because they want to.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Check your assumptions
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:37PM
|
Exploiting someone's drug problem. Um, last time I checked, getting into drugs is something you do for/to yourself. You're insane if you truly believe all pornography is the result of drug-abusing, weak-minded, weak-willed being exploited into earning more drugs through some nudies.
And I'm sorry, but I simply do not believe the pornography I see most of the time is the result of threats of violence for non-cooperation. Wouldn't we have heard *something* about things like this happening over the years?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but you *cannot* honestly tell me that every time I look at a nude woman on the pages of Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, Barely Legal, or Tom's Big Book of Huge Knockers(tm) that I'm looking at a victim of abuse and threats.
That's lunacy.
Yes, abuse undoubtedly happens, and yes, it should probably be stopped. But just as many pro-lifers pointed out in the "Anti-abortion web site" article posted here a few days ago, a few sick extremists do *not* represent the whole gang. Perhaps I do have too high an opinion of human nature, but that many people cannot be stupid enough to allow themselves into (or refusing to get out of) situations like that.
What do you expect to happen to the people who *are* really that stupid? The world's an evil place. If they weren't being "abused" in the porn industry like you assert, someone else would be milking their stupidity all the same anyways.
And about the verbal/mental abuse thing, and the "bruises can be hidden by makeup" comment, good grief, man, you really are a conspiracy theory-type person, aren't you? The suspension of disbelief you expect us all to wield to swallow your vision of the porn industry reaches to extremes even Independance Day didn't reach!
If you have *ever* spoken with *any* porn star or a legal prostitute (i.e. one in Nevada's brothels :) I don't think you'd really insist that a lot of sex workers are miserable. Yes, there are some prostitutes working for asshole pimps, but *ahem* nobody forced them down that path. They chose it themselves. Again, it's not the "industry"'s problem, it's the problem of those people who put themselves in that position. Plain and simple.
A modern day slave trade? You are *really* grasping at straws.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Check you assumptions (Score:1)
by PD (pdrap@yahoo.com) on Thursday February 04, @03:46PM
(User Info) http://freetrek.linuxgames.com
|
That's why somehow McDonald's burgers don't taste so good to me anymore. Those poor sad faces on the other side of the counter.
Face it. Everyone's a whore, and job happiness largely comes down to 1) are you doing what you like, and 2) are you getting paid well for it?
Legalize prostitution, regulate it, ensure fair wages. Those that like doing it will do it. Those that don't like doing it will switch jobs. Legal prostitution will cease to be a trap for destitute women, and it will become a job like everything else.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Net Sex and the nature of men (Score:1)
by Cassius on Thursday February 04, @02:18PM
(User Info) |
More net. More sex. More people exercising their freedom to misinterpret pornography. Let the objectification begin!
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Check your basic economics
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:23PM
|
In the current market economy, profitability is tied to two things: innovation and market concentration. While technology of delivery of sexual imagery will continue to improve, the basic product hasn't evolved terribly in at least a couple hundred years. Sex has remained profitable in the print world precisely because various societal influences have allowed producers to charge a "shame premium". In the anonymous free market of the web, consumers will be able to compare prices and goods among a tremendous number of providers, making sustainable profits very elusive.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Check your basic economics
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:40PM
|
Actually, I think the internet economy will be more likely to follow the soda pop market. Sodas cost very little to produce, yet the market is fairly well dominated by a couple of companies (Coke, Pepsi). I believe both companies are already spending more money on marketing than they are for the actual sugar and flavorings in their drinks. So it will be with name brands like Yahoo, Netscape, Playboy, Victoria Secret, persiankitty, etc. People will migrate to the easily remembered name brands.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Agreement, But What of Discretion? (Score:1)
by ewhac on Thursday February 04, @02:24PM
(User Info) http://www.best.com/~ewhac/
|
The problem is, because sex is so very personal, everyone has a different idea about what's okay, what's offensive, and what's boring. This is one of the reasons why sex is treated as a private matter, since it's so easy for feelings to get hurt. My worry is that mainstream acceptance of sex-based industries may cause people to be indiscreet. Despite the great strides that have been made in recent years in our ability to discuss sex more openly, I worry that we may be leaving aside a healthy consideration toward the sensitivities of others. There are plenty of subjects under the umbrella heading of "sex" that I find uncomfortable or offensive. This set of subjects is completely different from the set of subjects you may find uncomfortable. I'm not suggesting a return to puritan repression, or observance of an equally repressive "political correctness." Rather, I'm simply suggesting, in the pursuit of profits and full-blown gonzo fun, we should not neglect our sense of discretion and good taste. I would hate to see the majority of sex-oriented Web sites end up like the Tenderloin district in San Francisco. Schwab
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Net Nanny (Score:1)
by Dave O on Thursday February 04, @02:24PM
(User Info) http://www.meatloops.com
|
Does this qualify us as an Adult Site now? I wonder if things like this would get /. listed as a blocked site on some of those programs...
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Things like what, free thought? (Score:1)
by haaz (jhaas@linuxppc.org) on Thursday February 04, @02:28PM
(User Info) www.linuxppc.com
|
:)
For a country with free speech enshrined in its constitution, we spend an amazing amount of energy trying to shut people up.
Haaz, Web & Marketing Guru, LinuxPPC Inc. http://www.linuxppc.ocom/ |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Things like what, free thought? (Score:1)
by Ash (nalonso@nospam.alasys.com) on Thursday February 04, @02:41PM
(User Info) http://
|
Wow your post sounds like a great .sig
-=-=-=-=-=-==--=-=-=-=-=-=- /bin/pub/source/ap/ash |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
This IS nerd news
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:25PM
|
most of you probably will deny this, but it's true. Without the sex sites, and dare I say the porn sites, ecommerce today won't be as technologically advanced.
What I mean is if it weren't for the sex sites, all the credit transfer protocals, streaming multimedia, real time video/audio feeds, etc. wouldn't have gotten developed as fast.
I was using the web back in the days when Mosaic was the default browser. It is on sex sites that I started to see all these technology. With sex sites the need to transfer capital and data across a diminishing bandwidth is much greater than shopping.
Ecommerce didn't really take off until all these tech. hurdles were overcome. And what prompted it? SEX!
So it makes it natural that because of this need, that as the article says, sex will become respectable. For without people wanting to watch porn online, you wouldn't be watching MSNBC online. (hmm. . . if sex = MSNBC, maybe we should do away with it after all. . . ;)
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
This IS nerd news
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:20PM
|
Yeah, and sex online has generated more AOL revenue than I can count. Why, heck, that brand new PC one of my friend's family bought might be sitting in his room right now where his 486 is if it wasn't being used by his dad to get onto live sex chats with his brand new video camera.
Horny morons have been the death of the Internet for the nerd elite that is its rightful master.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
John must not get enough of it. (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:25PM
|
| The Victoria Secret website You call this sex? All that was there was underwear models. It just shows how repressed americans are. Sex would involve some kind of sexual activity actually taking place. Perhaps John needs lessons. Does he have any kids? It's imminent. The Net and the Web have brought sex and sexuality out of the porn parlors and X-rated movie theaters and into tens of millions of American homes. The net has also been a super way to trade pictures of little abused children. Is that the kind of ecommerce we want? I like that prohibition of society. I'm glad I had a normal childhood. The Net may not only make sex respectable for the first time since the uptight rule-dispensers of the Judeo-Christian era, but it may also might create yet another whole new generation of computer millionaires. Not another recovering Catholic. There are newsgroups for you to vent this rage in. This is a news service, not a soapbox for your idea of morality. "For viewers to leave their TV sets during the Super Bowl to log on to the Victoria's Secret site is amazing," I would think it amazing that anyone would not leave a TV set with american "football" on it. From AOL's steamy chat rooms to sex conferences and mailing lists to Victoria Secret's websites, sex - not just cool software and technology -- has driven a lot of the Internet's growth in recent years. AOL's steamy chat rooms my ass. Even though sex makes an enormous amount of money online, conventional media shun it and Wall Street investors generally avoid it. Sex in general is not (yet) a player in America's respectable business markets. Companies that operate in adult entertainment businesses are often closely held, like Larry Flynt Publishing (Hustler) and General Media International (Penthouse). Some companies - Playboy Enterprises and Spice Entertainment Companies - do trade publicly, but according to industry analysts, with less than half-a-billion dollars in market capitalization, adult entertainment makes up a small portion of the off-line business world. "Software is like sex: it's better when it's free" (Linus Torvalds). SOME OF US CAN DON'T NEED TO PAY FOR SEX, JOHN, AND DON'T WANT TO. Will online prostitution services take off like Priceline etc. have for travel? Oh God. ...technological investment in sex Well John, I guess for those like you without the "hardware" will need this. However most of us need no more technology. Americans seeking to talk about their sex lives don't have to risk humiliation and arrest anymore. This is the 90s. Noone is every arrested for that. People talk about sex all the time. "The search engines tell us about 50 to 60 per cent of their traffic is going to adult sites," Mark Tiarra, president of United Adult Sites, a non-profit trade association representing over 500 adult Web sites told CNN.com. Prolly lonely adolescent boys looking for pictures of girls. Poor kids. Wish they could learn what real love and real sex is like. It's much more fun. But if you're a self abuser like John Katz then this is good news. AOL's thriving sex-related chat rooms have fueled much of it's growth and revenues. AOL has literally thousands of chat rooms devoted to exploring sexuality rather than the distribution of pornography. One chat room on AOL helps people figure out of they're gay or not. Wow, a chat room can tell me sexual orientation! It is a lot more complicated than that. Please put the hand cream away when you are done, and for god's sake, throw away those tissues.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Not get arrested? Ha!
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:57PM
|
You evidently must live in a plastic bubble to think that no one gets arrested for sex in the 90s.
Yes, I am talking about acts between consenting adults, too.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Who is "John"? (Score:1)
by phred on Thursday February 04, @04:09PM
(User Info) http://
|
Jon. The name is "Jon." First letter: J. Second letter: O. Third letter: N. It's not hard. It's often a nickname form of "Jonathan" (which is hardly ever spelled Johnathan, for obvious reasons). And guess what? It's pronounced the same as "John." It's just that the silent h isn't even in "Jon."
Please tell me if I'm wrong. If so, I will go through all my RFCs and correct the name in many of them to John Postel.
--------
Bill Gates Is My Evil Twin. |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Sex will never be respectable (Score:1)
by brennanw (wrightc@dtcweb.com) on Thursday February 04, @02:26PM
(User Info) |
At least, not in the US. As soon as sex becomes respectable, it ceases to be profitable. :-)
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" -- Edward Young |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Sex will be acceptable however
by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05, @12:20AM
|
As a race, humans have accepted much over time. How much of what was considered disrespectful by many turned out to be respectful later?
Take a given environment into account. I think the US is far too general. Sub-environments should be noted
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Has an odd tone for /., even for Katz (Score:1)
by The Cunctator on Thursday February 04, @02:27PM
(User Info) http://www.kband.com
|
This article strikes me as intended for a very non-nerd audience; it feels like an article that belongs in a print publication, rather than /. We all know about porn on the Net. I wouldn't call it a sleeper industry-- everyone knows the Net is about porn. From the unwired parent who's afraid his child will be raped by cyberpedophiles to smarmy investment bankers who download mccarthybig457.jpg for their Active Desktop, people know that the web=sex. I'm not saying the article isn't well-thought out, or well-written, it just is misguided. The Victoria's Secret event isn't interesting because it's going to wake everyone up that sex sells. It's interesting from an advertising and technology standpoint. Advertising: a million people left their TV's and logged on. That kind of behavioral change is an advertiser's wet dream. Technology: both the site and the webcast were overloaded by requests. Companies are still incapable of handling the, shall we call it, the sex-dot (XXX.?) effect. It seems every time there's high traffic on a site, it goes down or is unacceptably slow. Especially when it comes to video streaming. I'd say this is the fault both of the companies' non-scalable server solutions (reality higher than expectations) and the low-bandwidth connections most people have (expectations higher than reality). p.s. I feel that non-scalable server solutions are pretty unacceptable. But for some reason companies insist on using NT. (Admittedly, you can fuck up w/Unix and Linux as well, but at least there you've got the possibility for real scalability. On a tangent, what _are_ the hardware costs/requirements for scaling up a middle-of-the-road corporate site to be able to handle, say, a million hits in an hour, using the smartest software solution?)
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
of.. (Score:1)
by drwiii (douglas@min.net) on Thursday February 04, @02:35PM
(User Info) http://www.min.net/~douglas/
|
26 articles in the "Also by JonKatz" link,
21 contain the word "geek".
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
_only_21 ?1? (Score:1)
by unitron (unitron@familycom.com) on Thursday February 04, @04:57PM
(User Info) http://
|
somehow it seemed like more.
In fairness his writing at freedomforum.org seems a lot better, if it wasn't for the @slashdot e-mail addr. on that site I'd think it was another one of those Robert wxyz Cringely things.
Maybe the difference is a good editor.
"I wish I could change my sig file without the change being retroactive" unitron |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Ozzy Osbourne a geek?
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @06:07PM
|
Geek (n)
1 : a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake
(or a rodent, I suppose)
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Net sex bound to fail
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:39PM
|
I think net sex is bound to fail as a business model.
I don't think anybody is really buying subscriptions
to access pictures which they could get at a much
lower cost from a CDROM or at a much higher quality
from a magazine (which is also easier to read in bed.)
Besides the selling of pictures, no much else is on the net
as far as sex goes. The chat groups get overtaken
by sellers of picture services soon after they are created.
And the lawmakers are going to add additional restrictions to
free sex talk. I wouldn't give my credit car number to anybody just to show them I'm an adult.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Net sex bound to fail...Not
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @07:18PM
|
| There's more out there than just cheap porn. Too embarrassed to go into a sex shop for toys (or too high a risk if you're seen)? There are a ton a places online to shop. Don't know that to look for? Try the alt.sex faq or one of several other excellent sources. Looking for new positions to try with your spouse? There's free info online. If you know where to look, you can steer clear of the trashy porn and stick to the more classey places like VS.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Wrong again, Katz! (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:40PM
|
1) Victoria's Secret is NOT selling sex. Victoria's Secret is a women's CLOTHING store; it doesn't sell anything not already available in most upscale department stores!
2) Sex did drive the early adoptation of video tape playback devices, and has been widely assumed to be driving much of early adoptation of high-speed web access. This ain't news!
3) My local video store still has much higher resolution video than I can get over the internet, and my local bookstore still has much higher-resolution pictures than I can get over the internet (adult or otherwise). Furthermore, optical storage technology (e.g. DVD) is improving at a faster rate than network bandwidth, so I don't see this trend changing anytime in the near future.
4) You obviously have not done your homework (again). What evidence do you have that any sites offering pornography over the 'net are actually making a profit? These site are competing with literally thousands of site offering adult content for free! (See http://www.persiankitty.com for a list of hundreds of free sites.)
5) Whenever you are presented with proposed new legislation, you should attempt to "follow the money". Who stands to benefit the most from the Communication Decency Act? That's right, the FOR PAY "porno" sites! Who else would be advocating a law based on the twisted logic that "If you have a credit card, you MUST be an adult!" If enacted, the CDA will immediately be used by Penthouse, Playboy, Hustler, et. all to shut down their FREE competition (who are invariably violating somebody's copyright). Of course the problem is, the CDA only applies to web sites hosted WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. So, like the bans on exporting encryption, it functions as a subsidy to non-american web hosts.
6) Tell the truth now, Jon: have you EVER downloaded ANY "adult" content from the internet? Do you think anybody cares whether or not you have?
Disclaimer: You think I'm going to use my login for a trashy subject like this?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Wrong again, Katz! (Score:1)
by Shiska (mikeh@dca.net_nospam) on Thursday February 04, @02:58PM
(User Info) http://prowler.dca.net
|
Uh... Victoria's Secret certainly IS selling sex. ...Just not in the literal context. Here's a pop quiz to help out.
Q: What is VS's advertising plan?
A: Showing off beautiful, half naked women.
Q: What does the average man think when he see's a beautiful, half naked woman?
A: Think about that one for a while.
----------------- ------------ ---- --- - - - -
Your honor is perfectly understandishable. |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Wrong again, Shiska!
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:22PM
|
No, the majority of VS merchandise is purchased by women, not men.
And as far as beautiful, half-naked women: I only think of sex IF I perceive the women to be willing to have sex with me! In which case, it doesn't matter how much clothing they are wearing. Of course, like fine art, I can always appreciate a beautiful woman.
Also, as a pessimist, I don't see the VS models as "half naked", I view them as "half clothed"...
The point is, Sears distributes catalogs featuring women in underwear, and nobody accuses them of "selling sex". I fail to see the distinction. I still insist that VS is just another women's clothing store, not a sex shop... (and I was in one just last night, giving my S.O. money to buy a... er, none of your business!)
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Hmm. Let's think about this. (Score:1)
by Shiska (mikeh@dca.net_nospam) on Thursday February 04, @03:56PM
(User Info) http://prowler.dca.net
|
No, the majority of VS merchandise is purchased by women, not men.
And WHY!? ... To put on and look SEXY, in an effort to increase someone's attraction to them in a SEXUAL manner, most likely for purposes of SEX. Do you see a pattern developing here?
Also, as a pessimist, I don't see the VS models as "half naked", I view them as "half clothed"...
Pessimist... Smart ass ... Not funny... what's the difference. You're simply blending into the population of AC's, who's only real job is to drop the collective IQ down another notch with each new post.
The point is, Sears distributes catalogs featuring women in underwear, and nobody accuses them of "selling sex". I fail to see the distinction.
Allow me to paint a picture of that distinction.
Sears sells lawn mowers. Sears sells paint. Sears sells just about everything. When's the last time you saw a sears commercial with a bunch of "half clothed" woman parading around? Answer? ... Never. When's the last time you heard "Ohh, baby... do you like these new panties? ... I bought them at sears!" ... Sears sells underwear for the practical gal, not the one who's trying to impress their mate.
Victoria's Secret on the other hand ... well, we've already discussed that. No, I can't buy a vibrating dildo or a cock sucker 5000 at VS, but either way, what they're selling generally leads back to sex.
----------------- ------------ ---- --- - - - -
Your honor is perfectly understandishable. |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Wrong again, Katz! (Score:1)
by kaisyain on Thursday February 04, @03:25PM
(User Info) |
Well gee, I'd have to say that Persian Kitty is actually making a profit. Or doesn't that count?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Wrong again, Katz! (Score:1)
by jandrese (jandrese@vt.edu) on Thursday February 04, @03:27PM
(User Info) http://www.cslab.vt.edu/~jandrese/
|
1) Victoria's Secrect IS selling sex. Their medium just happens to be clothing
2) True
3) You didn't read the article did you. One of the major driving forces of the internet is the anonimity.
4) I don't have the numbers for this either, but based on the sheer number of sites I suspect there is profit there. At worst they behave like other web based companies.
5) Um, the CDA also hurt the porno places by making them illegal IIRC. At least it prevented them from advertizing.
6) I don't see the point of this question.
Disclaimer: Of course I'm using my login, I'm not ashamed of actually trying to carry on a discussion in a sane and educated manner.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Wrong again, Katz!
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:34PM
|
Victoria's Secrect IS selling sex. Their medium just happens to be clothing
But my point would be that much of women's clothing is purchased by women to make them more attractive, presumably do men. Why is there a multi-billion dollar fashion and cosmetics industry? VS is slightly more focused on this market than other clothing stores, but if you've ever read their catalogs, they sell outerwear too. Again, I've not seen anything in VS that couldn't be purchased in Nordstrom's or Mervyn's...
I don't have the numbers for this either, but based on the sheer number of sites I suspect there is profit there.
Sorry, but I'm an engineer, and if somebody's trying to convince me that something is or will be a lucrative business, I want to see the numbers! Most web-based business are operating at a loss right now. The much-touted amazon.com loses money on every book they sell; the more they sell, the more they lose! Consistently losing money is not a sustainable business model...
I don't see the point of this question.
There were two points here, admittedly not very clear. First, Katz is being hypocritical if he's condeming a phonomenon he himself has probably participated in. And second, nobody really cares what he or anybody else is downloading from the internet... unless it's my children, in which case I care. But then, I don't leave the latest copy of Hustler out for my kids to read, either.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
new records for the net?
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:40PM
|
a million hits in an hour is a new record? give me a fucking break. cnn reported a half million hits in the first few minutes after the starr report was released. www.cisco.com has done a million hits in about an hour on more than one occasion (as long as a year ago), and they just sell routers.
just because these numbers seem big to you, doesn't mean they are even remotely impressive to the audience you are writing for. you've been slammed before for not bothering to get your facts right. why dont you pay attention?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
What was the point of this article? (Score:1)
by Fimmtiu on Thursday February 04, @02:43PM
(User Info) |
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not some rabid Jon Katz-hating member of the Geekstapo. However, this article is the most content-free thing I've ever read on Slashdot, bar none. Allow me to summarize: There's lots of sex on the Internet. Lots of it. People use AOL to talk about sex. Did I mention that you can find pr0n on the Internet? Filler filler filler sex filler filler sex hyperbole sex filler. Egads! I come away from this article with no real information. There are no meaningful facts presented, no coherent points made... in short, it proves nothing. Doesn't this guy have an editor?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Sex sells.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:44PM
|
I worked at an ISP who hosted a sex site. Interestingly enough we had a policy against online distribution of offensive material, but lo and behold, money talks. Of course we never did get paid.. niether did the people who designed the site. No matter they went on to move the content they never paid for to somewhere else before we could fully shut them down.
Interestingly enough our largest sites at the time were a famous game company and a famous game magazine, and they quickly were eclipsed in complexity, size, and bandwidth by the sex site. Of course the game companies paid the bills..
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Publicly traded adult stocks (Score:1)
by Erik Talvola on Thursday February 04, @02:47PM
(User Info) http://www.angelfire.com/ca/talvola
|
Just a random comment - there are probably more adult entertainment stocks than most people think. The ones I know are:
PLA: Playboy Enterprises
NOOF: New Frontier Media
SPZE: Spice Entertainment (merging with Playboy)
MLDS: Million Dollar Saloon
RICK: Rick's Cabaret
TAUR: Taurus Entertainment
MGMA: Metro Global Media
GRLZ: BoysToys.com
PMGIF: Princeton Media Group
PRVT: Private Media Group
SNMM: Starnet Communications
Not all of these are internet-related stocks, but all could be.
The difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets -- Will Rogers |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
WRONG (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @02:56PM
|
First of all, Katz is all wrong about this being a 'neo-puritan' society. Sex pretty much permeates the culture now - its all over the TV, advertising, etc. The web may be accelerating this so-called 'freedom' (which really started in the '60s in the US) and taking it to new levels of depravity, but its not like there's anything essentially new going on here.
Second, he says something about sex gaining 'respectability' for the first time since the Judeo-Christian ethic entered the picture. As a Christian, I must dispute this. Christianity (and Judeaism) respect sex very highly, so much so that it is considered too sacred to be splashed all over a TV screen or magazine or website. It is also so highly respected in our tradition that it is considered more than a mere physical act (as if it were just some physical exercise to be entered into for entertainment alone). In the Judeo-Christian tradition sex is considered to have a spiritual component - so much so that when two people enter into it they actually give a very personal part of themselves (on a spiritual level) to each other. This is why we Christians believe that sex should only be entered into by two people who have entered a covenant relationship (marriage) with each other so that all parts of their lives are connected and so that sex is protected by that bond. In this environment of committed love sex can really become something of beauty.
Outside of the protective commitment of the marriage bond sex becomes cheap - merely a means to use another person.
The result of the complete sexual libertarianism envisioned by Mr. Katz will be impotence, dissatisfaction, disipation, disillusionment.
You like chocolate? OK, then binge on it - eat it for three meals a day seven days a week. What'll you get? Sick, for one. It'll no longer be considered a treat. Our culture seems to want to embark on a similar binge with regard to sex.
It's also a very Male centered vision (or illusion) which sees women as nothing but objects to be used for our satisfaction - when they no longer please us, they're to be thrown out and a newer model 'purchased'. There is no comitment, no true love, just lust - and that in the long run will never satisfy.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
WRONG
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:11PM
|
You're free to believe that, and I'm free to get off to porn.
Isn't this a great country?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
WRONG
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:29PM
|
Very well said. What is frightening is that your mature views are held buy what seems such a small minority on here...
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
WRONG (Score:1)
by willfe (choadster@earthlink.net) on Thursday February 04, @03:35PM
(User Info) http://lcdproc.omnipotent.net/
|
While you are certainly entitled to your beliefs, it is precisely those beliefs that have royally *SCREWED* up our society.
You whine about sex being plastered all over TV, advertisements, web sites, etc., but let's stop and look into something that frightens every nerd out there: "Real Life".
Where is all the sex? We see talk shows and read rantings about all our sexual freedom, and all the cool sex going on out there, but where the hell is it? Do you have any idea how long my wife and I have been looking
for a woman to join us in the bedroom?
Another problem I have with the Christian argument is if you think it's so private, so sacred, that it shouldn't even be *DISCUSSED* outside of a relationship, why are you here whining about it? Shut up and keep it to yourself if it's so important to you. You behave your way, I'll behave mine, and we'll let reality judge us instead of some imaginary god.
-- Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies. |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
WRONG (Score:1)
by pingouin (ecran21@prodigy.net) on Thursday February 04, @03:49PM
(User Info) http://pages.prodigy.net/ecran21/cluestick/
|
| ...if you think it's so private, so sacred, that it shouldn't even be *DISCUSSED* outside of a relationship, why are you here whining about it? I don't think he was whining. And sex isn't some taboo subject for discussion - even John Paul II talks about sex (his audience is bigger than Loveline's, IIRC). The original poster was just providing some food for thought on a subject that doesn't get thought about all that much. (Thinking with one's sexual organ doesn't count). ...You behave your way, I'll behave mine, and we'll let reality judge us instead of some imaginary god. Let the Springer-isation of America continue unabated! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Your "reality" bites :)
--
=8^ |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Thank God
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:15PM
|
I just have to thank you for injecting a little sanity and reality into this whole thing. Springer is NOT reality, and those that think he is... troubles.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
WRONG
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:41PM
|
Ah, yes. Jerry Springer is the cause of all our problems.
No, sir, my reality rocks. It consists of free thought instead of ideals pushed by bible-thumpers. I intend to keep it that way.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
WRONG (Score:1)
by pingouin (ecran21@prodigy.net) on Thursday February 04, @06:52PM
(User Info) http://pages.prodigy.net/ecran21/cluestick/
|
| Ah, yes. Jerry Springer is the cause of all our problems. I love Jerry. He's cool. His program is obviously not a "cause of all our problems"; it's a symptom of the general sex-madness (and greed-madness) of secular society. But I'll gladly defend the right of the show to remain on the air, just as I'll gladly support the free-speech rights of pr0n sites, and even the free-speech rights of that now-infamous anti-abortion site (even though I'm pro-choice). No, sir, my reality rocks. It consists of free thought instead of ideals pushed by bible-thumpers. I intend to keep it that way. I ain't no Bible-thumper. I'm a Christian (my conversion, years ago, came as a result of plenty of hard-fought free thought and experience) who stands in opposition to mainstream (Merkin) evangelical Christianity in much the same way as the Jesus People longhairs in the 1960's stood in opposition to the rigid mainstream of Christianity in their day. Pushy Bible-thumpers are, to me, just as odious as those who make a show (implicitly or explicitly) of how "free" they are from half-understood Christian values.
--
=8^ |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
WRONG
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @08:54PM
|
| I love Jerry. He's cool. His program is obviously not a "cause of all our problems"; it's a symptom of the general sex-madness. I've only seen Jerry a couple times, but when I did, I enjoyed it. Just like I enjoy going watching "Wild Discovery". Or going to the zoo. ...stands in opposition to mainstream (Merkin) evangelical Christianity in much the same way as the Jesus People longhairs in the 1960's stood in opposition to the rigid mainstream of Christianity. Does this mean you don't have a problem with long-haired Jesus people? Cool. My hair's down to the middle of my back. I had it cut short for my sister's wedding, and I looked like such a dork I swore I'd never go back. I tell you what, Jon's assertion that the Net Sex explosion will bring about a legitimization of the pandemic of hedonistic sexuality frightens me dearly. It's not hard to draw parallels between where modern society is going with sexual sin and where certain societies in Biblical times went...
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
WRONG Part II
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:59PM
|
I'm a different AC than the first.
"While you are certainly entitled to your beliefs, it is precisely those beliefs that have royally *SCREWED* up our society."
Exactly what part of the Judeo-Christian ethic is responsible for child molestation? For murder? For perjury that goes unpunished? For AIDS? For teen pregnancies (outside of marriage)? For drug abuse? For theft?
The Judeo-Christian ethic explicitly forbids all of these. On the other hand, in today's world of ethical relativism (hint: this has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian ethic), it's hard for an atheist to consistently explain why *any* of these things ought to be considered immoral (okay, AIDS itself isn't immoral).
Next!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
WRONG Part II (Score:1)
by DavidTC on Thursday February 04, @05:00PM
(User Info) http://
|
| I love when people claim you have to have religion to have ethics. Let's take these in order.
Child molestation: Infringes on said child's property (namely, their body. BTW, I can't actually recall a bible verse where it is prohibited. Help me out here.)
Murder: Again, infringes on the victim's rights.
Perjury that goes unpunished: Um, are you suggesting that if it is punished it is okay? Anyway, it infringes on the person who is being procuted right to a fair trail, and, hence, their right to liberty.
AID: Huh? You mean giving people AIDs? That infringes on their property again, namely their body.
Teen pregnancies: Huh again? Teen pregnancies are fine with me. I hope it wasn't accidental, and that if they can't take care of the baby they will do the right thing and give it up for adoption.
Drug abuse: And yet a third Huh? Basically, I feel sorry for people who have gotten trapped. If I can help them I can.
Theft: Well, property violation again. But then, I could be wrong, I've never quite figured out what 'morals' are, except what I personally won't do. Which has no bearing on what other people won't do.
-David T. C. |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
WRONG Part III
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:55PM
|
| Child molestation: Infringes on said child's property So what? Why should the child molester care? Why should you care? This is not a basis for an ethic. What difference does "property" make? (Note: I have a very high view of personal property; my point is that atheistic religion can't consistently defend it). Interesting how this is the best you can offer: a property rights violation. Big Whoop.
Murder: Again, infringes on the victim's rights. Again, so what? Why should I care? Why should you care? This is lame. Where does this victim's "rights" (so-called) come from? Atheism cannot answer this in a consistent fashion. Does a dog have rights? How about bacteria? What's the difference? How about a rock? Does it have rights? What's the difference?
Perjury that goes unpunished: Um, are you suggesting that if it is punished it is okay? Anyway, it infringes on the person who is being procuted right to a fair trail, and, hence, their right to liberty. Okay, I didn't put it very well. I was referring to one of society's present problems, which the previous poster attributed (completely baselessly) to the Judeo-Christian ethic. Anyway, where does this "right" to a "fair trial" come from? What's "fair"? Where does this alleged "right" to "liberty" come from? Atheism cannot adequately defend these things. Where does atheism fabricate these "rights" and such from? How does a materialist (not in the sense of money, but in the sense of matter being all there is) world view come up with anything that even vaguely resembles an ethic consistent with its premises? It can't.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
So... (Score:1)
by **SkipKent** (skipkent@usa.net) on Thursday February 04, @06:31PM
(User Info) altavista search =
|
If I write a manuscript containing spiritual admonitions and hard, fast 'rules for living', claim that it was not written by me but, rather, divinely inspired (through my humble, trembling hand) by an all-knowing (know-it-all) etherial being called 'God' (or 'Bob', or 'Doris' or 'Xogon J-12', or whatever), and then base an entire moral and legal system on the 'facts' contained in this book, then I'm okay?
Then will my moral principles will be unassailable by nitwits who claim that the moral assertions of an ancient, savage desert race are the only keys to "good living" known to man?
Take a fscking hike, eh?
;)
...this ain't no weenie roast! |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
So...
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @07:30PM
|
| If I write a manuscript containing spiritual admonitions and hard, fast 'rules for living', claim that it was not written by me but, rather, divinely inspired (through my humble, trembling hand) by an all-knowing (know-it-all) etherial being called 'God' (or 'Bob', or 'Doris' or 'Xogon J-12', or whatever), and then base an entire moral and legal system on the 'facts' contained in this book, then I'm okay? Then will my moral principles will be unassailable by nitwits who claim that the moral assertions of an ancient, savage desert race are the only keys to "good living" known to man? No. And nothing you've said here bears anything more than a vague resemblance to reality. I think I will take the hike, though. Try actually thinking about what foundation atheism provides for ethics, and you will see that there is none -- except completely arbitrary ones. Big Whoop. What kind of "standard" is that? And this is why it's fair to call atheistic "ethics" a fantasy. At best the atheist can plagiarize the ethics of other religions and pretend he as a sound basis for calling them universal standards. Either that, or he denies that they're even universal; but then, why should anyone care what he says? I certainly don't.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
WRONG Service Pack 4 (Score:1)
by **SkipKent** (skipkent@usa.net) on Thursday February 04, @05:08PM
(User Info) altavista search =
|
On the other hand, in today's world of ethical relativism (hint: this has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian ethic), it's hard for an atheist to consistently explain why *any* of these things ought to be considered immoral
Is the threat of everlasting torment in Hell the only thing that keeps YOU from molesting a child? From murduring an irksome neighbor?
Hope you never lose your religion...
...this ain't no weenie roast! |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
WRONG Part II (Score:1)
by kaisyain on Thursday February 04, @05:32PM
(User Info) |
Interesting that in a 1993 survey Janus and Janus discovered that people who classified themselves as "extremely religious" were not only three times as likely to believe that sadomasochism is very normal or all right but were also more likely to have frequent or ongoing extramarital affairs (23% vs. 16% of the very liberal).
Maybe they were inspired by II Samuel 12:11 (adultery), Psalm 137:9 (murder of children), Exodus 21:5-6 (slavery), Deuteronomy 28:53 (cannibalism of children), Isaiah 13:15-16 (murder and rape), Deuteronomy 3:6-7 (slaughter of innocents), Joshua 6:19 (kill man, woman, young, and old), II Samuel 12:31 (Nazi war ovens get their inspiration from King David), I Samuel 15:2-3 (kill man, woman, and child), I Corinthians 11:3 and 11:8-9 (woman are subservient to men), Revelation 2:22-23 (Jesus will kill children), Judges 19:24-25 (rape my daughter, please), I Timothy 2:11-14 (silence the women), Ephesians 5:22-24 (women submit to your husbands), Hosea 13:16 (rip up pregnant women), Ecclesiastes 25:22 (woman are the source of all sin).
Seems like fertile ground to deal with here.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
WRONG (Score:1)
by pingouin (ecran21@prodigy.net) on Thursday February 04, @03:37PM
(User Info) http://pages.prodigy.net/ecran21/cluestick/
|
| ...It's also a very Male centered vision (or illusion) which sees women as nothing but objects to be used for our satisfaction - when they no longer please us, they're to be thrown out and a newer model 'purchased'... Which is why Dirty Old Man Mick Jagger remains a "culture hero" and "role model"... and maybe Bill Clinton is one, to a lesser extent - since Monica doesn't resemble a Brazilian superdupermodel (sizism still reigns supreme, after all), Bill loses a few bonus points. ...There is no comitment, no true love, just lust - and that in the long run will never satisfy. As long as that lust is strong enough to make men (and women, that great "untapped market") part with their kash, we're stuck with this pr0n tripe, pr0n-ish objectification (like Marriage Lite and "trophy wives"), and silly, pointless Katzian commentaries like today's. Shareholders and financial writers may celebrate all the hoopla, but I'm a bit worried about all this.
--
=8^ |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
WRONG, or maybe not (Score:1)
by kaisyain on Thursday February 04, @03:48PM
(User Info) |
"Christianity respects sex very highly"? I guess these must be the Christians who don't read the Bible and don't follow the teaching of Jesus and his disciples.
St. Paul writes in Corinthians, "...it is best for a man to not touch a woman." St. Augustine stated that marriage is sin. There was no Christian sacrament of marriage until the 16th century. The Council of Trent decreed that a person who even hinted that matrimony might be more blessed than celibacy was anathema -- accursed and excommunicated. St. Ambrose said marriage was a crime against God. According to St. Jerome, a Christian must consider poisonous every act or experience having even the slightest sensual pleasure. In 418AD, the Catholic Church decided that every child born is demonic as a result or sexual conception, thus automatically damned. Jesus advocated castration (Matthew 19:12). So did Origen, Justin, and Tertullian.
So I admit that I'm confused when you claim that Christianity respects sex very highly. Which type of Christianity are you referring to?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
WRONG, or maybe not -- no, definitely WRONG
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:11PM
|
(different AC here)
without choking you on a full report, suffice it to say that you have ripped a single verse out of context when you quote Paul. The Bible has an extremely high view of the value of marriage, and it is by no means evil. Jesus did NOT advocate castration as something we all ought to just go out and do (another nice RIP from context).
The rest of the guys you quoted were just that: guys. And they were wrong. Big fat deal.
The first AC's point stands: the Bible has an extremely high view of marriage and sex. Some people within Christendom have made grotesque mistakes about it. That has zero impact upon the content of the Judeo-Christian ethic.
Next!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
WRONG, or maybe not -- no, definitely WRONG (Score:1)
by kaisyain on Thursday February 04, @05:49PM
(User Info) |
Then maybe I should rip some more verses out of context:
Paul said "For this is the will of God that ye should abstain." "Now the body [is] not for fornication, but for the Lord." "So then he that giveth [her] in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth [her] not in marriage doeth better."
Jesus said, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage." "But they which shall be accounted worthy neither marry nor are given in marriage." "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
Mark reiterated that, "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage."
And Revelations 14:4 seems to say clearly that if you are not a virgin ("they which are not defiled with women"). You will not be "redeemed from among men" and will not "follow the Lamb withersoever he goeth."
Hardly a ringing endorsement of marriage or sex.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Yes, you did rip more out of context.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @07:56PM
|
At least you admitted it. :-)
Note where it says that those who marry "doeth well." In other words, they do something that is good. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with being unmarried either (though sex outside of marriage is certainly a sin).
Note *where* Jesus says that marriage doesn't occur: "in the resurrection." In other words, in heaven. This has no bearing on whether it is good here on earth.
Even assuming that Rev. 14:4 is not referring to people who have not engaged in extra/pre-marital sex, it says nothing whatsoever about whether marriage is a good thing. Note that it is referring to a specific group of people: the 144,000. In other words: not everybody.
As others have said: read the Song of Solomon. The Bible's view of sex is that is perfectly pure and holy -- within marriage ONLY.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
WRONG, or maybe not
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:37PM
|
"I guess these must be the Christians who don't read the Bible and don't follow the teaching of Jesus and his disciples."
No, perhaps they read the text in its context...
"St. Paul writes in Corinthians, "...it is best for a man to not touch a woman." "
Yup, sure enough that's what he says there, but in the very next sentence he conceeeds the reality that this isn't for everyone which is why marriage was instituted so that people could enjoy sex in its proper safe, loving, nurturing context.
"St. Augustine stated that marriage is sin."
Perhaps he did, I'm not sure though. Even if he did say this, the words of St. Augustine are not considered to be part of the Biblical text - ie they don't have the authority of scripture.
"There was no Christian sacrament of marriage until the 16th century."
Certainly there was Christian marriage before the Catholic church decreed it a sacrement (again, I'm not sure your facts are correct here. Certainly Paul in the passage you mention earlier called the "marriage bed" sacred.
"St. Ambrose said marriage was a crime
against God."
Ambrose was a Catholic priest, this could have been said in the context of the priesthood (though, I personally am not Catholic, so his words don't hold any weight for me in this matter).
"In 418AD, the Catholic Church decided that every child born is demonic as a result or sexual conception, thus automatically damned."
Perhaps they did, but (at least in Protestantism) the doctrine of Total Depravity derives not at all from the sexual union that produced the individual.
"Jesus advocated castration (Matthew 19:12)."
Here your argument becomes most seriously flawed. The passage talks about marriage and divorce. He tells his disciples that whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than infidelity, and then remarries essentially commits adultery. His disciples are surprised at this and reply:
"If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!" Jesus then replies: "Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given [the gift of celibacy]." There is an indication here that there are some who are able to live celibate lives and do well with it, but there are others (the vast majority) who cannot accept what the disciples declared (that it would be better not to marry).
Why would Jesus have performed his first miracle at a wedding (the turning of water into wine - and who says God doesn't want us to have a good time?)
be against marriage?
"So I admit that I'm confused when you claim that Christianity respects sex very highly. Which type
of Christianity are you referring to?"
True Christianity, not the parody of Christianity that you've been fed by the popular culture, etc. The "Song of Solomon" is in the bible, it is essentially a steamy romance. God created sex and called everything he created good - sex included - but it becomes bad if it is taken from the context of marriage. Do we consider guard rails on curvy mountain roads to be a limitation on our freedom? "How dare they put those guard rails there! They really limit my ability to drive off that cliff!"
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
WRONG, or maybe not (Score:1)
by kaisyain on Thursday February 04, @05:35PM
(User Info) |
In Isaiah 45:7 it says that God created evil. Since, by your admission, everything he created is good, perhaps you can explain how evil is good?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
WRONG, or maybe not (Score:1)
by Robin Hood (Robert.A.Munn@wheaton.edu) on Friday February 05, @12:00AM
(User Info) |
Huh? I don't understand how you understand that verse as saying that God created evil. In my translation (New International Version, in case you were wondering -- one of the most commonly-read translations these days), Isaiah 45:7 reads: "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things." Unless you interpret "disaster" as meaning "evil", I fail to see your point. I understand it to refer to things like financial disaster (since it stands opposite "prosperity" and Hebrew poetry revolves around pairs of similar things and pairs of opposites). Evil is ugly things like murder, victimization, things that people do to hurt other people. Financial disaster just doesn't "cut it" as evil in my book.
Now, if you want to get into the problem of free will and whether God is somehow responsible for evil because he created the *possibility* of evil, that's another debate entirely. Theologians have argued for years over whether God created the possibility of evil or if he didn't, where it came from. Suffice it to say that just because God created us *able* to disobey him and do evil doesn't mean it's his *fault* that we should do so. We all take responsibility for our own actions: that's a fundamental principle of life.
I think you're reaching here. The argument "God created evil. God created sex. Therefore sex is evil." is logically flawed, AND it has a false premise ("God created evil."). I'm not saying that's your argument, just that that's what it seemed to be leading to. But even if both premises were true, "God created A" and "God created B" do NOT allow one to conclude that "A == B".
You might do better on a different line of argumentation -- you just don't have any logical base to build on with this one.
-----
"Chase the dream, not the competition." -- The Nemesis Air Racing Team |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Song of Solomon, anyone? (Score:1)
by FS on Thursday February 04, @04:38PM
(User Info) |
Read Song of Solomon.
What the other AC said is also very true. You can't take verses or phrases out of the Bible (or any other writing for that matter) without taking them in context. The very next verse: (I Cor 7:2) "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." and in verse 6, "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." Paul's words in this passage were by God's permission and not to be taken as commandment. It seems very clear to me.
The other people and occasions you mentioned were during a time when the majority of people were illiterate. Once the general population learned to read the Bible for themselves, many of these corrupt organizations fell apart and the truth, or at least a closer version of it, has come out.
These are just my opinions of course, but I think most Bible-believing Christians would agree.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
WRONG, or maybe not (Score:1)
by Robin Hood (Robert.A.Munn@wheaton.edu) on Thursday February 04, @05:13PM
(User Info) |
Which type of Christianity is he referring to? The type that reads the *entire* Bible, not just the parts one wants to hear. I can't say anything about St. Augustine, the Council of Trent, St. Ambrose, or St. Jerome, except that when they said those things, they were NOT speaking with the authority of the Bible. As for the two Bible references you quoted: I Corinthians chapter 7, verse 1 and Matthew chapter 19, verse 12. I'll take them one at a time.
In I Corinthians 7, Paul begins with "It is good for a man not to marry." (Or, "Not to touch a woman" in other translations). He then *GOES ON* to say, "Because there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband." He also orders couples, "Do not deprive each other [of sex] except by mutual consent and for a time ... then come together again." And in verse 25 of that chapter, he makes it plain that on the issue of whether one should remain single or marry, he is giving his own personal opinion, not the word of God on the matter. As far as I know, that's the ONLY place in the entire Bible where something like that is said, and that's significant.
As for Matthew 19:12, I think you're totally misreading that. Jesus has just gotten through explaining why divorce, in God's eyes, is wrong: because God made people male and female. "Haven't you read", Jesus said, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?" (Matthew 19:4-5). The two becoming "one flesh" is such a lovely image of how sex does much more than produce mere physical enjoyment: it brings two people together in a powerful way. The reason why Christians are genuinely distressed about pornography (and I'm talking about the genuine ones, not the hypocrites) are because it REDUCES sex to a mere physical act, when it's SUPPOSED to be so much more than that.
And finally, have you ever read the Song of Solomon (or the Song of Songs, in some translations)? It's right between Ecclesiastes and Isaiah, just a few pages after the Psalms. Eight chapters of erotic poetry, celebrating both love and sex. Or in Proverbs 5, when a father is warning his son against adultery, being unfaithful to his wife: "Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well. Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares? Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers. May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer--may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love." (Proverbs 5:15-19). And Genesis 2:24-25, which Jesus quoted in the passage I mentioned above, finishes with "the man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." Shame only came after sin entered the picture. Marriage and sex go together throughout the entire Bible, and it's a pity that so many people have tried to separate them: some trying to take sex out of marriage, and others trying to take marriage out of sex.
Yes, Christianity respects sex very highly. Christians repect sex very highly. That's why I will remain a virgin until I'm married. Not because I think sex is somehow "dirty" or wrong, or because I "can't get laid," or because I don't desire sex. I'm a normal male with a normal sexual drive, too. But because I'm not going to be satisfied with a cheap, temporary relationship. I'm waiting for a woman who I'm in love with and whom I will spend my whole life with. And then, yes, we'll enjoy sex. And we won't have any guilt feelings about it, either.
That's what it's supposed to be. That's why Christians get so upset about pornography -- because it undermines the self-control needed to really experience sex the way it's MEANT to be: with ONE partner whom you love and whom you're married to.
O.K., enough about that. I hope I've given you a clearer picture of what the Bible says about sex. This is wandering far off-topic from "News for Nerds", so if you have any further comments, I'll be glad to talk to you. E-mail me (my Slashdot E-mail address is valid and is not munged) and we'll talk.
-----
"Chase the dream, not the competition." -- The Nemesis Air Racing Team |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
WRONG, or maybe not (Score:1)
by kaisyain on Thursday February 04, @05:41PM
(User Info) |
Re: Song of Solomon. Why do so many theologians assert that it is really an allegory of Christ's love for his church? The 18th century scholar Herder was persecuted because he advocated the Song of Solomon should be taken at face value.
What's more the Song of Solomon probably isn't the best place to retreat to looking for a canonical endorsement of sex from Christianity:
In one year Solomon received 666 talents of gold (1 Kings 10:14), the mystic number of the Triple Goddess, later re-interpreted by her enemies as "the number of the beast" (Revelation 13:18). Clearly, Solomon worshipped the Goddess (1 Kings 11:5) and paid little or no attention to the Christian god. Apocryphal texts said the Christian god never forgave Solomon's paganism, but after his death condemned him to perpetual punishment, like that of Prometheus: to be daily devoured, forever, by 10,000 ravens.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
WRONG, or maybe not (Score:1)
by Robin Hood (Robert.A.Munn@wheaton.edu) on Thursday February 04, @11:46PM
(User Info) |
Why do so many theologians interpret the Song of Songs as an allegory? My guess is that it's because they're uncomfortable with the idea that such an erotic poem belongs in the Bible. Herder, as far as I know, wasn't the only one who was persecuted for advocating a literal interpretation. But if you look at the text, it's my belief that only a literal interpretation makes sense. It's the only thing that can explain why the lovers talk about each other's body parts (not just breasts and genitals, but eyes, teeth, legs, feet...). And if chapter 7, verses 6-9 aren't a poetic description of foreplay, then I don't know what is.
As for Solomon's faults: yes, he did turn away from God at the end of his life. But in 1 Kings chapter 11, it's clear that that happened near the end of his life. At the beginning of his life, he was more fully committed to God (though he still had his faults) -- see 1 Kings 3:3. And insofar as the 666 talents of gold are concerned: I think you're falling into the trap of assigning far too much significance to that number. The tribute he received every year came out to 666 talents of gold, "*not including* the revenues from merchants and traders and from all the Arabian kings and the governors of the land." (1 Kings 10:15, emphasis mine). I forget how they worked it out, but I think people believed Hitler was the "anti-Christ" (the "beast" of Revelation 13:18) because the letters of his name added up to 666. But they were proven wrong by the course of history. Other explanations for the number 666 have also been advanced, and all of them so far seem to have proven wrong. It's a mistake, I think, to attach too much importance to this number.
And finally, apocryphal texts are just that: apocryphal. Non-canonical. They were never accepted by the Jews (in the case of the "Old Testament" apocryphal books) or the Christian church (in the case of the "New Testament" apocryphal books) as having the authority of Scripture. Just to give one illustration: in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is depicted as, when he was twelve or so, striking another boy down with a wasting disease just for laughing at him. The boy almost died, but Jesus relented at the last minute and cured him. Now, I don't know about you, but that story just does not fit with the person portrayed in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Apocryphal texts are not always to be relied on. Some, like the Maccabbes, seem to be good historical documents; but others contain the most appalling nonsense.
But overall, you're probably right: the Song of Solomon probably ISN'T "the best place to retreat to looking for a canonical endorsement of sex from Christianity." The best place to find that is in Genesis 2:24-25. When God created Adam and Eve, BEFORE they disobeyed him and sin entered the picture (in other words, when everything was still exactly as God meant it to be), he said "It is not good for the man to be alone" (Genesis 2:18) and so created a woman to be with him. The two are to "become one flesh", says verse 24, which sounds like sex to me; but the most ringing endorsement (as far as I can see) is verse 25: "The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." Nakedness is not something to be ashamed of: God made us that way. (Now, I'm not saying that nakedness is always appropriate: in our society, where the naked body is one of the most powerful sexual turn-ons around, it just wouldn't work for everyone to walk around naked.)
Anyway, my point is that nowhere in the Bible is it said that sex *per se* is bad, and in several places it's said that sex *within marriage* is good. And (to wrestle this back on-topic) the reason that pornography (and prostitution, and the entire "sex industry") is so insidious is that it cheapens sex by turning it into something that can be bought rather than a priceless gift that a man and a woman can give each other. I know it would cheapen it for me: if I ever get married, a huge part of my gift to my wife on our wedding night will be that she will *KNOW* that this is special, that I've never had sex with anyone but her and that this is a gift that I'm giving her alone. Sex, just like fire or any other powerful force, can be good and constructive when controlled (in the fireplace, or cooking a meal), but terrible and destructive when out of control (a raging forest fire).
Sorry about another long post, but this topic is really important to me.
-----
"Chase the dream, not the competition." -- The Nemesis Air Racing Team |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
WRONG, or maybe not (Score:1)
by Robin Hood (Robert.A.Munn@wheaton.edu) on Thursday February 04, @05:15PM
(User Info) |
By the way, when I said "you" I meant "whoever happens to read this", not just kaisyain.
-----
"Chase the dream, not the competition." -- The Nemesis Air Racing Team |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
WRONG, or maybe not
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @09:36PM
|
Well, not Catholicism, which is infamous for tacking all sorts of weirdness to the teachings of the Bible. (Purgatory ring a bell?)
As for the castration line, you've obviously never actually read the 19th chapter of Matthew. It is admonishing divorce and remarrying afterwards. The apostles seem astonished, saying that it would be better to never marry at all, in that case. Jesus says that most men cannot accept that (not marrying, that is) except for those who are born eunuchs or made eunuch by other men. He isn't advocating castration, just saying that those who are.. lacking.. are about the only ones who can live without marriage.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Re: WRONG (Score:1)
by Erik Hollensbe on Thursday February 04, @07:13PM
(User Info) http://hollense.rcn.orst.edu
|
Second, he says something about sex gaining 'respectability' for the first time since the Judeo-Christian ethic entered the picture. As a Christian, I must dispute this. Christianity (and Judeaism) respect sex very highly, so much so that it is considered too sacred to be splashed all over a TV screen or magazine or website. It is also so highly respected in our tradition that it is considered more than a mere physical act (as if it were just some physical exercise to be entered into for entertainment alone). In the Judeo-Christian tradition sex is considered to have a spiritual component - so much so that when two people enter into it they actually give a very personal part of themselves (on a spiritual level) to each other. This is why we Christians believe that sex should only be entered into by two people who have entered a covenant relationship (marriage) with each other so that all parts of their lives are connected and so that sex is protected by that bond. In this environment of committed love sex can really become something of beauty.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
I don't see how this pertains to this website. If I wanted your theology and philosophy I would be looking at http://www.christ.com or something like that. I don't think this article had anything to do with the moral implications at all frankly, just about how availiable it is nowadays as compared to times where Christianity and Judaism were more saturated within the people.
Personally I think the fact that people are more open and don't treat all sex like some stupid ceremony (as opposed to something more singular and remembrant as marriage or the birth of a child), or view it to be obscene if someone isn't clothed is just plain stupid.
The result of the complete sexual libertarianism envisioned by Mr. Katz will be impotence, dissatisfaction, disipation, disillusionment.
You like chocolate? OK, then binge on it - eat it for three meals a day seven days a week. What'll you get? Sick, for one. It'll no longer be considered a treat. Our culture seems to want to embark on a similar binge with regard to sex.
Yeah, you get sick when you tend to consume much sugar, whether it's chocolate or soda or cookies. Point is, is you can overdo anything, such as Drinking, Religion, or Advocation.
It's also a very Male centered vision (or illusion) which sees women as nothing but objects to be used for our satisfaction - when they no longer please us, they're to be thrown out and a newer model 'purchased'. There is no comitment, no true love, just lust - and that in the long run will never satisfy.
I hate to break this to you, but that is how males treat everything they can't fix. "My computer is starting to get behind on the tech scale.. better upgrade/replace it." This can be applied to cars, computers, appliances, or many other things. It's just a male point of view that many of us share, and frankly most of us can settle on a person that we want to spend our lives with based on their merits without a lesson or two from Billy Graham.
-Erik-
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
WRONG - Only if you're a warped Christian. (Score:1)
by Psymonger (dangermouse@finebody.com) on Thursday February 04, @11:03PM
(User Info) http://
|
Coming from a Mother who is a devout christian, I can see clearly how twisted religious people are.
You are a good example.
Religion is a human means to combat the fear of death. "Hey! That person just died. I wonder what happens? Geez, I hope it is nice! Hey.. i bet it is nice! It's a pretty place that we'll all go to! But only if you're good..."
There is *NOTHING ELSE* that drives humans to religion except the curiosity that being human provides, and the claim that the church has the answer. Every religion in some form is just a grasp, a human grasp at something that we will never comprehend as mere physical beings on earth.
You can compound theory after theory and it will amount to nothing but a pile of books and a whole history of morons who haven't been able to get their heads out of the bible.
And to add this, there are RULES accompanying this after life, rules to get you there, rules to get you other places - you are CONSTANTLY judged by your human peers and the one that looks over you.
I cannot see how any religion can even DARE to intrude and judge on who I see fit to stick my penis into as a human being.
Sex is a human thing, a physical thing, a BASE LAYER of human interaction. It is a charge of chemicals in your body, a surge of blood to certain areas and a particular type of brain wave that drives you wild.
Tell me how this relates to a ring around my finger, and my signature on paper? Some words I say in a building with prety windows? Why does standing in front of a man with a cross around his neck give me the ability to have sex?
Why? Because it'll get me to heaven.
And if you get there, you won't have to worry during life because what comes after will be worth it. So while you're here, just pray and believe, and stop asking questions.
That is the only reason - and will always be the only reason to all the warped God heads roaming the earth with a sack of guilt on their shoulder because they had sexual thoughts about someone they weren't married to.
It frustrates me to the core when I am told that I shouldn't have sex with my girlfriend of 6 years because we aren't married.
Bible bashing DRONE m0therf#$ers like you piss me off.
Sex is GOOD. Inside of marriage and out. Go and splash some water on your face and watch the world become a brighter place.
.PsyMonger. .-!-. |
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
OLD NEWS. NEXT PLEASE.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:05PM
|
sex has been a profitable online industry ever since gateway2000.com was registered by
"gateway to 2000 adult-related products" in 1994.
i'm beginning to see juuri's point about jon
katz. hey jon, what's next: an in-depth expose
on how consumers really don't have their privacy
anymore?
i think we should start a donation fund to register "jonkatz.org", buy a linux box, buy some server space, and set up a server so that jon can finally have a home for his mildly amusing but ultimately irritating rants- it's kind of like teaching a retarded child how to play chess.
thanks, gweeds
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
This is all we need (Score:1)
by nadador (andrewgardner@altavista.net) on Thursday February 04, @03:15PM
(User Info) http://lanefour.res.cmu.edu
|
What you fail to realize is that this new "sexual expressionism" rises not out of a a medium of public expression, but out of a medium of anonymous expression. That 18 year old girl in that chat room on AOL, she's really an overweight, hairy, 45 year old man. This has nothing to do with freedom of expression or the ability to flaunt one's sexuality, but everything to do with absolute anonymity.
The thing that amazes me the most is that in post modern society sexual expression has been elevated to such a status that it is truly ridiculous. All of those senseless prudes are having kids (like me) that think that sexuality is not the highest calling of humanity, that we can be more than sexual animals, and the sexual anonymity on the internet breaks fundmantal social institutions and cheapens sexuality that is expressed between two people in a commited relationship whose sexuality is about intimacy and trust, and not about wild monkey sex in a chat room, which is more about lying and fantasy than any connection to reality.
If sex, shopping, and the stock market is all the internet is good for, I can deal without it.
Andrew Gardner
Remember -- You can't spell geek without a double E |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Depends how you approach it...
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:47PM
|
"What you fail to realize is that this new "sexual expressionism" rises not out of a a medium of public expression, but out of a medium of anonymous expression. That 18 year old girl in that chat room on AOL, she's really an overweight, hairy, 45 year old man."
And if you spend some time TALKING to "her" and getting to know the person and being friends with "her", you'd realize that this person wasn't a "her" in the first place. I know I was able to detect some imposters. I also know those that I did have "netsex" relationships with were female, having pictures and occasional telephone conversations with them.
The majority of people on legitimate irc netsex channels are real..it takes too much effort to be an imposter consistantly.
"The thing that amazes me the most is that in post modern society sexual expression has been elevated to such a status that it is truly ridiculous."
That's done by television, who sees sexual expression as "getting some" and as socially directed by a hierachy, and showing the relationships as naturally fleeting.
"All of those senseless prudes are having kids (like me) that think that sexuality is not the highest calling of humanity, that we can be more than sexual animals, and the sexual anonymity on the internet breaks fundmantal social institutions"
Those fundimental social institutions are ALREADY broken, by classism and other parental forces, and the inability to find a sexual identity without hurting those you don't want to. netsex is a way of experimenting without pretending about physical ties. We did talk about plenty of other things besides sex in those channels...what people liked best was the OPENNESS in those channels..if you can talk about sex, you can talk about anything else.
"cheapens sexuality that is expressed between two people in a commited relationship whose sexuality is about intimacy and trust, and not about wild
monkey sex in a chat room, which is more about lying and fantasy than any connection to reality."
When developing, people need some kind of sexual experience outside of those ties. Unfortunately, that usually ends up hurting people..which is why netsex is good, it's all virtual.
I've known married couples who also netsex and use that as a way to AUGMENT their sexual life. Those who use this method to lie are not part of the norm.
You might want to check your prejustices.
jce2@po.cwru.edu
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
This is all we need
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @06:03PM
|
Actually, in all my time on irc, I've probably encountered about 40 girls/women i had a good chance to talk to. of those, only 1 was really a man, and he was 19 and pretending to be female due to horrible self esteem and a desire to be popular, which while sad is kind of understandable. It's worth noting I've met quite a few of the people I've talked to on irc, but I tend to go to a lot of lan parties and net gatherings.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
netsex0r
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:18PM
|
pr0n, gotta love it!! I thank the day I got my login and pass to a enourmous site from a friend!!
( o Y o )
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Sigh (Score:1)
by jd on Thursday February 04, @03:21PM
(User Info) |
| Everybody has a right to define what they like or dislike. Likewise, everybody has their own opinions. Personally, I think pornography damages people's sense of boundaries, which I would very much consider harmful. That is simply my opinion. It doesn't have to coincide with anybody else's, and probably doesn't. So what? It influences how I live my life, but, so long as I don't impose my views on anybody else, why should my views matter one jot to anybody else? Easy! They shouldn't. My greatest concern is that the "puritan" lobby (who I -also- disagree with, very much, as they certainly impose their views on others) will be replaced by a more "liberal" lobby, who will be equally imposing of their views. I can tolerate (just!) being told I shouldn't see something I have no interest in seeing. If it swings to the other extreme (and history says it will, sooner or later), I will certainly NOT tolerate being told I SHOULD see something that I have no time and little patience for. Fashions swing, often to the opposite extremes. Those of us who just want to be left ALONE to make up our own minds as to what we want often get the worst of both worlds.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Big deal
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:22PM
|
Humans are sexual animals. Duh. The Puritanical paradox is fairly common, and obvious to anyone that watches a new media unfold: the first thing anybody wants is sex, then games, then they get bored of it and use it as a tool. I don't understand why everybody insists on acting surprised at this.
I also have a hard time understanding why some people confuse "morals" with "acting like a spoiled seventh-grader who giggles at National Geographic" ... maybe it's me ...
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Big deal (Score:1)
by jd on Thursday February 04, @04:01PM
(User Info) |
| Personally, I don't agree. I have a hunch that the majority of people who, say, would claim to think of sex all the time, are lying through their teeth to look "big", and nothing more. I don't know who this "anybody" is, but when the Internet first formed, 20-odd years ago, the FIRST thing that developed was network games. Same thing happened when Europe developed the IPSS network. Sex? First? More like last.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
The Economist had an article on this last year...
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:26PM
|
..and much of the rest of the issue delt with the sex trade.
I'm curious: does anyone have any guesstimates of the percentage of the web's bandwidth is used by porn?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
My two cents on the Victoria's Secret fiasco... (Score:1)
by Electric Eye on Thursday February 04, @03:30PM
(User Info) http://www.judas-priest.com
|
I ignored the above article so I can shout my genius about the stuid-ass company that obviously doesn't know how to do math. VS' site received over a MILLION hits right after the commercial during the super bowl. They advertised the fashion show. How many people, after more ads in major US papers, do you think are going to want to see a lingerie fashion show? Well, it's certainly more than most servers could ever handle at this point. Word on the news this morning was that traffic was so heavy, the server was at a crawl and lots of people couldn't view. Some "expert" claimed that the best web servers can only handle 900 concurrent video streams. Uh, that translates into a HUUUUUUUUGE problem, considering hundreds of thousands of people want to see boobies and camel toes in hot underwear. Maybe they should've used OS X Server and Quicktime.... ;-)
Seriously, it would be nice to see someone take care of the bandwidth problem instead of pissing a lot of people off with slow/no video.....
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Get a clue about Puritanism
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:38PM
|
Contrary to the belief of Katz anf most of the Net at large, the Puritans had nothing against sex. In fact, it was elevated to special status, and encouraged within its proper bounds of marriage.
In fact, if you do a serious study of the Puritans and what they believed, as I did a few years ago, you will likely become one yourself - and this is *not* a bad thing. My wife and I enjoy a very happy and fulfilling sex life. I'd bet that our sex life is better than many (presumably Katz included) for whom losing access to inet porn would mean the end of their lonely sexual existence.
Let's face facts - this is happening, but it's also a problem. Pornography does have victims, many of whom are reading this message.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
nekkid
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:42PM
|
Nothing wrong with the human body and sex. Porn has existed as along as humans have. And people have tried to stop it that long too. Get nekkid and get laid. If you have no other, don't fret, solo sex is the next best thing, and what a kool thing to have porn on your computer!
The whole thing stems to child molestation and sex offenders. They will be around no matter if you saw orgies on network TV. Sex is a fact of life and what a fun one too....
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Excellent article... (Score:1)
by The Mongolian Barbecue on Thursday February 04, @03:54PM
(User Info) |
But you never explain why I can't get laid! What the hell?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Excellent article...
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @06:54PM
|
LOL!
Hint: Get up from in front of that computer and meet some people in the RealWorld(TM)... Chicks like geeks if they're not afraid of their own shadow...
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Chicks like geeks (Score:1)
by daviddennis (david@amazing.com) on Thursday February 04, @08:36PM
(User Info) http://www.amazing.com/david/
|
Okay, where do chicks who like geeks hang out?
I've been suntanned by this monitor too long, I'd like to go out, but have no clue as to where to begin.
Frankly, I think this is a big reason for the success of online sex.
D
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
sex dot effect
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @03:56PM
|
Thats what this was a case of.
Sorry, I didn't read the article.
Too long, (and by that diaria mouth katz).
Can someone summarize it in a sentence(or less:)?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
sex dot effect
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:25PM
|
Summary: Sex is popular.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
hmm... look familiar?
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:03PM
|
http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/1999/2/4katz.asp
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
this is VERY interesting
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:24PM
|
it's mostly the same article, but not exactly the same - which makes me wonder; is he just lazy or is this creative editing, designed to cater to a 'different' audience?
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
sex as industry vs open sexuality
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:06PM
|
Sex will only be profitable as an industry as long as people remain neo-puritanical. Sex is sold as a taboo reaction. If people could come to grips with their sexuality they wouldn't be furtively purchasing it.
So, Jon, you're wrong. More commercial sex on the internet does not mean the internet is an enlightened place, it just means that puritans are using the internet as their new, _anonymous_, place to "get some".
BTW: the porn industry dwarfs the other forms of media in terms of sales. It's huge. Literally, everyone's got some, even the puritans. Especially the puritans.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Doin that neo-70's hipster thing again
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:17PM
|
Whilest reading these comments I have to point out a few points. Further up the page is a comment stating that that 18 year old girl on AOL is acutally a fat, hairy, 45 year old man. Where, in probably most cases this is true, however I liken it to the free anonymous sex of the seventies. STDs killed sex in the 80's. Everyone was afraid of catching something. So wham pow, in the 90's, you have another chance a multiple anonymous sex (or a similar likeness) over the net. I highly recommend renting Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, and take into account the various places where the ideas of sex are mixed up due to a culture clash.
Dyslexic.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
More interesting to me was their site was down ... (Score:1)
by Herschel Cohen on Thursday February 04, @04:20PM
(User Info) |
I saw multiple stories on this event, but more interesting was that many could not connect because the site was saturated.
The holding company creating the buzz was interested in sales and impressing financial analysts. However, I was more interested in their web difficulties. Moreover, the latter might be a better focus of the discussion here, but so far I have not been able to even learn what OS and web server software they were using.
I am all for sex, but pictures and talk are no substitute for the actual experience. Unless I am offered the real "thing" let's talk software.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
news for nerds. STUFF THAT MATTERS. (Score:1)
by deusx on Thursday February 04, @04:21PM
(User Info) http://www.ninjacode.com.com/deus_x/
|
Sure this is a nerd news site, but I love that it gets rounded out by the occasional story about STUFF THAT MATTERS (as the man says!)
And if you don't think that the sex industry on the net is important-- an industry which is one of the few real money makers on the net today, and first in using some of the latest media tech... you've got your head in a hole in the ground.
Great to see the content (a rarity on the web) that Jon Katz keeps a-crankin' out here.
-- I'd have a really cool .sig, but right now I can't even remember my own damn name. ICQ: 11082089 (work) 492905 (play) |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Sex and Technological Innovation (Score:1)
by Digital Commando (rugolsky-at-ead-dot-dsa-dot-com) on Thursday February 04, @04:21PM
(User Info) |
Cave paintings, papyrus, the Gutenberg press, daguerrotypes, cinema -- you name it, sex was there very early on. You might say that the sex industry contains many early-adopters. This has helped the Luddites and the zealots self-righteously decry every new medium. There is usually an early backlash against new technology, which is moderated as other, slower segments of society adopt the medium. Pretty soon, sex is relegated to its proper place, and life goes on. Big deal.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
No mention of Seth or IEG??? (Score:1)
by Pasty Drone (pastydrone@newstrolls.com) on Thursday February 04, @04:24PM
(User Info) http://www.newstrolls.com
|
There's your story...Seth and his company IEG have taken the world, previously belonging in non-virtual space to Playboy and Hustler, conquered it and built an amazing Internet juggernaut...
Pasty Drone CEO NewsTrolls, Inc. http://www.newstrolls.com |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Give me a break...
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @04:48PM
|
Yes the internet is a panacea for all our problems. It will cure cancer, end world hunger, bring us world peace, and of course make pornography respectable. Give me a god damn break. I am starting to loose any respect for Mr. Katz that I had. All his articles make some sort of bs assumption that the net is a great panacea that will solve all our problems or will help legitamize something. His articles are somthing I would expect in newsweek not /. or has /. also become some buzz word crazy promoting forum.
Jon, BTW have you seen the people who run online porn sites? Maybe you should talk to a few. My experiences working at an ISP and dealing with co-located pornographers would indicate that the stereo type is true (I have dealt with 8 clients personally myself). These people are eviler than your evilist capitalist and often dont reguard women with the utmost esteem. Of course my sample size (n=8) is small and may not be indicative of the population, but even from their general web sites their corruption is apparent. How many porn sites do you know that open up thousands of windows promoting more porn and open even more windows when you attempt to exit? What the hell! I have yet to see these dispicable tactics pursued so vigorously in other markets. They live up to the stereotypes.
As for the search engines, how many of those searches are coming from kids. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that at least 33% if not more come from people under the age of 18.
Reguarding sexual repression and morality, I really don't think /. is the place for imposing your opinions on others. Unless /. has become a bigger propoganda machine than it already is. All I will say is that we aren't really that sexually repressed, I can get porn on tv if I want. I can go and see porn, I can view porn freely. This repression crap is bullshit. I would like someone to enlightenme on exactly how we are repressed. And please dont tell me that the provision in place to prevent children from accessing inappropriete material are repression.
Anyway that enough ranting for one day. Am I the only one getting sick of Katz's bullshit?
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
ever check out: (Score:1)
by ainsoph (eris@**oo-Baby-I-love-spam**olywa.net) on Thursday February 04, @07:39PM
(User Info) |
www.nerve.com? nice sex, a little too 90's for me at times, byt I would like to see more 'literate smut', say a /. of sexuality. how bout that? porn bores the snot out of me. I agree with ya, I bet those porn hawkers are real winners. but I wonder, if sex itself was legitimized a bit maybe people like that would fall to the wayside and not take advantage of us and the situation we are in right now.
just a thought. maybe thats what Katz is talking about: smart sex. sex we all love it dont we? why cant we just deal with it. I for one am loving the work of Mr. Katz, if only because he is pissing people off so much and creating discourse. DOWN WITH COMPLACENCY!!
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
You've got it backwards
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:01PM
|
If sex & porn become more popular, there will be
more steps taken to ban it, not less.
It will take quite some time before people in the
USA will be less uptight about sex... it's all
that Puritan heritage that we need to exorcise.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
This is not a Net phenomenon
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:11PM
|
Ok, let's get my disclaimer out of the way. I am not a FOK (Friend of Katz).
This whole this is a joke. Sex on the Net is profitable? Tell us something we don't know. Sex in "old media" is profitable, too. Like the subject says, this is not a Net phenomenon.
As much as Katz would like to believe that everything about the Net is better than "old media," it's simply not true.
He writes "It's imminent. The Net and the Web have brought sex and sexuality out of the porn parlors and X-rated movie theaters and into tens of millions of American homes."
That's funny, I'm pretty sure you could say the same thing this way: It's already happened. VCRs and videotapes have brought sex and sexuality out of the porn parlors and X-rated movie theaters and into tens of millions of American homes.
My point? This "groundbreaking" event has already happened. It's not discussed in the mainstream press *because it's about sex!*
Congratulations, Jon. You provoked a reaction and I know that's the goal of all you gifted writer-type folks.
I'd just like to close with three words: LAME, LAME, LAME.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Pornmerica Today
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @05:17PM
|
Dear fellow nerds,
Yes, I am a nerd. I am not a reporter. I am not a congressman. I am a nerd. And I do not approve of the internet as a means of sex TV.
What happened to the internet (and slashdot, for that matter) as a means of broadcasting technology and sharing ideas? Why does it have to become a big "sex... Sex... SEX!!!" thing?
Granted, the net and porn have always been intertwined. But the anonymity factor on the net is why it has exploded.
You strike out against Judeo-Christianity, Katz. Why? Why is it now considered wrong to keep sex within the confines of a bedroom? Must we all become porn-site addicts? Can't I and my wife keep it in the bedroom? Must it invade the homes of Americans like you mentioned? Must I talk about sex with passers-by on the street? Must my kids read Playboy as a school textbook?
If your idea of sexual exploitation becomes real... what will happen to marriage? Mankind will be reduced to the morality of his best friend... the canine. Mating whenever and wherever he sees fit.
But, you are right about America. It has gone from "The Great Melting Pot" to "The Great Sex-pot". This nation is doomed. Yes, just like Sodom. And for those, "borned again" Christians on the net... do try to resist the urge of the day to pollute something as pure as sex between a married couple; and don't listen to this liberal hogwash.
I won't be suprised if this doesn't get posted. Or if it gets flamed. Because this nation's citizens have lost all dignity and honor. It's a shame.
I must restate. I am a nerd. I am a programmer (UNIX!). Hey, I'm a Christian too! But I do not agree with what Katz seems to think is part of the nerd mentality, and the future of America.
I used to have a lot more respect for Slashdot. Katz cut it off a good notch or three.
--
(Anonymous Coward because I'm afraid of Alec Baldwin).
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Pornmerica Today
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @07:58PM
|
I'm sure with a lot of therapy you'll be fine.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
I'm from the Netherlands ... (Score:1)
by rowan on Thursday February 04, @05:20PM
(User Info) |
so I'm already used to "more" free idea's in
the direction of sex and such. Only, it would
be so nice if the last break-throughs could come
in the direction of singularity and other old-
fashioned shit. The US is (in our Dutch minds)
the country where they're very, very hypocriet
about sex and pornography (see Monica and Clinton)
and I hope that the net might change that and that
you guys in the US start to think so free that
you stop fighting our Dutch policy and introduce
freeer policy there too :)
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Sex, technology and videotape (Score:1)
by jeffm on Thursday February 04, @05:54PM
(User Info) http://
|
First to exploit cable TV:
Sex
First to exploit video rental:
Sex
First to exploit the net:
Sex
The people selling sex are the early adopters, then the main-stream gets there and pushes 'em out to the fringe. Big companies don't like to offend anyone, so Blockbuster doesn't have pr0n, but you can still get it from a lot of the small shops.
The fact that the sex is almost always among the first products available when a new and largely unregulated media appears, indicates to me that a lot of people want it (I know, a no-brainer,) but maybe don't want to admit it in public. You know, how will it look to the neighbors if I don't support "protecting the children"? So it get regulated later, even though a lot of people want it.
Think I'm kidding, try this experiment:
Pick up the phone and call your Mom or SO (choose one) and tell her that you have ____ MBs of .jpg's on your hard drive that you downloaded from alt.binaries.whatever..
How'd it go? Didn't do it? I'm so suprised...
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Not what Jon said on bookradio.com in 1997. (Score:1)
by heroine (broadcast@earthling.net) on Thursday February 04, @06:09PM
(User Info) http://heroine.tampa.fl.us
|
Media is a business. If all you said was the truth no-one would ever read you, so you have to make up points of views and change your point of view as the audience changes. Take the interview Jon gave to bookradio.com in 1997.
pnm://206.83.174.147:7073/i_katz_01.ra
When he said the notion of sex online was purely conjured up by politicians. Exactly the opposite of what he's saying now:
"Sex and sexuality will be a huge part of life on
the Net and the Web."
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
|
Not what Jon said on bookradio.com in 1997.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @07:23PM
|
... and back when Jon was in third grade, he wrote a paper about what he did over the summer. He went to summer camp where a girl kissed him. He wrote then, and I quote:
"Girls are icky!"
Now he's writing a whole news article about sex and women! And his tone isn't conveying any ickyness whatsoever! Does the guy ever stop contradicting himself? Geesh!
Hard to believe there's nerds out there that expect an observation/opinion about the Internet to *not* change in TWO YEARS. That's seventeen eons in realtime. Give the guy a break for updating his memory-bank.
milhouse666@rocketmail.com
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
|
Not what Jon said on bookradio.com in 1997.
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @11:55PM
|
Jon is gay! He's more than gay... he's a gaylord.
|
| [ Reply to this | Parent ] |
| |
Only in the full glare of the truth do we see (Score:1)
by PG13 (gerdes@cco.caltech.edu) on Thursday February 04, @08:19PM
(User Info) http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~gerdes/
|
Alot of talk above has centered on pornography/sex buisness taking away from true caring relationships. But I ask which is preferable the man who chooses to be monogamous because society hasn't shown him any other way or because given a plethora of options he chooses his partner over those options.
I know I *never* want to be loved merely b/c my SO hasn't had the chance to look elsewhere. If monogamy and 'true relationships'(read conventional) are destroyed by availibility of porn then they were weak shells of a relationship.
Moreover to many people conclude that since A has negative consequences not-A has better consequences. Does it not occur to anyone else that the prevalence of midlife crisises might be do to an unnatural restriction of peoples experiences during youth?
That perhaps prostitutes and women in pornography are sometimes beaten not b/c of any inherint flaw in the medium but precisely BECAUSE of puritans who look down on them and hence cast them out of the view of those who would protect them.
"Science makes godlike -- it is all over with priests and gods when man becomes scientific. Moral: science is the forbidden as such -- it alone is forbidd |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
why is this on slashdot?
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04, @08:29PM
|
Im too lazy to read the posts already on this, so im probably rehashing other peoples comments. Why is this on slashdot? I come here for things of interest to technically inclined computer freaks, not saying pr0n isnt interesting to us though.. but this isnt the place for it.
Katz is good, but this isnt the place newbies hang, and im fairly sure we all know net-sex industry is big and all.
Come on damnit... let slashdot be something that isnt totally mainstream, newbie lovin, hype without content, just like every other site.
We love ya jon-boy... but I think you should learn from the minds that congregate here if you want to understand the culture and not feel the need to bring mainstream media into a place better left underground.
my 2c... enjoy flaming me :)
t0ast.
|
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
Sex and Capitalism (Score:1)
by AxelBoldt (boldt@math.ucsb.edu) on Thursday February 04, @08:48PM
(User Info) http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/
|
I have never understood why the free-market-worshipping U.S. prohibits the exchange of sex for money (except in certain counties of Nevada), while all the supposedly "socialist" societies such as Europe, Mexico and Canada allow it. What's up with that?
--
Sponsor free software at the Free Software Bazaar |
| [ Reply to this ] |
| |
| The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say. .
( Switch to Threaded mode | Reply )
< Down One | This Page's Threshold: 0 | Up One >
(Warning:this stuff might be beta right now)
|
Posted by JonKatz on Thursday February 04, @01:53PM
Net Sex, Inc
All trademarks and copyrights on this
page are owned by their respective owners. Comments
are owned by the Poster.
The Rest © 1997-2004 OSDN.