inappropriate contentography Is Not True

[Tree of Life]

I'm going to poke a hole in this one.

With tube sites especially, there is an increase of couples filming themselves and putting the material up. No actors, no scripts, no directors, just them and a camera or two. I don't think we can call that fake. At the same time, I don't think we can call consuming this kind of inappropriate content right.

Y'all are not grasping my distinction between unreal and untrue.

 

[Tree of Life]

So you would have no problem with graphic documentaries about "true" sex?

It would depend. They could be helpful or they could be harmful for different reasons.

Btw., I think that even "fake" inappropriate contentography can tell us something "true" about the world (the thing is, though, that you or I may not like this "truth").

Maybe. But inappropriate content is not trying to tell the truth. And so if someone gleans something true from it, it's not because of the inappropriate content but in spite of the inappropriate content.

 

[Tree of Life]

What lies do you believe inappropriate content to be telling? The only ones i can think of off the top of my head is the idea that women enjoy particular acts. Like most mediums of the sort, inappropriate content is missing nuance. Like everyone else there is a wide range of what particular people enjoy.

It tells lies about what women think and want, as you've mentioned. It tells lies about how sex affects relationships. Some popular forms of inappropriate content portray incestual relationships as if they were totally normal and healthy. It tells lies by affirming the viewer. inappropriate content is all about the viewer feeling as if a real person is really affirming and celebrating them but of course this is not true. It is a "false intimacy". Many others could be listed.

 

[Tree of Life]

If you think non-inappropriate content romantic films are telling us the truth, you're deluded.

I didn't imply that. Any film that's telling deep untruths is harmful.

 

[Belk]

It tells lies about what women think and want, as you've mentioned.

I would not call that a lie per say. I have met some women who do enjoy the things as inappropriate content portrays. I have some who do not. I would say it is less a lie and more a single dimension portrayal.

It tells lies about how sex affects relationships. Some popular forms of inappropriate content portray incestual relationships as if they were totally normal and healthy.

It portrays a fantasy just like most other movies.

It tells lies by affirming the viewer. inappropriate content is all about the viewer feeling as if a real person is really affirming and celebrating them but of course this is not true. It is a "false intimacy". Many others could be listed.

It seems to me that what you are claiming as lies is simply a lack of nuance. inappropriate content, like other fantasy, portrays a idealized point of view. Certainly it can be argued that it is unrealistic and that people can come away with an unrealistic view. This strikes me as different then lying though.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I would not call that a lie per say. I have met some women who do enjoy the things as inappropriate content portrays. I have some who do not. I would say it is less a lie and more a single dimension portrayal.

Yup. No one gets to claim to know 'what women want' or 'what women think'. As if they all want and think the same thing.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Y'all are not grasping my distinction between unreal and untrue.

Maybe you're a poor communicator.

 

[bhsmte]

Years ago Craig Gross travelled around the country with Ron Jeremy debating the ethics of inappropriate contentography. One of Craig's opening arguments about inappropriate contentography being unethical is that "inappropriate contentography isn't real." The people that are seen in videos don't really have relationships, intimacy, or romance. They are actors playing roles. It's fake.

A pro-inappropriate content lady in the audience challenged this point in the Q&A time when she pointed out that we don't normally reject other things simply because they're not real. Lord of the Rings, for example, is not real and everyone knows it. Yet we still readily embrace the story and the films because it gives us something valuable.

But the real problem with inappropriate contentography is not that it's not real. The problem with inappropriate contentography is that it's not true. Even though Lord of the Rings isn't real, we value it because it is true. That is, through the story it is telling us something true about the world, ourselves and others, what it means to be brave, etc.

inappropriate contentography is the exact opposite of this. Not only is it fake, but it's also untrue. It's telling us lies about the nature of relationships, what sex does to people, what women want, what sex does to relationships, the power of sex in our lives, the importance of sex, etc. We could list off a great many lies that are at the core of inappropriate contentography.

Of course it's fake. inappropriate content actors are actors and the stories aren't real. But it's greater problem is that it's not true. By engaging in inappropriate contentography consumption, we are consuming lies about the world that affect the way we do life and relate to others and actually undermine our relationships and our attempts at real intimacy.

Discuss.

People engaging in sex on film, is indeed real people having sex.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Y'all are not grasping my distinction between unreal and untrue.

Your personal opinion seems very arbitrary. There’s plenty of inappropriate content that I consider real and true, as well as all other possible permutations...

 

[Cis.jd]

Years ago Craig Gross travelled around the country with Ron Jeremy debating the ethics of inappropriate contentography. One of Craig's opening arguments about inappropriate contentography being unethical is that "inappropriate contentography isn't real." The people that are seen in videos don't really have relationships, intimacy, or romance. They are actors playing roles. It's fake.

A pro-inappropriate content lady in the audience challenged this point in the Q&A time when she pointed out that we don't normally reject other things simply because they're not real. Lord of the Rings, for example, is not real and everyone knows it. Yet we still readily embrace the story and the films because it gives us something valuable.

But the real problem with inappropriate contentography is not that it's not real. The problem with inappropriate contentography is that it's not true. Even though Lord of the Rings isn't real, we value it because it is true. That is, through the story it is telling us something true about the world, ourselves and others, what it means to be brave, etc.

inappropriate contentography is the exact opposite of this. Not only is it fake, but it's also untrue. It's telling us lies about the nature of relationships, what sex does to people, what women want, what sex does to relationships, the power of sex in our lives, the importance of sex, etc. We could list off a great many lies that are at the core of inappropriate contentography.

Of course it's fake. inappropriate content actors are actors and the stories aren't real. But it's greater problem is that it's not true. By engaging in inappropriate contentography consumption, we are consuming lies about the world that affect the way we do life and relate to others and actually undermine our relationships and our attempts at real intimacy.

Discuss.

What was Craigs response to the lady? You have a video of this?

 

[redleghunter]

I'm sorry, what? How does that disprove that those videos aren't inappropriate content.

What else is inappropriate content if not canned voyeurism?

Look at the definition. The difference between a peeping Tom and someone who seeks the fake stuff.

 

[Nithavela]

Look at the definition. The difference between a peeping Tom and someone who seeks the fake stuff.

Sounds like the one who seeks the fake stuff has the moral upper hand.

 

[redleghunter]

Sounds like the one who seeks the fake stuff has the moral upper hand.

Both are morally wrong.

 

[Nithavela]

Both are morally wrong.

I guess that depends on the morality in question.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Both are morally wrong.

Or not...

 

[redleghunter]

Or not...

Hey Todd.

Watching other people have sex is immoral.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Hey Todd.

Watching other people have sex is immoral.

Not if they're consenting.

 

[redleghunter]

Not if they're consenting.

Well I’m sure we are a Grand Canyon apart there. Not surprised.

 

[Belk]

Hey Todd.

Watching other people have sex is immoral.

According to whom?

 

[redleghunter]

According to whom?

To whom the bell tolls.