PETA starting a porn site!?!

[CoolCat]

Whether people are being exploited or not, we should not be viewing pornography as a worthwhile activity. Would we all like to be viewed in other aspects of doing 'natural' things like going to the toilet? Why not? Just like having sex this is also a 'natural' function.

It's not my thing, but some people seem to be into toilet stuff. But that's not what I wanted to say. I like to comment on the use of "all" here. I'm sure not all of us like to be viewed on the toilet or in porn, but why not leave it a choice? If nobody is forced in viewing or being viewed poop away or whatever I would say.


As for worthwhile activity...

Plus, I feel if people have to resort to pornography to help them in their sex life they must be doing something wrong.

That is a rather mean statement. Plenty of people out there are deemed too ugly/weird/undesirable/... by society for anyone wanting to give them a sex life. I'm sure porn serves a purpose in society. If you would take porn out of the equation how would you insure that everyone has a good sex life instead? Or would you favour prostitution to porn? What with the people that can't afford prostitutes? How can we be sure that the rape numbers wouldn't go up instead?

[CoolCat]

I would just like to make it clear that none of what you said above applies to me, with regard to my attitudes to pornography. Not that I am suggesting you were trying to imply that of course.
I do feel however that just because someone objects to pornography it isn't in order to 'keep up appearances'.

I wasn't with that post, I was however writing a comment to your post

[missbettie]

Not to mention there are plenty of couples that watch porn together....it doesn't mean that you have a crumby sex life. Everyone likes different things you know? there isn't anything wrong with it if no one is being hurt. You don't have to watch porn or be involved with it if you don't like it.

[sandra]

I hate that old chestnut, that the numbers of rapes would increase if there was no pornography...............that's just a way of letting men of the hook. The fact is that men should be in control of themselves and not attack women for sex.

Nothing you can say on this subject is going to change my mind, I view pornography as something nasty and distasteful and exploitive. I'm not expecting to change your minds either so I will leave this thread now as I find this discussion very depressing. Good luck everyone.

[missbettie]

^ exactly!

[AzureAngel]

I hate that old chestnut, that the numbers of rapes would increase if there was no pornography...............that's just a way of letting men of the hook. The fact is that men should be in control of themselves and not attack women for sex.

The number of men raping women is just as high as the other way around in some countries. In fact one in particular, which I will not name because I love it, the balance of domestic violence and sexual abuse is tipped more towards male abuse. I really don't like that generalization that only women get raped...

Not to mention there are plenty of couples that watch porn together....it doesn't mean that you have a crumby sex life. Everyone likes different things you know? there isn't anything wrong with it if no one is being hurt. You don't have to watch porn or be involved with it if you don't like it.

I agree and thank you for saying that as I am sure if a guy would say it less people would care...

[CoolCat]

People controlling themselfs, that will happen any day soon

Society is totally artifical, and when something happens to upset that everything is out the window. We've seen that with the riots in London and what happened at the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina, to name just a few. True nature of humans shows when social boundaries and consequences are no longer in place, and it isn't pretty. But it is probably more honest than everyone keeping their pinky up when having a cup of tea.

But this is a bit off topic.

[missbettie]

I agree and thank you for saying that as I am sure if a guy would say it less people would care...

No problem.

I actually don't do that, and i'm not really fond of porn, and I would prefer it if my SO didn't indulge in it (and he doesn't as far as i'm aware), but if someone likes it, its no skin off my teeth. Nothin wrong with it. as long as people are happy.

[CoolCat]

The number of men raping women is just as high as the other way around in some countries. In fact one in particular, which I will not name because I love it, the balance of domestic violence and sexual abuse is tipped more towards male abuse. I really don't like that generalization that only women get raped...

In this country rape is legally defined as the act of penetrating someone against their will. We had a 43yr old woman aquitted for raping a 23yr old mentally disabled man with the mental age of a 7 year old because of it. She didn't penetrate him, so the courts ruled it wasn't rape.

[DiaShel]

.

[AzureAngel]

I frankly do not care how it is classified legally (in my opinion), it is the act of forcing sex on someone when they do not consent to it and it should not be so blindly attached to pure penetrative sex either. I am fully aware that there are cases where women have gotten away from it being classified as rape due to legal loopholes. At least those are publicized. The ones that bother me are the ones where the men are too scared to come forward because they will be seen as less of a man. Here it is a BIG deal sadly.

[sandra]

Can we please remember that different strokes for different folks. What works for one couple/person might not work for another couple/person.
We are made up of a wonderful myriad of likes and dislikes.
Your thang might not be the same as my thang.

Does this attitude apply to the killing and eating of animals too Hedge? If something is wrong we should speak out against it should we not and I happen to think pornography is wrong.

The number of men raping women is just as high as the other way around in some countries. In fact one in particular, which I will not name because I love it, the balance of domestic violence and sexual abuse is tipped more towards male abuse. I really don't like that generalization that only women get raped...

Now, if we are being serious here the majority of rapes are men against women. Yes, it does happen the other way round but in 90% + of cases it's men raping women.

Coolcat - yes people should 'control' themselves - it doesn't take much effort, or it shouldn't if we are talking about civilized human beings here.

p.s. I'm definitely out of here now, I didn't unsubscribe to this thread so saw the new posts this morning. I'll go now and as I won't see anymore posts I won't be back. Once again good luck everyone.

[AzureAngel]

Now, if we are being serious here the majority of rapes are men against women. Yes, it does happen the other way round but in 90% + of cases it's men raping women.

Sorry Sandra, but you are only talking about reported and convicted rape cases. There are far more men being subjected to this unfortunate event than what you are obviously willing to admit to.

[BunkyVegan]

I know that spousal abuse is unfortunately very common, and that includes a lot of women abusing men. But I didn't know that women raping men was that common.

[missbettie]

i think generally its not as common as women rape cases, but it does happen and it is something that is very rarely addressed. and generally speaking i think its more emotional abuse more than physically forcing, which is IMO almost worse. And the men that it does happen with, very rarely speak out. What are you going to say? most people just assume men are sex crazed lunitics, (and in my experience they are ) but you never really know what happens in someones bedroom....most people assume you can't rape a man because they "always" want sex. And this isn't true in a lot of cases.

[whalespace]

Porn is not rape.
Porn is recorded light rays reflected from people having sex.

How the sex is arranged is not pornography.

Looking at porn is like having sex with one's eyes open, or imagining sex, or noticing that someone was copulating.

I, for one, would rather have been talking about what PETA are trying to do, or how their plan might be improved.

[missbettie]

I think that we all went off on tangents. I don't think anyone really thinks of porn as rape... Well I don't...

[AzureAngel]

What are you going to say? most people just assume men are sex crazed lunatics, ...most people assume you can't rape a man because they "always" want sex. And this isn't true in a lot of cases.

Thank you very much for saying this.

[pat sommer]

Go ahead, Whalespace, tell us about your experiences in AR campaigning. Tell us how how Peta could do media better. Better still, head over to Virginia and get stuck in.

I'm being less ironic than you imagine

[BunkyVegan]

I think that we all went off on tangents. I don't think anyone really thinks of porn as rape... Well I don't...

Agreed, I don't think porn is rape (unless of course it's actually a rape that's being filmed). The idea of pornography isn't offensive to me, but I can understand why people could take issue with certain aspects of how the industry operates, or the effect it could have on how people view women or sex. I don't really know enough about it to have an informed opinion though.

It's so easy for a thread to end up going off-topic though, especially when it's about a touchy subject like this.

[whalespace]

Go ahead, Whalespace, tell us about your experiences in AR campaigning. Tell us how how Peta could do media better. Better still, head over to Virginia and get stuck in.

I'm being less ironic than you imagine

Fair comment.
I don't want to write an essay because I think the relevant points can be distributed [by all] through a discussion in a conversational way...

I just checked if sex was a crime in Virginia, so I've had a refresher in the realm of obscenity. I also took a look at PeTA's site, which was some news about army testing gas on monkeys for me.
I recognise the opinions posted above hint at some of the responses which will be encountered with respect to pornography.
I'm sure that the "porn" idea has already grabbed a lot of attention...even that of folks in animal welfare movements whom consider PeTA's nakedness too distracting. *Extra points PeTA.*
With the easy move made, PeTA should now produce some intelligent concept structure which can provide mental functions suited to resolving public denial of complicity in animal abuse.
Hopefully that last sentence makes perfect sense; However, I realise that not all people exercise their verbal capacities to extents non necessary to their daily requirements. Thank goodness for other means of idea conveyance [theatre and moving pictures].

On to suggestions.
I already suggested a common cause to willful ignorance of animal suffering, and some people's insistence that [human] sexual arousal should not be depicted in any way [at least in any way which counters one's interests]. That could be developed within various schemas.

Animal porn is a distinct possibility. Maybe "serving" procedures in factory farms. Artificial insemination would certainly be an eye opener to some... see the "special gun" in action [quoted from 'official' UK AI website]; Very relevant in the dairy industry.
Obviously a lot of such farm porn will be depicting the rape and sexual abuse of animals [and the corporate abuse of the practitioners, incidentally]. This issue qualifies for inclusion in a debate about the depiction of 'prisoners' which future animal rights campaigners might need to deal with.

Alternatively a conditional strip tease could be constructed such that successfully answering questions of morality [relating to animal welfare] are rewarded by the removal of vegetables from strategic places. A facility could easily be included whereby people could replace images of vegetables in strategic places upon successfully answering the very same questions of morality... thereby including an 'opinion poll' element. Egos of models possibly notwithstanding.


Any other ideas to help PeTA into a different position?

[missbettie]

What other organizations have more recognition in the AR world? Peta is the only one that most people know, so they must be doing something right. I'm not saying that they are the best organization on the planet, or that they don't make mistakes, but most people do not giving a flying f*** about animals, at least Peta is doing something to get put in the news that the majority of people watch.

the shock tactic, gets results unfortunately.

[Korn]

What other organizations have more recognition in the AR world? Peta is the only one that most people know, so they must be doing something right.

Not necessarily. The may simply be big because there haven't been any other alternatives (and as far as I know, there still aren't any).

the shock tactic, gets results unfortunately.

If most of PETA's own members aren't even vegans, how can we expect that those who hear about PETA's stunts in media will stop using animal products?

[missbettie]

But aren't there smaller AR groups? I honestly don't know of any, but i thought that a few people on here belonged to others? Can anyone name any?

some of Peta's members aren't even vegetarian if I'm thinking correctly....But they are shining light on some of the issues that we are all fighting for. Ya in an ideal world, everyone would be Vegan....but until that happens, I think organizations like Peta are a good thing, because they are alerting the normal public about things going on in the world around them that are wrong.

I'm not saying they are using the best tactics, but now for the most part the majority of at least where I am, know even just a little bit, and with out organizations like Peta do you think they would be even semi aware?

Peta does sometimes get on my nerves, but I honestly can't think of a better way of doing things...I do wish they would promote veganism more....and correctly....

[Korn]

But aren't there smaller AR groups?

Yes, but they are... smaller! Peta is quite eager at marketing - not necessarily good marketing, but all kind of stunts which makes sure they are mentioned in press. This gives them followers - but these followers may not live any different than those Peta try to address: people who buy meat, fur, leather etc.

IMHO, the vegan concept has much more impact on animals' lives than organizations which save 21 chicken one place and 43 animals somewhere else, because every single person who go vegan save a lot more lives than many of this AR stunts often do - summed.

There are also many examples in history showing that something grows big, well-known, and popular - but without being the best solution. One often mention example is that VHS won the old video format war, but that the Betacam format was the best format. The many examples of scary political movements (eg. nazism) becoming very popular for a while also show that one doesn't have to 'do something right to become big.

some of Peta's members aren't even vegetarian if I'm thinking correctly....But they are shining light on some of the issues that we are all fighting for.

True - but the'll often get the same reaction we environmental activists blocking industries which pollute the air while smoking 40 cigarettes a day. We just can't compare Peta with a situation where Peta wouldn't exist.

I think organizations like Peta are a good thing, because they are alerting the normal public about things going on in the world around them that are wrong.

While there have been very unserious, misleading and damaging critique against veganism in media all over the world based on single stories where the 'facts' have been plain wrong , Peta have been busy running competitions about who the most sexy vegetarian is etc - without doing anything to influence media or provide scientific - or at least true - info about the healthiness of not consuming animal products.

with out organizations like Peta do you think they would be even semi aware?

They would be a lot more aware with a good organizarion -without all the Peta nonsense and a good sense of marketing. Peta has been 'branding' the term vegetarian for many years, nt 'vegan' (even if they are pro vegan), so many people still don't even know what vegan means. They often focus on stunts on non-essential topics, like the one this month where they got press world wide for having suggested that all Mars missions should be vegan.

No healthy person *wants* to kill/harm animals. THey keep consuming all this meat etc for a few important reasons:
• they think they need animal products for health
• they assume that we a re 'meant to' eat meat instead of a plant based diet
• they assume that vegan food is less tasty than the food they usually eat.

Peta could have addressed all these things massively for years, instead of these silly 'most sxy' campaigns. LOTS of people would like to move towards a vegan lifestyle, they just don't now where to start. They won't start be reading about vegan food on Mars missions or go vegan because some Peta members is taking of her clothes when giving a speech about animal rights. Most likely, they'll remember what she looked like naked, but due to focus on her strip show instead of the speech, they'll miss what she actually talked about. I don't think there are any examples in history of such a large organization have done so much... silly.

The womens' rights movement has made progress since the 70s, people are a lot more aware of environmental issues, USA have got i's first black president and dictators all of over the world are falling. I'm sure veganism would have been a lot more widespread if the resources and members Peta has attracted wold have been spent more wisely. Unfortunately I don't think it will happen for a number of reasons - eg. Peta being in bed with Ingrid Newkirk: http://www.peta.org/features/Ingrid-...ique-Will.aspx

[pat sommer]

Back to where we started... why should Peta do anything differently? Maybe they ought to; how do I know?
From my limited vantage point from behind the Great Firewall, years away from my AR heyday, my would-be opinions are no more than assumptions.

Whalespace, could you translate, please, "intelligent concept structure which can provide mental functions suited to resolving public denial of complicity in animal abuse", into plain English? Do you mean that they make a T-shirt with a picture of a ham sandwich made up of factory-farm gore?
See, I like concrete over cerebral.

Miss Bettie, give up trying to argue against Korn's idealized AR group: reality can never improve upon fantasy. Comparison to an ought-to-be is unfalsifiable; we lose.
And remember his "I'm sure..." carries the weight of years of waiting for a better world. Settle for those actually shaking up this world? Too easy.

[harpy]

And remember his "I'm sure..." carries the weight of years of waiting for a better world.

I'm sure you wouldn't accuse Korn of just waiting, Pat. He's expended a lot of effort on this site over several years, and while it doesn't attract as much publicity as Peta I believe it gets quite a lot of hits (and people who come here do by and large get what they're expecting, a vegan forum).

[Korn]

Comparison to an ought-to-be is unfalsifiable; we lose.

Lots of the stuff we experience, every day, in every aspect of life, started with an idea of how things could be. An imagination of something better. An idealist, as such, is a person who is 'envisioning things in an ideal form', or 'pursuit of one's ideals'. Is idealism wrong?

I'm not waiting for anything. I do by little bit to change things I think need to be changed, and to suggest that one shall ignore people with other 'ideals'

reality can never improve upon fantasy

I don't know what that means. Please elaborate? What I'm talking about is the opposite: that fantasy definitely can improve on reality, because that's how reality often starts; with an idea - or a different ideal. Idea and ideal are quite similar words, and change starts with imagining how things can be done differently - doesn't it?

Comparison to an ought-to-be is unfalsifiable; we lose.

A lot of anti-racists, women lib activists, vegans, environmentalist, rebels in states run by dictators have probably heard similar statements for ages. But seriously: To say that we 'lose' if we compare how things are with how they ought to be; or compare our idealism with 'reality' is as counter-productive as it gets.

his "I'm sure..." carries the weight of years of waiting for a better world

You need to explain that 'waiting' aspect, Pat. If I would NOT post suggestions about how PETA or the AR movement, or the vegan movement could improve, and sit home and moan about it, I could understand that you'd call it 'waiting'. But when I actively put energy into having things changed, run one of the major vegan forums etc - isn't that a lot closer to eg. 'activism' than 'waiting'?

And BTW... like you, I don't understand Whalespace's statement either. I generally think it's time for "Vegan 2.0", where we keep things simple, stop putting a lot of extras into veganism just because we want to, and give veganism a boost.

We actively need to demonstrate that the vegan concept is a lot more 'mainstream ready' than Peta gives the impression of. In a decade ot two, Peta's members will hopefully look at today's Peta with new eyes.

I have nothing against being 'extreme' as such. But I think eg. the fact that Ingrid Newkirk insists, on Peta's own pages, that when she dies, her "liver be vacuum-packed and shipped, in whole or in part, to France, to there be used in a public appeal to persuade shoppers not to support the vile practice of force-feeding geese and ducks for foie gras" etc shows that both Peta and Newkirk needs a reality check. First of all, that stunt supports tha idea some people obviously has - that going vegan is for 'extreme people... and also IMO overestimates the value Ingrid Newkirks bodyparts may have on the French population.

I've never met anyone who thinks veganism is 'idiotic' or similar, but I've heard, on several occasions, people (including many who agrees with her AR/vegan message) telling me those who run Peta are 'idiots'. In many ways they harm the vegan movement, and therefore reduces the growth of the vegan movement - and therefore harm animals - if we compare Peta with what Peta could have been.

But some people defend Peta - whatever they do.
Veganism certainly isn't a religion, but maybe Petaism is?

[Korn]

Ingrid Newkirk insists, on Peta's own pages, that when she dies, her "liver be vacuum-packed and shipped, in whole or in part, to France, to there be used in a public appeal to persuade shoppers not to support the vile practice of force-feeding geese and ducks for foie gras" etc shows that both Peta and Newkirk needs a reality check. First of all, that stunt supports tha idea some people obviously have -namely that going vegan is for 'extreme people...

And again: if Newkirk wants this kind of stuff in her will, so be it. But why does she insist on a contract with Peta about it, which shall be signed by Peta's Vice President?

This is the same question I ask about their porn site stunt, whatever that is about: If some Peta members want to start a porn site, why don't they just do that instead of insisting that it has to be done in Peta's name?

[pat sommer]

I am waiting for a better world.

Swap the word out for hoping praying wishing longing... anything that fits you better

I still can't win the argument because there is no evidence you, Korn, or others that wag their finger, will accept that is less than the complete conversion of the whole world to veganism with signed affidavits that Peta was the cause.

See what a trap it is? Purely logically realistically can we all agree that our opinions are mostly made of our life prejudices? Seriously, my myopic little view has waltzed me into a few dead-end alleys.

This is a great forum. This is the place to shout our beliefs and criticism and to debate. Hallelujah.
Just a smidgen less of Absolute Certainty of the Righteous Path can save one from an almighty bite-in-the-ass of viewpoint gone full circle.
Yup, I got teethmarks to hide too.

[Korn]

I still don't understand the stuff I quoted from your earlier posts, Pat.
WHy can't Peta-members just either...
a) say, if they agree in a suggestion on how Peta could improve: "Yes it would be good if that changed", or
b) let others disagree with them, and come up with ideals/ideas/"fantasies" about how Peta could improve instead of trying to stop the critique, interrupt it or blindly defend Peta?

Peta is important because they came first, and because they are so many. I don't think any idealistic organization ever has gotten so much critique from people who one would expect to support them than Peta.

If they really have two million members, I think everyone would be better off if Peta was divided in two: one group for the silly stunts, porn, strip shows and media clownery - and another for the more important, but 'boring' stuff: campaigning for people to use less animal products (and which also would focus on making their own members go vegan).

I seriously think they underestimate their target audience and overestimate the value of getting bad press for their funeral/sex etc stunts. Bad combination.

[pat sommer]

Oh, and though it has been gone over before, more than once, for the record to those on the forum not familiar:

Anybody that forks over $16, gets on the Peta mailing list and therefore is counted as a 'member' when the might of Peta's 1 million is drummed up in the press. No requirements. No test. No initiation. No meetings.

Peta supporters, so-called by the media, are folks that do something under the blue-bunny logo. Typically, they fly their own local AR/welfare group's flag as well.
Think of it more as the Peta network. Staffers and interns etc will also join in other groups demos, time permitting, without claiming credit.

The whole AR- Amnesty International -NGO- Antipoverty-Democracy etc community is pretty close knit in the U.S. Former colleagues in many cases.

[pat sommer]

Korn, I do respect you and those on this forum.
I don't doubt that you 'seriously think'. I just feel that without clear facts and serious experience in the business of AR media Social Change etc, it don't amount to anything more than assumptions. Period.

from wikipedia
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.

Anything else just gets metaphysical and I choose only to argue, not pronounce true or false.
I can't really be accused of supporting Peta blindly, now then?

Ah well, as they say: lead follow or get out of the way.
I will support whichever group is making an impact on the issues close to my experience.
If they ask me to provide content for their XXX site... Well, that's sure a quick way for them to fail!

[harpy]

will support whichever group is making an impact on the issues close to my experience.

I wouldn't necessarily, because I don't buy the idea that the end justifies the means.

[missbettie]

I still think they do more good than bad... I really don't like most of the stuff they do, and i'm not going to go out of my way to support Peta, but I really feel like they do more than bad. There is quite a bit of information on their website, and they do have some good information. I mean, how many people go veggie after watching Meet your Meat? that is something, maybe they did it in a way that you don't like but the end result is the same....

I do have to say...I point way more people in the direction of the vegan forum, than I do Peta...

[whalespace]

Whalespace, could you translate, please, "intelligent concept structure which can provide mental functions suited to resolving public denial of complicity in animal abuse", into plain English? Do you mean that they make a T-shirt with a picture of a ham sandwich made up of factory-farm gore?
See, I like concrete over cerebral.

Well this is what I've got for what its worth; not 'directed at' you, just elaboration.

Nothing.

Recognition of problem.

Mental reaction.

...

Declaration. [example : there exists a word [idea] describing behaviour].

This idea is transferable.

Propagation is possible, but is not enough to generate successful implementation of behavioural remedies.

PeTA propagate the declaration. The knowledge of the possibilty is potentially enough to change behaviour. The declaration acts like a missing link, or seed crystal, or more likely a mental post office box.

I think PETA have analysed media via which other minds can be contacted. PETA might have produced a 'buffer solution' , which largely consists of products which can be identified as consumable, whilst also delivering essential components to the omni mind [however (un)conscious].

If suitable evidence exists [present vegans have found sufficient], then possible causes of omni delusion would be sensible subjects for deconstruction.

Considering:

I already suggested a common cause to willful ignorance of animal suffering, and some people's insistence that [human] sexual arousal should not be depicted in any way [at least in any way which counters one's interests].

Developing that idea consider:

Target complex:
Do not excite <= in an attempt to gain control of one's body, enabling advancement of many interests. Such behaviour is acceptable and brings good results. The negative results of sexual repression result not from self control, but the imposition of control on others, and consequential false assignment of blame and punishment.

Additionally we 'must' be aware of the anger and retribution which is imposed on those whom show interest in upsetting the powerful [alpha males... and their handlers] .

Close parallel complex [the intended target from welfare perspective]:
A relevant analogous parallel : do not upset current social equilibrium, do not cast doubt upon the righteousness of the meat winner; do not consider victim....do not try to be 'innocent', you are already guilty.



I don't think I am suggesting simple association like vegan = sex = good = I'm not abusing an animal.

If such common mental space can be addressed, then the awareness of animal welfare [or even veganism] might be well placed there. Consequently when the mind has such space in conscious consideration , then the psychonaut [wakening omni] is in a better position to resist the tidal forces which ordinarily carry the intention potential through 'non vegan' channels. How else will navigation be implemented if no signposts are available, [let alone tools]? Hence the need to " provide mental functions ".

If repressed elements of an omni's personality [including those related to caring for vulnerable beings like tiny babies] feel encouraged or motivated as a result of breaking their sexual containment... then perhaps those elements will enable the expression of protective or empathic behaviour towards other peculiarly shaped, vulnerable animals.

More crucially for implementers, "resolving public denial of complicity" is likely to require engagement and feedback. In other words some kind of conversation. My suggested action for PETA to "now produce some intelligent concept..." failed to address the complication of a general public lack of recognition that "complicity" might involve culpability. You were however, asking me to translate, not to fabricate nor apply my resources to full resolution of worldly suffering.

This reply is not intended as some fully contained assertion about veganism. It is just a bit of elaboration on one suggested approach to tackling delusion without triggering reactionary rejection of 'hostile terms'.

[whalespace]

And BTW... like you, I don't understand Whalespace's statement either. I generally think it's time for "Vegan 2.0", where we keep things simple, stop putting a lot of extras into veganism just because we want to, and give veganism a boost.

We can separate everything, and name every component, but too much reductive processing results in products of disintegration, with no capacity for construction, nor understanding of how those dismantled systems interact with each other.

Even simple things can seem difficult if they are not familiar... or because those things are identified on some level as hostile. We could fill a forum with variations of the definition of veganism but how useful would that be if no omni was capable of relating it to anything?

I'm not saying that pornography is the best conduit for supplying the population with the mental prerequisites for adoption of vegan morals. I'm saying that if access is available and 'freely' offered, then worse ideas could be introduced than peaceful co-existence with benign earthlings.

But some people defend Peta - whatever they do.
Veganism certainly isn't a religion, but maybe Petaism is?

I would put veganism much much closer to a religion. There is a lot of belief at work in veganism, and a lot hinging on consciousness, culpability, moral understanding. Many concepts of god are analogues of consciousness and/or moral responsibility. Also, plenty of vegans get so hung up on their definition that they forget why they bothered to form it in the first place.

I'm not defending PeTA's priorities, I'm not privy to them. Perhaps I should pay more attention to them next time I'm thinking about public attitudes.


This is close enough to a PM to be deleted. It doesn't add anything to the thread. I'm not really asking for a reply, I don't have any complaints.

[leedsveg]

There is a lot of belief at work in veganism, and a lot hinging on consciousness, culpability, moral understanding.

Very true.

Leedsveg


(Whoops! I'm supposed to have left this thread.)

[maggielassie]

I had been staying away from this thread for the past week because I had a big writing job to do somewhere else, and I could not afford being distracted by (what for me is) a very triggering kind of subject. However, after someone from here pm'ed me to not shut up, I've decided to make one more post in this thread. However, I'm not intending to linger much here because I don't want this conversation to keep going on and on, especially if some people will want to carry on defending woman-hating media, no matter what...

I hate that old chestnut, that the numbers of rapes would increase if there was no pornography...............that's just a way of letting men of the hook. The fact is that men should be in control of themselves and not attack women for sex.

I agree. And this so-called 'cathartic' effect is not true. It is not true that there would be more rapes without porn, as it is explained on this webpage here. And, as a matter of fact, exactly the opposite is true, as shown here. Many rapists and sex offenders have actually used porn (one of the reasons why it's a topic in criminology in UK). Pornography desensitises its consumers, and a pornographic culture tends to indoctrinate people with misogynistic images.

The real message of pornography is not sex. Its real message is that all women "enjoy" being either humiliated, raped, tortured or treated in a rough way.

"Pornography, like rape, is a male invention, designed to dehumanize women, to reduce the female to an object of sexual access, not to free sensuality from moralistic or parental inhibition. The staple of porn will always be the naked body, breasts and genitals exposed, because as man devised it, her naked body is the female's "shame", her private parts the private property of man, while his are the ancient, holy, universal, patriarchal instrument of his power, his rule by force over her. Pornography is the undiluted essence of anti-female propaganda."

~ Susan Brownmiller, in Against our Will, her book on rape (1975). (no offense to males but this is true)


If anyone here is interested in finding out more about what is really (and currently) going on with porn, I recommend Gail Dines' work:

http://gaildines.com/2010/09/intervi...r-on-alternet/

She's professor of sociology and women’s studies at Wheelock College in Boston. She warns people on the dangers a pornified culture can bring. She explains that, even the porn industry (according to recent issues of their Adult Video News magazine) said that many women have a hard time being in the industry for more than three months, because of the brutalization of the body. Gail Dines has also interviewed somebody who worked with AIM (the health care organization that takes care of the health of porn performer) and the guy told her just what happens to the bodies of these women (and yet, hardly anyone seems to care and keep bringing up the old 'choice' and 'money' rhetorics).

I agree with Gail Dines on pornorgaphy. She's doing a great job and I love her work. She has a new book out. It's called Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, and it's well-researched and well-written...

EDIT:

I quite like the blog of Vegans Against Peta, also:

http://vegansagainstpeta.blogspot.com/

[missbettie]

The real message of pornography is not sex. Its real message is that all women "enjoy" being either humiliated, raped, tortured or treated in a rough way.

not all porn is about that. in fact a lot of porn I find the women is shown in control and the men are submissive.

I'm not saying that porn is this fabulous invention and there is nothing at all wrong with it, but really if you don't like it you don't have to watch it. Some people like it. and if its a concenting adult then there isn't anything wrong with it.

Is any other position besides the missionary position wrong too? Should I not be having sex because i'm not married? Some people think so. Everyone has opinions on everything. But honestly what people do in their own bedroom (responsibily and with concenting adults, or by themselves) is none of anyones business.

And the brutalization of the body? The women are choosing to do this! And if they don't feel comfortable doing something they really don't have to, its a choice. And the book you are quoting is from 1975...I'm sorry but don't you think that may be a little out dated? the industry has changed quite a bit i'm sure.

[maggielassie]

not all porn is about that.

Not all sexually explicit material is about misogyny (written erotica, if there's still any left, isn't) but the porn that most men watch has been proven to be relentlessly misogynistic and degrading. As I'd said, I'd seen a slideshow about the content of most mainstream pornography (the kind of pornography that is currently being mostly used around the world) in a criminology class at University. I know it is the way it is.

re the women in porn- I just don't want to repeat myself. I've already shown evidence that they were being harmed, in this thread. It is true they are being harmed. I believe what I've researched, and no amount of 'choice' or 'money' excuses are going to convince me, I'm sorry...

really if you don't like it you don't have to watch it.

True but... As a feminist, I feel I have the right to be very much concerned about the woman-hating influence this type of media has on our cultures. The effects of pornography do not stay solely in the private sphere, as Gail Dines and others explained it well. Moreover, countless women and girls are being abused behind closed doors...

[AzureAngel]

True but... As a feminist, I feel I have the right to be very much concerned about the woman-hating influence this type of media has on our cultures.

I would like to formally and finally defend all guys out there, like me, that have watched porn and appreciated it for what it is and still are nice, normal guys. I know the feminist voice is always heard the loudest because they, without fail, make it seem that there is no alternative to their views and if you don't go with them you are some horrible person. Frankly I am sick of this and that is my honest opinion as a man who respects women, men and animals. There are always going to be some bad with something that is not easily seen as good. Hell, even Veganism has some zealots who make us look bad and who actually spread the word in a way that make the rest of us look bad.... Yes that is my attempt to get back to the topic.

[missbettie]

as a feminist feel that porn isn't all woman hating and I feel like you are generalizing. as a feminist I should have the choice to do porn or to watch porn.

[missbettie]

and I don't appreciate the judging that comes from such a personal and private act.

[pat sommer]

maybe we could separate the two for argument's sake: porn bad; erotica good?

[Korn]

Propagation is possible, but is not enough to generate successful implementation of behavioural remedies.

PeTA propagate the declaration. The knowledge of the possibilty is potentially enough to change behaviour. The declaration acts like a missing link, or seed crystal, or more likely a mental post office box.

I think PETA have analysed media via which other minds can be contacted. PETA might have produced a 'buffer solution' , which largely consists of products which can be identified as consumable, whilst also delivering essential components to the omni mind [however (un)conscious].

If suitable evidence exists [present vegans have found sufficient], then possible causes of omni delusion would be sensible subjects for deconstruction.

Again - please try to explain what you want to say in a simpler way.

And please imagine how you would answer our comment about not understanding what you mean as if you should explain it to a 12-year old. Your response to Pat's question is IMO as vague as the sentence Pat wanted you to translate; "intelligent concept structure which can provide mental functions suited to resolving public denial of complicity in animal abuse".

For the records, a good number of our visitors (and some members) don't even have English as their native tongue, so... like Pat requested: Plain English, please.

[maggielassie]

I'd just like to add that feminism is not about "hating men" or anything like that. Real feminism is about identifying and recognising all the unequal and oppresssive structures of a patriarchal society so that (one day) women could work to dismantle them. Yes, there are some women who defend the pornography industry and who call themselves feminists. I think it is because they simply don't want to see it for what it is; just like some meat-eaters refuse to believe that the meat & dairy indrustries are oppressive IMO. OTOH, there are also a few other women (writers, mostly) who are simply paid to defend pornography and get book deals, fame and money, etc for that....


Back on topic- I think it is really sad that one of the most famous AR organisations, Peta, is being pornified. Promoting the objectification of women is not going to work in the cause for animals. According to Carol Adams (vegan feminist, author of The Sexual Politics of Meat and The Pornography of Meat), women are already being portrayed as chicks, cows, birds, etc in pop culture. They are already portrayed as "pieces of meat" in the world of pornography. Fixations on women's body parts are implicitly expressed through ads for the breasts, legs, and thighs of chickens and turkeys. Factory farming (for animals) is part of a whole culture of oppression and institutionalized violence. The treatment of animals as objects is parallel to and associated with the patriarchal society's objectification of women, blacks and other minorities in order to routinely exploit them.

I don't believe Peta will ever achieve its goal by carrying on doing things like these. In a patriarchal and speciesist culture, both women and animals are viewed as objects, not living beings. Promoting the objectification of one disadvantaged group of beings in order to try to defend another is not going to work. That's my twopence...

[whalespace]

Again - please try to explain what you want to say in a simpler way.

And please imagine how you would answer our comment about not understanding what you mean as if you should explain it to a 12-year old. Your response to Pat's question is IMO as vague as the sentence Pat wanted you to translate; "intelligent concept structure which can provide mental functions suited to resolving public denial of complicity in animal abuse".

For the records, a good number of our visitors (and some members) don't even have English as their native tongue, so... like Pat requested: Plain English, please.

I was not addressing a twelve year aged person.
There are plenty of posts here which can be processed with a reading age of twelve. Possibly some readers pass over them as swirls in the fog. I'm sure my posts are also passed over by plenty of viewers, such is their freedom.

"That" sentence was english, and a fairly mundane corner of what I was saying.
I don't think Pat was unfamiliar with the words used. She at least gave some indication of her interpretation, which I used to clarify the context I had in mind.
Which words were not recognised? I don't mind explaining as if to a child, but I'd rather not be painted as a condescending, patronising, "holier than thou", negative reference value. Give me a definition of "plain", and I'll see what I can do.
Having said that, we all combine words and ideas to make other ideas. We build new ideas when the ideas we have are not adequate for our needs. Therefore [for the equivalent twelve year aged present] familiar ideas might not cut the mustard.

On the subject of PETA [the mainstream media]

Promoting the objectification of one disadvantaged group of beings in order to try to defend another is not going to work. That's my twopence...

Actually it might work, and "disadvantaged groups" are sometimes aggressive and dangerous, but I'm not going to insist on ignoring your context.
So let us avoid that.
Depiction of the sex of humans does not require an intention of promoting harm. To argue that humans cannot under any circumstances witness human sex [or even plain copulation] without women [or men] always consequently being oppressed, is an extreme position. Presumably the sex of a happily married couple could be deemed non harmful if they wanted to release such 'material'? Disregarding the required "contractual binding" of the couple in a patriarchal system of course.

[Korn]

I was not addressing a twelve year aged person.
There are plenty of posts here which can be processed with a reading age of twelve. Possibly some readers pass over them as swirls in the fog. I'm sure my posts are also passed over by plenty of viewers, such is their freedom.

"That" sentence was english, and a fairly mundane corner of what I was saying.
I don't think Pat was unfamiliar with the words used. She at least gave some indication of her interpretation, which I used to clarify the context I had in mind.
Which words were not recognised? I don't mind explaining as if to a child, but I'd rather not be painted as a condescending, patronising, "holier than thou", negative reference value. Give me a definition of "plain", and I'll see what I can do.
Having said that, we all combine words and ideas to make other ideas. We build new ideas when the ideas we have are not adequate for our needs. Therefore [for the equivalent twelve year aged present] familiar ideas might not cut the mustard.

But again: What did you mean by these two sentences - in a simple language - and how does it relate to this topic?

ETA: isn't it easier to just answer the question instead of discussing the question or whether it deserves an answer anyway? ;.)

[fietsvrouw]

If you thrust your message on an unwilling audience, in particular by the use of trickery, you are going to make that person feel angry and humiliated. They will no longer have an open mind set. If they are introduced to the subject in this manner, they are going to associate all animal rights issues with the extremist behavior. They would be better off addressing the fears that people have about going vegan and helping them to think about the implications of industry farming in a gradual and gentle way. Many non-vegans would not purposely hurt an animal. They compartmentalize the reality of what the animals experience because they have been raised eating meat and there is a degree of revulsion and guilt that goes along with recognizing that it is not ethical to use animals in that way. I am really tired of people asking me about my veganism and then having to explain Peta and why "animal rights people" have to go so far, as though that had anything to do with veganism. As much good as Peta has done, these aggressive tactics are more harmful than good.