POLL: Public Pornography

Remove all ads!

See, I WANT to defend my point of view, but then Death Rabbit comes on before I get the chance and then goes on to say exactly what I was about to say. The jerk!

There is a huge difference between a maunual like "Sex for Dummies", which is targeted at sexually active couples who are looking to enrich a relationship they already have, and something like "Barely 18" or something in that vein, which, as Death Rabbit pointed out, presents an unrealistic sexual view of women (and men). Pornography is fantasy, and should be taken as such by people able to distinguish the fantasy from the reality, which children are notoriously inept at (there are obviously exceptions, of course, but generally children have difficulty discerning fantasy from reality).

To reiterate, a public library is publicly funded, and not motivated by a need to make a profit. Private stores carry pornography, but even then they have to be careful; I work at a convenience store, and we had to pull all but playboy (which comes in a bag and doesn't feature nudes on the cover) due to pressure from parents. I'm sure most other businesses are under similar pressure to make their pornography inaccessible to children. Also, I'm not sure about anybody else, but in my area (Nova Scotia) our Blockbuster video doesn't carry a pornography section, which I find strange, since it seems an easy way to make money, and Blockbuster Video is not one to pass up an opportunity to gouge the customer in any way possible.

I had this in my last post, but maybe it wasn't so clear: I have no problem with children knowing about sex. I applaud the public school system's sexual education programs in elementary levels, and I think parents should be educating their children at an early age. The key word here, however, is "education". If a 14 year old coulple wants to engage in intercourse, with sufficient protection and full knowledge of the consequences, I have absolutely no problem with that. The other 98% of the teenage population, however, is not fully aware of the risks of sex, or which protection to use, etc. Mass media already targets the teenage audience with sexual icons (britney spears, etc.), which projects sexual awareness without any accompanying education. This is the problem, not sexual activity of minors in itself. Putting pornography in an accessible place such as a library adds to the problem with no real solid reason to do so.

@Faerus-- I understand that irresponsible sexual behavior can continue into later years, and that IS a weakness of age of consent laws-- at what age do people acheive maturity? It's a tough question, in some societies it's older, some younger, but the point of the laws are to prevent children from engaging in intercourse until they are aware of safe sex practices and possible consequences of unprotected sex, as well as to protect children from sexual predators. While I agree with the principle of the laws, they have a weakness in philosophy (what is this magical age in which people just wake up and are mentally mature enough to go out and have sex?).

And yeah, it is amazing the number of masturbatorial euphamisms that we're seeing here... and they're all dealing with the MALE act of masturbation. No girls out there? Or do you just not masturbate as much as us guys?

I read a blip in a maxim magazine once, that said that during the course of their life, men will spend an accumulated one month masturbating (meaning the amount of time men spend masturbating will amount to one entire month over the course of their lifetime).

The next month, a guy writes a letter in. "Men will spend one month masturbating? I was amazed when I read that! Then I thought... just one month? I damn well do better then that!".

 

ummm... how about "cleaning the carpet."

 

That could apply to a guy too, though, really. You'd just have to say something like "vacuuming the carpet" or something, and.................. ever look at something you post and think "I can't believe I'm talking about this"?

 

Yeah, that little beeping file in the back of my HDD called conscience.exe? I think it might be a virus.

 

Problem with pornography is what is offensive to one person is not necessarily offensive to another. Jerry Fallwell thinks Tele Tubbies are offensive. Some people take nude pics of their babies and toddlers. Is that pornography? Some say yes. Until someone comes up with a clear cut answer maybe the library should set up a few computers that are sectioned off for adults only. Even the ones at my University have filters on them. They say the filters are for virus protection I really doubt that is the reason. I guess the venus de milo is not art but pornography. Maybe it was just a wardrobe malfunction. lol.

 

I think the first key point we need to look at in this discussion is, what is pornography?

The word itself comes from the Greek words "porne" (Prostitute) and "graphein" (Write) later combined into the word "pornographos" meaning literary "to write about prostitutes".

The dictionary describes it as,

So we have several categories, the hardcore playboy style "blue magazines", the classical "Art" such as the "Kama Sutra", factorial work depicting the history of pornography and so far unmentioned in this thread the depiction of sexual acts in novels, prevalent throughout literary history, from the bible, through Shakespeare up to Lawrence and onto today's shameless writers.

This brings up a flaw in the reasoning of modern society and its taboos. Obviously sexual acts, even perverted deviation from the "norm" is allowed to be depicted by the written word and has been since libraries were first with us. As are some factual histories of sex, or pornography, whilst some "sex for dummies" are not. It seems the only line is drawn on pornography in a "cheap" or "magazine" format.

Which leads us onto the question "why?" Isn't sex the most natural thing on the planet (along with killing but that is a whole other argument)? Put two young children of opposite sexes in a room, uneducated on sex in any way and chances are before long when they are bored they will "examine" each others "bits". Animals will reproduce in front of their entire family, extended family, friends, any passes by, nature program camera crews so why do we feel the need to hide when we do it?

However, would people get offended if say "Saving Private Ryan" was available for hire in a library? I doubt it. How about a soldier's accounts of the First World War? Or perhaps even factual books on deadly gas, macabre police investigations, instruments of killing (guns, tanks, sword etc)? They don't, but why not?

Why is it ok to show a man being killed, in any number of disgusting ways, play violent video games where you enact such sadist fantasies (SoF 2 anyone?) and yet you can't even see a woman's nipple or a man's penis on TV?

I am being sidetracked here and I have set out my stall before I have made my stance clear. I am all for the showing of and education about sex being available to anyone that wants it, of any age, just as I have no qualms against showing gratuitous violence to anyone of any age, it is all perfectly natural. A lack of education, and of knowledge is very rarely a good idea, especially in things as natural as this. You cannot suppress natural instinct and you shouldn't try.

But keep it out of libraries please,

 

You can find pr0no from net, in all sizes and places, so why should it be stored in a library when it obviously has no educational value? Still, I would leave it to the library's discretion, in case they want to take books that are good, but include some erotiq too.

But in general, "porno" (as in: pure hack'n'slash ) does not belong to libraries.