Should student orgs be able to screen Porn flicks? State legislature pressures UMCP into cancelling screening.
UPDATE: The Baltimore Sun is running an article stating that UMCP students viewed 30 minutes of the piratey porno last night (the entire movie was truncated “…because students said they had better things to do on a Monday night.”).
The general consensus seems to be that the heavy-handed micromanagement of the university by the state legislature was undesirable, and that creation of an explicit sex-specific university policy is desirable to avoid the same issues in the future.
-Daedalus
Original article
This past week there was a rather loud bruhaha over the plan to screen the porno, PIRATES II: Stagnetti’s Revenge (Sorry, No Link, NSFW) (edit: See: wikipedia [SFW]), at College Park’s Hoff Theatre. Some news articles about this can be found here.
Long story short, the State Legislature threatened to withdraw all funding for UMCP if this film was shown. The legislation was apparantly written in such a way that politicians were stuck with either a vote for Porn, or to vote for the anti-porn measure. UMCP administrators bowed under this pressure and forced the screening at college park to be cancelled.
According to a tip UU received and according to this Baltimore Sun article (sent to us by a tipster (thanks!)) it seems that this may not be the end of this story. Students at multiple Maryland schools, including UMBC, are protesting this attempt at micromanaging and ultimately a reduction of student’s freedom of speech by organizing screenings on campuses.
I look forward to bringing you more details as this story emerges especially as to when and where the UMBC screening will be. Apparantly, the UMBC students who are organizing this protest screening already have a license to publicly show this film. I hope that this will happen in a timely fashion and will look forward to sending more information regarding this.
Also, to those organizing this event, please send an email either to me personally at short@umbcunderground.com or to feedback@umbcunderground.com and I’ll be glad to either update this post or to post a new post with more details.
My personal thought of how students should protest this, is to pick a day, dress up like pirates and head to Anapolis, en masse to protest (as pirates) outside the state house. If anyone wants to take this idea, make it their own and lead this charge, I encourage you to.
My support on this issue is not for the film itself, but rather for any film that students want to screen. Stopping this or any other film from being screened creates a dangerous precedent. Those who disagree with it’s screening have an equal right to protest it or to NOT ATTEND. College students are adults, or at least 99% of students are.
What’s next Annapolis: Anti-porn filters on resnet? Eliminating the discussion of evolution in biology classes?
(to clarify one final thing, all opinions posted here are not necessarily those of UU and are those of Short). Please comment with your opinions on this.
Before the discussion starts, please note, this is effectively a decision of the state legislature, not the school.
Personally, I see this as nothing more than an example where the complete sexual suppression of typical American (and if I may be so bold, Christian, and even bolder, Catholic) culture. The idea that sex is somehow inappropriate pervades our culture. Watching pornography, masturbation, sexual experimentation. Even ‘vanilla’ sex - the plain boring sex every dull mid-life couple experiences - is treated like an elephant in the room. Sure, everybody has it, but people feel obligated to tiptoe around it with euphemisms and overcensorship.
WHY?!
The only truly objective offense to this screening I can imagine is the possibility that minors would somehow attend the screening, and they’d rather have their hands clean of it.
But at the end of the day, the chain of events goes something like this:
-Some significant percentage of the general populace are brought up believing sex is ‘wrong’
-State legislature fears the populace, as their ‘clientele’
-Not wanting to step on anybody’s toes (a la evolution/intelligent design in classrooms), legislature takes an aggressive stance on anything ‘offensive’ to this subset, including sexuality. Threatens university with financial cuts.
-University, although eager to support free speech and unique events, decides the small victory to be gained is not worth the loss of all other good to be gained by keeping the institution afloat.
-Students don’t get to watch Pirates II.
It sucks, but honestly, it boils down to the way children are being raised in America. You’d think that these people who fight so bureaucratically for ‘morality’ would at least have the willpower to naturally select themselves out of society though.
If this was related to any remotely academic pursuit (ie. a film class, or even just a group of hobbyists ’studying’ the peculiar niche that these super-budgeted porno flicks are carving in the adult entertainment field), I’d be more up-in-arms about it. Since, as it stands, it’s just a bunch of people pissed they can’t use an official building to watch a skinny flick, I don’t know… I’m just not prepared to make it a priority I suppose.
It actually is remotely academic, or rather, educational. Planned Parenthood was going to give a talk about sexual health and distribute condoms before the movie began.
The main reason for them pulling it is the publicity, considering the fact that the Hoff Theater was allowed to show the notorious porn flick of yore, “Deep Throat”, only a few years ago. It’s ridiculous how much the thought of one’s image can enfeeble a large institution like College Park. Don’t they teach kids to not succumb to peer pressure and what others think of them?
It’s not like showing a pornographic film will cause the masses of CP to degenerate into a seething pile of flesh and bodily fluids due to over stimulation, especially considering the theater only holds about 500 people. There’s more madness, and I’m sure debauchery, on campus after a March Madness game.
I suppose I should clarify, my grief is with the State Senate, not UMCP. Under threat of stoppage of funds, I can understand their obedience. But I think the Senate has other things to be concerned with instead of a porno shown at a small theater.
I’ll be frank with you students. I’ll let this movie screen here at UMBC only if it is better than that last Pirates of the Caribbean film. Seriously I didn’t know what the heck was going on half the time. Hopefully Pirates II has a plot everyone can follow
Welcome to America, where extreme violence is A-Okay, but sex and nudity is not. What a great country. -_-
Though, on second thought, after reading the story summary on wikipedia banning the movie might actually be a good service to the world.
It is ridiculous that this film is not going to be shown. Like you said, 99% of all students are legally adults. If they need to card people at the theater, then so be it. You are legally allowed to purchase pornography when you become and adult, so I don’t see why a campus of adults should not be allowed to watch it.
I look forward to watching this film on campus in sweatpants
I understand the argument frontwards and backwards and all of you have made some great points. (Even you FFR.) But let’s think about it from a different angle: Would you want to sit in a seat in a theater that a whole lot of college students have recently watched porn in? I don’t think I would. You know there are some people that would be doing a lot of creepy stuff during that movie. You know it.
I’m all for free speech and stuff like that but I don’t think every theater is fit to become a porn theater. That’s why places like the AFI and Regal Theaters don’t show pornos.
I’m really glad that this conversation has been aimed at discussing the free speech issue and not at the ‘evils’ of pornography, because the free speech issue is a big deal and needs to be discussed.
IF there is a showing (nothing is confirmed yet), it will definitely be accompanied by a thorough discussion of free speech and whether censorship of explicit sexual materials is permitted by the first amendment.
If anyone has any strong feelings about the context in which a showing should or shouldn’t occur at UMBC, please post them here. If an event is planned, comments posted here will be taken into consideration.
If anyone has a strong desire to actually be involved in planning the potential event, please contact me directly (minteh@gmail.com).
As a side note, I will be meeting with the administration (Nancy Young) either tomorrow or Monday to bounce around ideas and feelings surrounding the event I’m proposing.
I will update UU with details as I have them.
I do not see how an issue with a pornographic film equates to squashing free speech. They are not banning pornos on the campus or discussions about sex, they just don’t want the porno screening to be a university sponsored event. It is not about Planned Parenthood, it is about the film being a porno. I think the state govt has bigger things to worry about, but I also do not feel that screening a porno is appropriate as a university sponsored event.
@yvette79
Do you see this as being different than the university sponsoring a pub in the Commons for those over the age of 21?
“I think the state govt has bigger things to worry about, but I also do not feel that screening a porno is appropriate as a university sponsored event.”
Why?
@yvette79
It does equate to squashing free speech because you have a student organization that has chosen to run a pornographic picture and a state assembly has decided to make every move to block it because of the nature of the film. The students right to speech (in this case the unanimous vote by the board of the Hoff Theatre at UMCP) is trampled upon.
Additionally, (though I fully recognize that what is about to follow is a weaker argument) if one replaces the word pornographic with any other more politically correct one say liberal or conservative there would you still agree with this being shown. It’s viewpoint discrimination or content and I am ready to argue that a precedent of content or viewpoint discrimination (whatever the viewpoint is), is one that should not be set on a college campus.
This reasoning is why a campus like UMBC tolerates and allows the guy who comes and paints and tells everyone who has not converted to his brand of Christianity to come on campus despite his assurances to many students that they are likely going to hell and comments such as “… and if you’re jewish you should be ashamed of yourself”. I fully support his right to make appearances so that other groups can have the same right of assembly. This is also why I support a student group’s right to show any film they please whether it be pornographic, or a tame g rated animated flick.
I don’t have a copy in front of me, nor a subscription to their online version, but the Washington post also picked up on the story(sun apr 5th) (not surprisingly)
I didn’t see any mention of umbc or any new info but just figured it was worth mentioning.
HUH?
Since when have University students had *absolute* free speech on campus? I mean really boys and girls, this is no doubt a hilarious way to *once again* point out that administrators (be they school staff all the way up to the State Legislation) can (and do) violate your “rights” to free speech, is it really a “right?”
I thought the Supreme court ruled on this a long time ago under more intellectual conditions - vis a vis the ever-free-speech-lovin’ School newspaper. Last I checked, we don’t have the right to use the college as a venue to express whatever the hell we please.
I really can’t say I see anything wrong with that because it’s not my venue. Sure, I pay tuition, but not for the purpose of expressing myself! If I want to do that, I’ll create my own dog and pony show and keep the colleges out of it.
-Dave
@ david - I prefer donkey shows
@ anon - niiiice
To Paula:
There is a difference. Reiterating what Joe said above, you don’t know what students will be doing during the movie. The main objective for porn is arousal, so putting a bunch of students in a room with porn won’t be a pretty picture afterwards. And it is different from the pub in that students don’t drink so much their puking all over the place; their bodily fluids remain in their bodies (at least at the pub–outside the pub is their issue). So unless you are volunteering to clean up any bodily excretions after a porn viewing or you are willing to closely and constantly monitor that people have their hands outside of their pants at all times, then I’d let it go. It’s a a really unnecessary battle to fight. Watch porn on your time, or have a porn party at your place, where you’ll be responsible for the aftermath.
P.S. This is a different Anon from the Anon that originally commented on this.
Porn at UMBC, hey it’ll clear out the game room.
P.S. This is a different Anon from the other Anons that originally commented on this.
porn rocks
@David Hammond
I think that the case you’re referring to generally relates to the high school press if it is Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. That said you do have a point that the school environment (ie administrators) may have some right to restrict free speech. I may not agree with it. Also, the courts and (even UMBC’s own attorney’s) in a different case may not agree with it: see Rock for Life-UMBC, et al. v. Freeman A. Hrabowski, et al.. (the link is from a biased source Foundation for Individual rights in Education but it seems to have some of the facts of the case right — feel free to search the interwebs for the actual case because I think it can be found there)
I’m no lawyer but I think that college students may have more rights than you seem to give them credit for.
@David Hammond
Your understanding of free speech on college campus is very misconstrued. While there are certain examples where the university can limit your free speech, for example you can’t scream in the hallways of a dorm at 3 in the morning or yell fire in a crowded lecture hall.
However students, especially at a public university, have all the same freedom of speech rights that any other normal person would have outside of the university. In fact a number of times it has been mentioned in court cases how college campuses are the starting points for many social movements. In fact college is exactly the place where many people come to express themselves.
Clearly the events that precipitated, a planned showing of an X-rated film and a legislative threat to revoke funding from any university that shows x-rated films (unless for “academic” purposes) would clearly be viewpoint discrimination and struck down as unconstitutional for violating the first amendment as applied to the states through the 14th amendment.
While obviously the subject itself of x-rated films certainly isn’t something many people are willing to stand up and fight for, it is the first amendment issues behind the showing that is the real issue.
Also just some brief history, there used to be porn and fried chicken nights many years ago at umbc.
@Short
Here is a much better article:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20090209/ai_n31322164/?tag=content;col1
@Prelaw student
Thanks for the Find.
@Joe & @Anon
The bodily fluids issue probably should not be considered as it is a fairly serious crime to do such things in a public place (especially when one assumes that the cops / administration or whomever may be ready to get people in trouble for this type of issue). Pee Wee Herman Indecent Exposure arrest for an example of this.
Daedalus said it correctly about the values of Americans. Children must be protected from sex at all costs, yet violence is only mildly restricted. It’s time to take back sex and sexuality as natural and enjoyable ideas. If showing a pornographic movie introduces an openness about sex and eroticism to a poor repressed soul, I’m all for it. I’m so tired of having my choices limited because the US is so uptight about sex. If we can wean the next couple of generations off of the sex is taboo mentality, then maybe finally more adult games/movies/entertainment will be available for me (and everybody else) to enjoy. Sigh, wishful thinking.
@ Short
Underage drinking is a crime, drugs are a crime.. do you really think that it’s going to stop any students who will want to do it? They’ll be in a large, dark room after all. It’s ridiculous to say “you can watch this pornographic film but you must sit there even though the film is designed to make you sexually excited.. behave yourselves.” It being a crime is not enough to stop students, especially because most students probably don’t even know about it. Even if you do tell them, go ahead and tell a horny student to either play with him(or her..)self or get in trouble (even though they could privately do it most likely without getting caught). Students aren’t perfect, you can’t really expect the school to believe that you’re doing this only to prove a point, and that everyone will be angels during the film. It just won’t happen.
Last time I checked college was all about exposing yourself to things you wouldn’t normally, and maybe being shocked by it. Nobody is being forced to go.
Free speech is not something you can just restrict whenever, if it was easy to justify doing so it wouldn’t be free speech at all. IIRC to be able to limit free speech it must:
A: Be the cause of panic/chaos/disruption (shouting “fire” in a crowded hallway and such)
B: Be advocating specific and immediate attacks on the country (ie “okay guys, 4:00 pm tomorrow we’re gonna take some hostages)
or (in the case of restrictions based on obscenity)
C: Meet ALL of the following criteria (googled this to confirm my memory isn’t faulty):
1: The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
2. The work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law.
3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
The only defense I think you can seriously make is for UMCP, I wouldn’t expect them to engage in a game of chicken for their funding over a porno flick.
@ Daedalus
I would just like to note that there are much more strict religions than Catholicsm and that they have just as great an effect on the policies. I also think that has nothing to do with the situation, there are many people who share the views of catholicism and other religions who are not necessarily part of the organization
Honestly, i think that porn should stay in the bedroom.
Anapolis? You should really know how to spell your state capital if your going to protest anything.
@Anon(2..)
It is true that the inherent goal of pornographic films is to arouse, but it’s far from being the sole use. I’m not disagreeing with you, as I’m sure there would be students tempted to pleasure themselves during the movie, but I can attest that my friends and I (in a mixed company of men and women) have watched both Pirates movies for sheer amusement and a good laugh. They’re the highest budget porn films ever, and they even involve CG special effects. Yet they still retain the bad story lines, bad acting, and hilarious one liners. All I’m saying is there is more enjoyment to be found in Pirates II with a group of friends than just sexual pleasure, so it’s not ridiculous to ask someone to behave themselves.
If they screen this movie at UMBC, they should offer some private rooms so I can bang my girl out afterwards.
@Pirate
re: annapolis spelling
My bad, twas a typo. I should have double checked it.
@Anon(2…)
re: indecent exposure
My point is that people should be weary that if this event is held on campus that authorities will likely take note of it. (If indecent exposure did occur, those persons would have to be prepared to take the consequences for it… just like they would if they tried to take drugs in a crowded place).
@ Pirate
Similarly, you should probably understand the your/you’re difference. Unless you’re a particularly effective joker.
@ Amu
Of course there are other religions (although I’m not sure they have quite the same say in policy). Personally, I associate sexual repression very strongly with Christianity, and Catholicism in particular. I understand it’s an incorrect view, but that’s why I broadened my original statement to all of American culture, and stuck my cynical remarks in the parentheses.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leery
I’m sure it wasn’t even PORN in a traditional sense!
Most likely, it was a semi-documentary scientific movie about sex to supplement the studies on the subject!
YA ALL NEED TO REALIZE THE DIFFERENCE BEFORE YOU EVEN DISCUSS THIS!
@TYRON
It’s definitely a straight up porno man. We know what we’re talking about.
@ Daedalus
Merely for the sake of informing, it should be noted that Protestantism and its denominations actually outnumber Catholicism in the United States. The country was founded on Protestant beliefs (though the Puritans weren’t explicitly Protestant, their beliefs were inline with each other) and it wasn’t long ago that having a Catholic president (JFK) was a large concern because of his allegiance to the Pope. So many of the policies that formed and continue to shape this country are Protestant in nature, though they are not necessarily that different from Catholicism either.
@ Dann
When speaking to the actual influence, I was lumping both sects in with Christianity in general, and assuming ‘other religions’ to be vastly different belief systems (Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.)
In the end, I consider the actual religion to play a very small part of it. The mentality seems to be that something is just “weird” or “wrong” about open sexuality, rather than some very specific religious argument. So religion is perhaps a moot point here.
It does my heart good to see people being strict in their semantics in this line of discussion, though.
@ title of article:
No they should NOT!
being perverted isnt the same as having freedom of speech.
Subject matter aside, one should keep in mind that the issue is that school is *publicly funded*.
Students do not always (or often) have full control over school-wide decisions. The school exists because of the state government and the money it contributes. This money, in turn, comes from the citizens and their taxes. As such, if the state feels that a particular action would not be in line with the wishes of the electorate, they can make whatever decision they want.
The legislature apparently feels that the electorate would not be happy with their tax money funding a university that shows Pirates II.
I want to make it clear that I’m not necessarily against the film. I frankly would have no problems with it. But I think some people often forget the fact that the only reason they have a campus in the first place is due to the support of the government.
Let me know if anything I’ve said is wrong. (What am I saying, of course you will, its the internet, after all
What are they gonna come up with next?!
Banning evolution theory?! Prohibiting non-Christian religions? Segregation?!!
I sure hope not! We (the students) should have the last say!
Let me remind you something, dear State House representatives… Even though we appreciate the fact that our schools are partially funded by the state of Maryland, the biggest source of universities’ revenues STILL COMES FROM US, STUDENTS!!! Especially since the tuition and other fees we pay here is ONE OF THE HIGHEST IN THE NATION! So, with all due respect, I don’t even see where exactly IS that state funding you’re so often talkin’ about…
@TYRON
please… stop… talking…
@daedalus
I am a Christian and just want 2 clarify that it was never taught that sex is wrong actually quite the opposite I was taught the sex was a good thing as long as kept in the confines of a positive relationship (marriage).
Personally it bothers me that this whole screening thing is even a topic. I had heard about it on the radio this morning but didnt know what they were talking about, now that I do I have a serious problem with it especially hearing that it will be screened at umbc. If students want to see porn so much they can do that on their own time. You should not be using my tax dollars to give yourself impure pleasure. What the heck kind of business does a college campus have screening a porn anyway. It’s completely ridiculous!
DISCLAIMER: Before everyone goes off commenting on my opinions of the issue I just wanted to insert this: everything that I have said here is simply my opinion and should not be related or generalized to my faith or anyone else. If you want to criticize, criticize my opinion, but leave my faith alone!
as long as there is no porn filter on resnet…:;
@ D
Yes, that sounds awesome.
Who cares what they show, don’t go see it if you don’t like. Half the shit the school shows/does no one goes too. It’s not like you are being forced to watch it. If the school can make money by showing porn or gain popularity amongst the students then more power to them.
Pirates 2 was decent. There is better porn out there, google it.
btw, just the “yes, that sounds awesome was directed towards D. The rest was for everybody.
To some above:
I’m pretty confident that UMBC students won’t have any problem controlling themselves in the theater at least as much as students in the Commons do, heh.
@mj:
Part of the point is that tax dollars are not being used for the screening - at College Park the license to show the movie was free, and the decision to use the student-funded theater to show the film was made by students. I think that just as you are entitled to believe that adult films are wrong, others are entitled to believe the opposite.
Discussion between those opposing views is, in my opinion, part of the whole college learning experience. In the end, nobody is being forced to view something they’d rather not.
@SteelWolf:
ok so the tax dollars part was a stretch and I agree that everyone has a right to their opinion.
what makes no sense to me is why showing porn is considered part of the “college learning experienced” and falls into the category of “being exposed to new things”. but why? Why does being exposed to sex have to be part of our “culture experience” one of the biggest trends in the US today is unplanned pregnancy in teens but when we have our teens and young adults fighting to view sex its no surprise. It just makes no sense to me!!
@mj:
Everything you said may be true, but students still have a right to watch an adult film if they please, just as you have the right to not go see it. You could even use the discussion surrounding the showing as an opportunity to educate your fellow students about sex, making the film more of a catalyst for educated debate rather than an end in itself.
Debate and exposure to differing points of view is part of the college learning experience. Restricting access to legal entertainment is not.
mj
Apr 6, 2009 @ 5:00 PM
“ok so the tax dollars part was a stretch and I agree that everyone has a right to their opinion.
what makes no sense to me is why showing porn is considered part of the “college learning experienced” and falls into the category of “being exposed to new things”. but why? Why does being exposed to sex have to be part of our “culture experience” one of the biggest trends in the US today is unplanned pregnancy in teens but when we have our teens and young adults fighting to view sex its no surprise. It just makes no sense to me!!”
Actually, not allowing teens and young adults any access to information concerning sex is the reason unplanned pregnancies occur. When teens have access to information regarding safe sex practices, more often than not they ENGAGE in those practices… pretending sex doesn’t exist is simply going to exacerbate the problem, and if anything, pornography encourages masturbation which is a constructive outlet for the sexual energies of teens and young adults. Deciding to not screen this film isn’t going to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, while if screened and used as a catalyst for conversation (as Steelwolf mentioned above) it may in fact REDUCE that number. As a final note, UMBC is no more exposing you to sex than the internet, cable television, or any other forum for the expression and discussion of ideas. If you don’t want to be “exposed” to something you quite honestly should have been exposed to a long time ago, just don’t go see the movie. End of story. UMBC didn’t “expose” me to the horror that was Twilight (GOD what an awful movie), I exposed myself in choosing to go see it.
Someone will need to inform me as to how showing a movie that tells men that women are only good for screwing is an educational or beneficial experience.
I think the state legislature here is acting like idiots.
Student groups do controversial activities all the time - heck, I’m a member of the campus Libertarians, and we got into a bit of trouble for the annual “Special Brownie Bake Sale”, which raises awareness for Marijuana legalization. Yet it was never shut down, and its usually held right outside the Commons. Other student orgs have done some fairly offbeat stunts as well. Not to mention the outsiders who come in - Jesus Guy, the LaRouchies, Animal-Rights people, the pro-life brigade… I’m surprised we haven’t had any Hare Krishnas show up… (unless that was on a day I was off-campus :P).
Showing porn in a lecture hall or viewing room on-campus - if done outside of normal class hours, and done in a way as to not bother students studying or munching on a burger in the Commons (keep volume down, don’t show right on Main Street, etc.) - barely rates as controversial, except perhaps to busybodies.
Personally I find most pornography distasteful and sort of demeaning to the very subject it is supposed to depict - human sexuality. But hey, its a free country, and the university already tolerates a lot of controversial stuff, some of which disgusts me as well…
i think we are all old enough to know this is just entertainment. For those who don’t want to watch it, don’t. I’m sure no one is forcing you to see it and i’m sure most of you haven’t see all the movies shown here at UMBC so why see this one if you don’t want to.
It’s just porn, with a story. It’s just created so people can masterbate.
State legislature has no moral or legal right to prohibit ANYTHING on our campuses! They don’t pay our tuition. WE DO!!!
P.S.: But the whole idea of watching porn at the campus theater still sounds a bit creepy to me!
I am against it.
Welcome to a Puritanical society where people having sex is a crime. I suppose dismemberment of bodies is okay. Way to fail Maryland state government! You’ve certainly outdone yourselves on the petty scale!
Quite an oxymoron, here, as most of the people here feel that not allowing a screening of a porno is a violation of liberties and all, yet banning smoking is completely justified.
Welcome to “modern” America..
Student Organizations have a responsibility to uphold the values of the students the represent. I personally do not want my school to be known for showing pornos on campus. UMCP should have shut the movie down themselves without having the state get involved. Showing pornographic movies at a school theater will most definitely make headlines in the news. Now when I go into a job interview, I don’t want the person interview me to think, “Oh, he went to that school that was showing the pornos”. It just makes the school sound bad and thus makes the students coming from that school less marketable when looking for a job. The school has a responsibility to look out for ALL the students going there. Thus they should not allow such things to go on. If you want to go buy pornos get a bunch of your friends together at a private location and have a porno party, I don’t really care. Just don’t make the schools students as a whole look bad. That is what is done when it is a student organizations planned event. It makes everyone else look like porno freaks. Sorry, I am not one and do not want to be labeled as one.
@Matt
Student organizations do have a responsibility to the students they represent, THE STUDENTS IN THOSE STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS. While the media may take it as “school x shows porno” instead of “student organization y from school x shows porno” that is a much less serious situation than “school x sued by student organization y for violating the first amendment”. Look at the Rock for Life case that was discussed above. Perhaps if you’re looking for a job at some uptight, puritanical company, that might be a factor but the rest of the sane world understands that just because someone showed a porno at your college, doesn’t mean that the whole student body is a bunch of perverts.
There are many things that go on at school that I find offensive and distasteful such as religious organizations attempting to recruit or jesus man spewing his nonsense. The state pays for the sidewalk that he stands on and the facilities that these religious groups meet in. However, we have freedoms to protect people who want to engage in these activities. And since these activities aren’t interfering with my learning experience, I can just walk past or a different way around jesus man and ignore the religious groups handing out flyers.
I also think that Daedalus brings up a very good point. While it is true many other religions suppress sex, in the US, Christianity (Catholics and Protestants) are the majority and thus the influence from this religion thus does become policy which ends up being the basis for the contempt our society has towards porn. Now he isn’t saying that all Christians suppress porn, so you shouldn’t be offended unless you are one that does supress porn.
OH NO PORNO, people having sex. Hey guess what, it’s how you got here. YOUR PARENTS HAD SEX and the result was you.
And again as I mentioned in my first post, UMBC used to have chicken and porn nights in lecture hall 1 that were quite popular many years ago.
Whatever happened to the god-shouter anyway?(that guy with the sign that used to stand outside the student center) I haven’t seen him in months. He used to be out there every week.
@Brittany
He was here last week.
I find it very unlikely that anyone would ever label a student from UMBC applying for a job as someone coming from “that school that showed porn.” First off, according to this article, other schools like UCLA, Carnegie Mellon, and Northwestern have shown Pirates II. Did we hear any national uproar about it? No. Is it likely to effect those graduates chances at getting a job? Hardly.
Secondly, give it a year, hell, probably the end of this semester or the next, and no one outside the school will even remember this incident, no matter which way it goes. Things like this come and go constantly, at our school and every other. But the change that could happen is a precedence set where freedom of speech and civil liberties are not stifled, and instead students fight and earn the respect they deserve.
Be sure to check the update to this article if you haven’t already; UMCP students did screen 30 minutes of Pirates II on Monday night!
I am consistently amazed at “American” values. As someone has already mentioned, human sexuality is something that is shunned and discouraged yet horrific violence is readily available in a visual media. Look at our film industry where snuff films such as the “Saw” series, “Hostel”, or “Passion of the Christ” are allowed to show graphic, horrific violence and only receive an R rating, yet if a film shows a woman enjoying sex, like say “Show Girls” gets an NC-17. Don’t get me wrong, “Show Girls” is a terrible film, on par with “Battlefield Earth” but not cause of its sexual content.
What truly bothers me is that this sets a precedent that political leaders in this state can apply a little pressure to effect what occurs on a campus. In Texas, Ohio, and more states than I care to list, evolution is routinely attacked and attempts to put intelligent design into school systems continues unabated. The school was not forcing students to go to this film, yet the fact that they can’t even approach the subject of pornography without a State Senator getting involved irritates me. Great to see that the State Budget is fixed, the economy isn’t in a tail spin, and that my energy bills skyrocketing has been all addressed. Oh wait, those issues haven’t been addressed. This is just one elected tool using a politically charged issue to cover the fact that he, and the rest of the State Senate, are not addressing the real pressing issues of this state.
If we do not protect the speech we don’t agree with, what is to prevent all of us from losing our voice.
@Diablo
If I could, I would give your post +5. Well said.
I’m pretty sure Hrabowski was involved in the “other college presidents” mentioned in the article. I heard a rumor he was at that meeting, and it would make sense, since the film may be coming here.
Interesting. Could someone explain to me how freedom of speech means that you can publicly show porn at a government owned institution? What is the opinion or viewpoint that we are trying to protect?
If you read previous comments, it was initially planned as a discussion forum by Planned Parenthood. Though the movie was obviously the draw, there was intent for peaceable assembly. In 1993, the Supreme Court found a school district guilty of violating the First Amendment by not allowing a church group to use the school’s premises to show films on child-rearing and parenting. I don’t see this case as that much different, despite the content of the films.
I’m so tired of people always whining about how our country glorifies violence yet tries to suppress sex.
The majority of movies that are box office smashes contain plenty of (female) nudity and sex scenes with the emphasis on the female. Notice how every movie preview you see on TV contains the cliche sultry woman throwing herself on the action hero?
The majority of television shows on television revolve around sexual themes and these shows get the highest ratings and the biggest commercial sponsors. Desperate Housewives, Grey’s Anatomy, et. al.
The following things are all ubiquitous: Gentleman’s clubs, Hooters restaurants, Girls Gone Wild ads late at night, ads using sex to sell, magazines aimed at young girls telling them how to look sexier (i.e., wear less and eat less), etc etc.
Sex is very pervasive in our culture and our culture glorifies it. Don’t act like this is a Puritanical society. Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry that profits off degrading half of the population; if legislatures were truly Puritanical they would do anything they could to stop it. Or perhaps they would try to enforce movie ratings or limit the boundaries that entertainment is pushing.
Divorce rates are at all time highs, sexually transmitted diseases are continuing to spread, and our rape rate is still insanely high. Is the solution to simply promote promiscuity even more than our culture already does?
As a side note, it’s both hilarious and sad to see women in particular in favor of showing this film. And then you go and complain about men being pigs.
@ Lewis
You offer a good analysis from a fresh perspective (particularly with respect to divorce rates), but you tip your hand a bit here:
So, you admit to seeing pornography as inherently ‘evil,’ and the rest of your thought process follows fairly linearly.
What’s always bothered me is exactly what is this ephemeral soul-sucking quality of porno (at it’s most basic).
Certainly, I can see why pornography that depicts “weird” (scat, beastiality, furryism, etc.) sexuality would be labeled as bad. Similarly, I can see why pornography that promotes a non-realistic view of reality (beautiful, loose women, men with huge junk, etc.) would be looked down upon in a way.
But it seems that the same people who speak out against the ‘average’ porn would also disapprove of a couple (who may be dedicated and loving toward each other, or maybe not) sending each other sexual (colloquially: dirty) pictures. Is this not pornography (depiction of sexual material for the purpose of arousal)? What is so evil about this?
Certainly, I’m not claiming that we need to look to the porno biz as a guiding beacon for our culture. But I think the ‘elephant-in-the-room’ attitude toward sex is contributing massively to cultural anxiety.
LET ME SEE ROXY REYNOLDS SHAKE HER ASS WITHOUT HAVING TO BE PROSECUTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ Lewis
Perhaps if Americans were not so uptight about sex, then things like
“Gentleman’s clubs, Hooters restaurants, Girls Gone Wild ads late at night, ads using sex to sell, magazines aimed at young girls telling them how to look sexier”
wouldn’t be as prevalent. If sex were truly glorified and present in society, then nobody would be trying to reach the forbidden fruit.
I don’t see why it is sad that women enjoy and would like to watch pornography. Yes, there’s some truly horrific stuff out there, but there’s decent, women-friendly films too, that *gasp* show women enjoying themselves.
As far as the major box office smashes showing (female) nudity, what’s in it for the girls? I want to see male nudity too. I don’t want to just see a scene with a guys back, and a girl’s breasts. In fact, I don’t really want to see sex at all in a normal movie if it doesn’t fit the theme. Instead of gratuitous T&A in a blockbuster movie (put in just to get the attention and because of that whole forbidden isssue), I’d rather see a fullblown pornographic film where I know that the whole point is sex.
And just to clarify things… Yes, I am a woman, I can like pornography, I’ve been married for 10 years with no impending divorce, and I’ve never had a sexually transmitted disease or been raped. Somehow, pornography hasn’t seemed to affect me much, other than I may have a more open mind than others.
Censorship at its finest!
Porno or not, it is worth supporting anything that is denied an audience by a large governing body.
No censorship! More Sex!
im not sure if the whole point is even the actual porn to begin with..
i mean seriously….who REALLY wants to pack into movie theater, on a friday nite, and watch a porn film????..(smh profusely at the perverted introvets on here)
i think the whole thing is the fact that rights, to a certain extent, are being hindered. And for that simple fact, students are pretty much willing to do whatever it takes to keep their privelages intact (no matter how useless the cause)
personally i think their should be no stopping umbc from showing a porn movie. its our choice not the governments. Will i be in attendence? NO, because ill be busy watching porn in real life…pov-style!
Heezy, your comment is a perfect example of why I have a problem with this film being showed–it is one more instance of women being objectified. These movies aren’t intended for women; even girl-on-girl porn is produced with men in mind, not lesbians. Sorry if this is a ramble about porn–but that is the topic. In general, it is a big contradiction to our society. People so socially awkward, afraid to have face-to-face conversations, who opt instead for texting and Facebook, but have no qualms about watching two strangers get it on—it’s a bit odd, and not to mention, desperate. But that is not the point. Half of the school’s population is female, and that population’s reactions to the showing should be considered and respected. Most porn is degrading, and does not consider the female population. (Not to mention, porn does a disservice to boys and men who think that what they see in porn is how it’s suppose to be done—do you even know what a real woman looks like?) I don’t think that censoring this film represents Americans being uptight. For me the argument is about is it appropriate at the university? Is this what people are paying taxes for? How will this affect the strides made for women trying to get an education and be viewed as having brains and personality? The first Amendment does not mean that everything should be said and showed. There are even types of porn that are illegal (child porn for example). Take the first Amendment as meaning that it is the population’s freedom and responsibility to censor ourselves, considering all sides of the coin (even the female side). I am not a feminist, by the way. Although these are “feminist” statements, they are also reality.
Daedalus, What is creating cultural anxiety isn’t just about sex—how many people feel comfortable enough starting a conversation with a stranger without stuttering? And your assumption about the people who have a problem with porn as also having a problem with sending dirty pictures to a partner, is just that—an assumption. Also, how can anyone say that our culture is uptight—we are one of the most oversexed countries in the world. Hello, what is every teen movie about? How often are naked women showed in non-XXX films? Are you blind?
I see a lot of misunderstandings about pornography in some of these responses. For one thing, pornography does not increase violence towards women and children, it lowers it. Japan, USA, and the Netherlands have all relaxed obscenity laws and all of them saw a large down turn in the rates of rape and child molestation. Pornography allows a legal sexual outlet for individuals that would possible use illegal means to achieve that release. Also, the argument that pornography denigrates women is hollow at best. Pornography is one of the few industries in which women make more than men. How is it, that women in the films are exploited, but the men are not? Exploitation is only an issue for women?!? Again, they both appear in pornography yet one makes much more. As for the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, could someone please explain to me how watching a pornographic video in anyway places one at risk?
In closing, you know who doesn’t have porn? The Taliban. Which I can only assume is the reason they think 76 virgins is something to look forward to after blowing yourself up….man I am getting in trouble for this one….
Porn isn’t “degrading” anyone. It is all voluntary and there are different genres that are there to suit the needs of the world.
If you want to see degrading shit than you can, if not, then don’t.
It’s not like porn is mandatory to watch.
@ SteelWolfe
If the point is aimed at sex education, why wouldn’t a documentary about sex be shown? There is an obvious difference. Do you have to watch the kinky version to learn about it? College students are old enough to know how it works, considering many aren’t virgins. They don’t need a play-by-play.
Anon(2..) presents a very good point. There’s obviously more to watching porn on campus than a lot of people are letting on.
Too many people assume that knowledge of safe sexual practices are commonly known. I dated a lovely you lady down in South Carolina. Thanks to the abstinence only education she recieved she thought 1) condoms cause AIDS, and 2) Jumping up and down after sex would prevent after sex would prevent her from getting pregnant. This girl was a junior at University of South Carolina (go Gamecocks). Now considering that I have lived in Texas, I have thus learned that this poor misguided girl wasn’t unique. I am certain the whole point of this movie thing was to get as many people together to get knowledge out about save sex to people that wouldn’t normally show up. The porno was just the carrot to draw the crowds. But alas, in one state senator’s eyes, you all are old enough to die in war, but god forbid you see consentual sex.
America….what a country….
@ Anon
My original statement (for context; highlighted for my emphasis):
I don’t presuppose that any person who disagrees with the former case may disagree with the latter. I’m trying to strip away the ‘X-factor’ from XXX and bring it from the realm of the completely ridiculous (Pirates II) into the realm of the realistic (sexuality as is) to examine whether there really is anything wrong with all pornography.
As a universal, I see nothing wrong with pornography. The only examples I can think of that offend me are the extremes that introduce other undesirable characteristics (like lowering the societal view of women, unlawful acts [which are hopefully unlawful for yet other characteristic values]).
Certainly, I can’t speak for everyone. But personally, I’ve tried to simplify the broad spectrum of pornography into its very fundamentals, and see if there’s anything wrong with them (to me, there isn’t). If I find an incongruity, I conclude that there’s something about porno Y which offends me that has nothing to do with its explicit nature that separates it from porno X, which I’m principally fine with (but as has been stated many times, might not enjoy watching in a public theater).
Way to go college students!
Of all the major issues facing the US and the world–social, economic, political–what do college students, the leaders of the future, get up-in-arms about? PORN! Show this much intensity for issues that really matter. And watch porn at home where it belongs.
School isn’t the place to jerk off into the hair of the girl sitting in the seat in front of you.
And how is a porn flick educational? Knowing how to get it on should come naturally, better not force yourself… hehehehe
@ PreLaw Student
Forbidding a porno from being shown is content discrimination, not viewpoint discrimination. Content discrimination refers to the type of speech (porn versus a documentary versus a political debate, for example). The Supreme Court has held that content discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny under the Constitution, but is permissible in some circumstances.
Viewpoint discrimination, on the other hand, is discriminating against one opinion on an issue to the detriment to another. For example, allowing Democrats to speak on campus but forbidding speeches by conservatives would be viewpoint discrimination. Or in a more analogous example, if the legislature was forbidding documentaries on why porn is great while allowing documentaries on why porn is horrible, that would also be viewpoint discrimination.
However, that is not the case here. The movie was not expressing any particular “viewpoint” and was not being banned because of a viewpoint. Rather, it was banned because of the content- the pornography itself.
@ Actual Law Student
Which is exactly why nobody chimed in to tell me what the viewpoint/opinion we were trying to protect was.
@ anon (6:26)
It’s kind of funny, yet sad. The extent that people are willing to go to just to provide free publicity to Digital Playground is ridiculous.
I think a lot of people here missed the point. It isn’t about showing porno or liking porno, it is about some legislators coming in and trying to tell college students what they can and can’t watch. After reading the updated article, I’m glad that College Park did this.
As for the whole porn degrades women argument, you can take your neo-feminism bullshit and shove it. Of course there are some porn where women are being “degraded” but there is also porn where men are “degraded”. Just because a women is in a porno doesn’t automatically make it that she is being degraded. It’s almost like the concept of women having sex is degrading to women according to these neo-feminists.
@ a lot of people
Pornography is not intrinsically degrading to women. The VIEW that pornography is intrinsically degrading to women is degrading to women.
Why is it that when women are filmed having sex, they are immediately objects, but men are not? I know of plenty of pornography where the men are the main focus of camera attention or are in a submissive role. Why is it that we view male sexuality as powerful and female sexuality as degrading? The very idea that women are being degraded simply because they are naked or having sex is ridiculous. Most gay pornography doesn’t even contain any women. Is gay pornography intrinsically degrading to men because it contains men in submissive roles? Of course not. I’ve never even heard anyone suggest such a thing.
Also, the view that porn is created for men and all women are offended by it is equally ridiculous and heterosexist. There are plenty of women that read and watch pornographic material, but no one wants to TALK about it. The film at college park was well-attended by many women. Many lesbian, bisexual, and queer women enjoy watching pornography where women are the focus of attention. There are also many women that enjoy watching pornography where men are the center of attention. Just because it happens less does not mean that it is any less meaningful or valid.
Also, you all should know that the organizer of this potential event is female.
‘Cause it’s me.
This event is not about pornography. This event is about academic freedom. But the exact point is that academic freedom should cover pornography, and there is no better way to make that point than to show how pornography can be educational.
Just the idea of this event possibly occurring has led to a post with 88 comments. If porn is so worthless and truly has no educational/academic value, I doubt this conversation would have ever occurred.
I am someone who hates being told what to do, or being told what I can’t do.
Leaving the whole issue of pornography aside, the main point seems to be whether or not the state should be allowed to create legislature denying funding to a public institution over an event funded by a student organization with no outlaying of public funds. And what does this say about the type of government that we have, if it is allowed to bully citizens into accepting one particular set of values over any others?
I know absolutely nothing about the law, and the power that the legislature actually has, but I cannot see where they have the right to tell us what we can or cannot do/watch/etc, as long as it is not harmful to others. And I really don’t want someone who is not in the academic world stepping in and telling me how a university should be run. These guys are operating by knee jerk reactions, instead of carefully considering what their role in the university system is. They have no place in the education system.
Again, it could just be me, because I hate people telling me what I can or cannot do, and I refuse to have someone elses values and morals be the basis for my life, but except for life and death situations, and laws to keep the state running smoothly, I think the government should step out, and let people do as they please, and if that means watching pornography in a theater with other adults, then hey, that’s fine with me.
I think Sarah sums up most people. No knowledge of the law, just an overwhelming desire to not be told what to do. Regardless of what is fine with you or what you think is right, the truth remains that as long as Maryland universities want state funding, they are to an extent at the mercy legislators.
In the end, this really is not the cause to get worked up about.
Nothing unexpected in the recent comments: a couple of typical throw-away inflammatory remarks and a whole lot of “I don’t get it.”
–”As for the whole porn degrades women argument, you can take your neo-feminism bullshit and shove it. ” Oh look, someone else afraid of the word “feminism.”
–”Of all the major issues facing the US and the world–social, economic, political–what do college students, the leaders of the future, get up-in-arms about? PORN! Show this much intensity for issues that really matter. And watch porn at home where it belongs.” This is a major social issue.
Daedalus, you tip your hand by admitting that you see porn as inherently non-harmful, and the rest of your thought process follows fairly linearly. (See how easy that was?)
“Why is it that we view male sexuality as powerful and female sexuality as degrading?” You ask a GREAT question Paula. Does it ever bother you that women who sleep around are called “sluts” in a degrading manner but men who sleep around are jokingly referred to as “manwhores” and are lauded for their accomplishments? I would hope so. But guess what contributes to this attitude (among other things)? Just guess.
I don’t think you realize how many men watch the kind of pornography that tells them that you (a woman) are worthless. The kind of smut where the woman comes in, strips, sucks, gets penetrated (often by more than one man), gets unloaded on, and is left there. All during this she is called a “whore” or a “slut” and often times calls herself the same names. This is how it is, and this is what most men enjoy. This is what scientists and management at NSF spent work hours watching. This is what some of your peers and your future managers watch (and even some UMBC Professors).
Porn glorifies the superficial. There is no emphasis on emotions, feelings, or anything that matters. It is all whatever body part the watcher is fixated on (usually it’s big tits, tiny waist but obviously there are other fetishes). This translates into real life, when people judge their peers. What do you think men think when they see you? If you are “hot,” they envision you shutting up and spreading your legs. If not, then they will either think nothing of you or make a mental note of your hideousness, or make a joke about it to their friends. Ever wonder why men think women can’t drive, run a company, talk politics, or do anything else? Ever wonder why women still earn less than men in many areas?
Porn, and the culture we live in that I described earlier, help tell millions of young men (and women) that women are only around for one thing. In real life, just as in porn, the penis is in control. That’s why the argument that men are also objectified in porn is weak. The man is running the show, getting all the pleasure, having all the power, at the expense of the woman. The sex stops and starts with the man. And what if somehow most porn was not like this (i.e. the fantasy world that you and Daedalus think we are in)? Well, now we have a bunch of people still aroused by the superficial with no connection to the actual person. Still not meaningful.
I suppose I should comment on the issue of the legislature mandating what the school may or may not show. Only a libertarian has any right to shout about this (although my response is that porn is not a victimless activity). Most of you are probably liberal. Well, congratulations, this is the big government that you’ve been wishing for. Don’t complain when it flexes its muscle. And BTW, I am not religious and I am not conservative so don’t respond as if I am.
Paula, if you want to show a movie, show a gay pornography. If you’re going to promote mindless sex, at least defy typical heterosexism. See how many people show up then. See how many people care truly care about the “education” value of it.
@ Lewis
We disagree about whether pornography objectifies women any more than it objectifies men. You are analyzing a certain “kind” of porn. I may be used to a different kind of pornography than you are, or have seen an equal spread of porn. You can’t make generalizations about an entire genre based on one type of pornography that is convenient to your argument. And I can’t argue with you because there is no context in which I can analyze the things you are describing. I haven’t seen that film.
Here is where discussing a specific work becomes necessary. If we have the opportunity to watch a film and have a debate like what you and I are having about that work, that is educational. That is valuable. You and I are attempting to debate a very real, very important issue, but we may be discussing two different types of pornography entirely. Because out experiences and exposure differ our views will differ. We need the common ground of having viewed the same film to be able to perform analysis together.
Would we take a media analysis class without looking at any actual media together, but purely speculate on what the contents of a magazine, movie, or commercial *might* be based on previous experience?
Certainly not. To claim that this is a good substitute is ridiculous.
@ Wishful Thinker
We are not at the mercy of anyone. Your complacency is disappointing. Fight the system. Or don’t. But don’t tell me I can’t.
Wow, some heated debate over something as simple as porn. Certainly both sides are fairly well represented but IMO for things like this, even if you are against it, it’s not really your business to tell other people what they can and can’t watch just because YOU don’t like it. Like for example, and I don’t mean to go off-topic, but for example with abortion.
Personally I wouldn’t get one. I don’t even plan on having children. But I wouldn’t if I did. Does that give me a right to tell other people they shouldn’t get one? Not in my opinion. If I’m against something, then I simply won’t do it and I’ll stay in the background. That’s what freedom is all about. Letting people do what they want as long as it doesn’t infringe on others’ rights or harm people, etc. To say something as harmless as this should be banned just because you hold yourself to some imaginary (or maybe not) higher standard? You need a better reason than that.
Personally I can say I don’t watch porn, but I don’t really care if people do. Obviously I have seen some in the past, as I don’t live under a rock (even though it happened to be clips a friend made me watch to determine my sexual orientation, but let’s not get into that), but sexual desire is perfectly normal, and showing a movie with a sexual topic should therefore be perfectly normal. Basically, if you don’t like it, THEN YOU DON’T HAVE TO WATCH IT. It’s that simple.
@ Lewis
I did not begin my argument from my own (admittedly personal) belief that porn is inherently harmless. I tried to simplify what exactly the minimum requirement is for something to qualify as porn, then see if I could spot anything amiss about that.
Sure, the adult entertainment industry is, on a whole, probably a very bad thing to idolize. As you say, porn glorifies the superficial. That is, porn-as-in-skinemax glories the superficial. This is a content-based issue. If these are really the problems you have with porn, then you have a problem with a specific type of porn, not the very notion of porn.
There’s nothing wrong with looking at Michelangelo’s statue of David as a piece of humanist art. Obviously then, the content itself is acceptable. But say a group of women flocked to the statue because they were incredibly aroused by it (disclaimer: no, I’m not actually suggesting this as a reality. I’m making a point), it would be ‘wrong’ to many people. The statue itself has not changed, only the motive to examine the statue.
I certainly see what’s ‘wrong’ with porn, as the collective mind views it, but looking at the very definition of porn (depiction of sexual content for the purpose of eliciting sexual arousal), nothing jumps out at me, so I conclude that porn at its ‘purest’ is not the problem.
If you do spot something, I’d love to discuss it further, because I learn a lot about myself from articles like these.
@ minteh
It’s not complacency, it’s knowing what is worth it and what’s not. You’re blind if you don’t see that every minute spent on this is free advertising (money) for Digital Playground and nothing won for us. What is our best case scenario? That we can watch porn in public on campus? Great. I’d really pat myself on the back over that one.
@ Wishful Thinker
If it’s not a cause to get worked up about, will you please stop chiming in?
This was interesting to watch you guys go at this for a while, but thins are starting to hit a snag.
Paula/Lewis : One of you should be establishing whihc kind of porn makes up the majority of the titles in the industry, since that is the only real way for one of your arguments to be conclusive. Right now Lewis posted something fairly interesting and also already implied that instead of being just a generalization, that his applies to the type of porn most men watch: “I don’t think you realize how many men watch the kind of pornography that tells them that you (a woman) are worthless.”
In the case of this, the response that Lewis is analyzing a certain kind of porn does not necessarily combat his points if he is correct in his statement that what he described is the kind of porn the majority of men watch (which I am leaning towards that being true: many porno’s laughable plots go that way because it shortens things if nothing else).
Yes, generalizations are bad because it means you’re taking a singular or small number of cases and immediately jumping to say that it applies to the whole. But this isn’t what he did, he noted a *TREND*. Case by case basis is often times excessive and not viable in large sets of sample. Note a trend: back it up with fair number of evidence, preferably statistical analysis (but this is harder and more time consuming to do and is usually waved for informal arguments, as long you have enough evidence to show that there actually is a trend, it’s fine).
And no, Lewis hasn’t given this latter set of examples that will prove his point, but that might be more because no one asked him to yet, or he hasn’t gotten back to looking here.
Anyways, using the “we need to look at this while discussing specific works” argument seems more like a way to rationalize showing lots of porn, which is not necessarily bad, but if you want to go that route, make that your statement: “I want to have lots of porn screenings on campus.” I think the real test of whether this is educational or not is whether you’ll stop many times during the screening to discuss particular scenes, and whether the crowd will get unruly when this happens. Sorry: a discussion before or after for a movie length work is just a tack-on. Most times when someone is having a serious discussion of a work: they either do this stop/start approach, or just assume everyone’s watched it before and have mostly discussion interjected with presentation of clips/passages from the media.
I don’t care either way what you do, but I value directness. You’re billing this as an educational discussion when it’s really a compromise at best between education and entertainment: mostly entertainment with the promise that there might be some education at the end if anyone decides to stick around. Call it a compromise, or call it entertainment, but it certainly isn’t all that educational in the the current state.
Read into whoever I’m siding with however you like, I seem to be siding with Lewis, but if you read into what I’m saying it’s more pointing out that it’d be hard to side with Paula when her argument barely defends against his points.
—
Now next: Wishful thinker and others
People keep bringing up that we should stop talking about this because it’s making free advertising for Digital Playground. Is this really that evil that it we have to stop all discussion? Really, the main thing they might have gotten some money out of was the newspaper articles, and damage is done with that. I’m sure they’re really making tons of money because like 5-10 of us are commenting on UU about it [/sarcasm]. And even suspending that, who cares? So they might get some free advertising, it’s not the end of the world, and them not getting it isn’t going to kill the adult entertainment industry. So nothing is helped or hurt for either way.
Up until now i was finding this discussion quite enjoyable, since I really don’t care all that much about the subject, I’m watching who’s talking, particularly Paula. A political candidate can make whatever speeches and promises they like, often times these promises don’t get as high priority as the voting body things, and were specifically brought up in the first place because the candidate did their homework, noticed a chance where they could be seen as giving the audience something they wanted, and mentioning it. So you can’t use that to tell all that much about whether the person you like really cares about your interests, they might, or they could just be really doing their homework.
Which isn’t necessarily bad, it’s often a great strategic move on the part of the politician. Heck, I’m mildly impressed that Paula jumped on this opportunity to get a lot of attention for her self, and the other candidate did not to any noticable degree. Thanks to this and a few other good moves, I know her name, and have no clue what the name of the other guy is yet. Although there was someone today in the commons handing out candy with pieces of paper with his name on it I think. Not exactly subtle and a little high school-y, but it’s not a bad idea.
Anyways, I digress: the point I’m watching on is the personality, reasoning ability, and hints of actual beliefs undearneath the magic show. I (and all the other silent readers as well) want to see how Paula thinks, handles arguments, particularly whether she’s going to handle this latest turn of events with logical discussion or political moves/rhetoric.
I hate to be the guy in the back of the room seeing through the show (or accusing it of just being a show in the event that you actually *are* very attached to this subject), but if it’s any consolation, I’ve left more than enough tools/information in this post to allow either side to significantly strengthen their position.
Have at it you two.
(Since we have people who like to poke fun at names here, do denote that I almost never comment on UU. I spend *most* of my time watching, and sometimes when things start getting dull I poke the situation a bit so there’s something better to watch).
also: tl;dr summary for folks:
1) Lewis claimed that what he was talking about applied to the type of porn most men watch, so Paula’s argument that he’s talking about a specific kind of porn doesn’t fit well.
2) Advertising for Digital Playground isn’t evil/supporting terrorists.
3) The content might not be too important here, but seeing how well Paula can argue and reason is a great way to judge her as a candidate.
@ Lewis,
I could not agree with you more.
@ minteh,
You are saying that the two of you disagree about which gender is objectified more… but you are completely missing the point that it is STILL SUPERFICIAL and OBJECTIFICATION no matter which flavor you are watching and no matter which gender you claim is objectified more.
You are trying to hide by claiming that his argument is invalid unless you sit and watch the exact same film together, which is ludicrous.
As a female, I have a message to you and to all women:
**If you really want to be such an activist and sexual revolutionist then stop promoting sexual idols (porn stars) who are PAID to ACT like they are enjoying sex. Fight for the right to real pleasure!**
Real pleasure in sex comes from knowing what a person likes and wants, being intimate on more than just a physical level, and treating each participant like an actual human being and not a disposable sex toy. Anyone can have sex with anyone else, that’s obvious. But if you really want to enjoy sex, it’s not going to happen through the random hook-ups and orgies depicted in the movies. Everyone is different and has different preferences, and everyone and anyone should be treated like a person and an individual human being, not just a lump of flesh good for f**king. It’s so sad to me that people have no ideals.
But what do I know, I have a great sex life in a monogamous relationship. I am not religious in any way, I just like it this way because my partner knows what I like and I know what my partner likes, and we both love and respect each other for many other things besides just sex. My sexual experience is way better than any porno, because I actually enjoy it and I don’t feel like a piece of crap afterwords. And I don’t need a porno or anyone else to try to tell me what feels good to me and to my partner. Most of the time they’re wrong anyway, and I want the right to figure that out for myself…that’s half the fun!
I can’t believe that porn is as popular as it is. Everyone is selling themselves short.
@ Observer
I don’t think my ability to argue should have much to do with my ability to serve the student body. I think my ability to serve the student body should be used to evaluate my qualifications for office. Do you think that standing up for the rights of students to show XXX films is a service to the student body, or a disservice? That may be a better question to ask yourself.
(However, the VPSO debates will be 4/14/09 at 8PM in the Student Organizations Space, if you’d like to come question me or my opponent yourself.)
Also, every film class I have ever taken, seen the syllabus for, or known friends in involves a portion where the entire class watches the film together, and then another portion where the film is discussed. I’m not sure where your assertion about assuming people have seen films or the start/stop method are coming from. Which film classes have you taken that use this method? Also, I do not want to organize many film events, as I do not have time. I am a student too. I do want to have a conversation about the one that has raised such a fuss though.
@ Nikki
You admit that everyone is different and gains pleasure from different activities, yet you assert that the way YOU receive pleasure is where “real pleasure” comes from. Not everyone wants to be in a monogamous relationship. Just because someone’s ideals are different than yours does not mean that they do not have any.
If you believe that being paid to act is an injustice, please stop watching movies and television. Being paid to act like you are enjoying sex is no different than being paid to act like you are a doctor.
@ minteh
HAHA you are so blatantly attacking a straw man!!! Bravo. I did not say that being paid to act in and of itself is an injustice. The injustice lies in the fact that our single definition of ‘hotness’ is the plastic big tits g-string porn star/stripper superficial object image and they are all FAKING it. They are acting. REAL sexual liberation lies in NOT being confined to this single image which is repeated over and over and over again.
As far as your monogamous relationship comment, I’m not sure what to say. I find it hard to believe that people honestly don’t want to be someone’s ‘only one’ rather than someone’s ‘just another one’. I think objectification ties to non-monogamy.
@ Nikki
Not to sound pretentious, but if you read some sexual theory such as Freudian sexual theory, you will see that objectification is tied to monogamy because the focus is on the person/object/recipient of sex and promiscuity is tied to the lack of objectification because the point is the action of having sex and not the person who the sex is with. This is simply the terminology used in this type of theory, and not necessarily my opinion.
Regardless of whether you believe in what sexual theorists have asserted about objectification and monogamy, there are people who form relationships, date, and have sex this way as a lifestyle or orientation and are not sexually or emotionally satisfied in monogamous relationships. It’s not right for everyone, and it may not be right for you, but that does not mean that it is not how they perceive and enjoy sex.
As for “our” single definition of hotness, who is this “us”? Do you feel that way? Do I? It is always unfortunate when stereotypes are presumed to be true, but I don’t see this stereotype of female sexuality as being significantly more problematic or damaging than racial or heterosexist stereotypes, and certainly not to the point that censorship is warranted.
I thought it was humorous to read Nikki’s attempt to define “real pleasure”, as if her definition of real pleasure is universal. In any case, even if Nikki’s definition of real pleasure was universal, which it is not, just because porn does not constitute “real pleasure” does not mean it is bad. Those two things do not follow from one another.
Lewis - Your argument says that porn is bad because it “objectifies women etc etc” and makes the assumption that porn “translates into real life”, but there is no evidence to support your conclusion. Your entire argument seems to indicate that porn has responsibility for an attitude, and that people do not have responsibility for their attitude. You’re moving from one flawed conclusion to another.
…
@minetah
“promiscuity is tied to the lack of objectification because the point is the action of having sex and not the person who the sex is with”
Do you even realize what you just said??
As far as the definition of ‘hotness’, I happen to live in reality and that’s the definition that everyone who buys porn buys into. Apparently you live in your own little world.
@ YourFace
What exactly is your non-”humorous” definition of pleasure? F*cking some random b*tches brains out and then moving onto the next one? Okay well to me that is harmful and wrong. Porn is bad because it depicts and promotes superficial and even violent relationships, and reduces human beings to emotionless flesh. And it really isn’t necessary at all for masturbation or pleasurable sex anyway. Of course people are to be blamed for their attitudes, and they are also to be blamed for nourishing their attitudes by watching porn. Of course if you are a porn-addict like you must be, then you will have trouble seeing outside your addiction and you will have convinced yourself that it’s okay to not be able to look at a woman without picturing her naked. And you will sit at home yet again tonight with your eyes glued on your screen and your good trusty hand. How pathetic.
@ Nikki
Yes I do realize. Read some Freud.
Porn is degrading to women? Ok, sure. Because, you know, men are holding guns and knives to a woman’s head telling her to take her to blow some guy. Please. Go look at the figures women in the porn industry make and you’ll understand why they do it. Well, you may not understand it, but you will surely realize that it’s an industry run by women. Stop using this pseudo-intelligence BS where you’re assuming that in order to enjoy porn, you must be a socially awkward, inept person who can’t possibly understand why it’s wrong. It’s not wrong. It’s no more wrong than going to the movies and watching someone get their brains blown out with AK-47. If your retarded “logic” held up, then every motherfucking kid would be blowing someone up after they watch The Terminator. But that doesn’t happen because we can draw the line between reality and fantasy.
Just because someone gets paid well to do something does not mean that it is not degrading to them or to the rest of their gender who doesn’t wish to be viewed that way. If YOUR retarded ‘logic’ held up then there would be no violence, no rape, no racism and no sexism. Watching someone get their brains blown out in a movie is not a fucking fantasy to me. And watching strangers fuck each other is no fantasy to me either. And here’s the deal: men may not be holding guns and knives to a woman’s head within the actual porn (or they may), but you either already hold or you develop a sense of entitlement by watching other men get what you ‘fantasize’ about over and over again and then hello reality, no big tit chicks are walking up to you wanting to blow you and begging to be penetrated. Eventually you get tired of your hand and you want the real thing, you want your fantasies to become a reality with people in the real world. So you say you can draw the line between fantasy and reality? Then why can’t a man who watches porn look at a woman without immediately picturing her naked? And aren’t you just setting yourself up for disappointment anyway by creating this ‘fantasy’ world which by definition can never be yours? Why do you think divorce rates are so high? And I’m definitely not denying that the female chauvinist pig exists…she’s at an all time high because she gets paid really well to treat herself just as the male chauvinist pig wants. She doesn’t enjoy it, but boy is the money good. It’s not right, but boy is the money good, thanks to people like you. Your stupid AK-47 analogy doesn’t apply because people DON’T actually DIE in the movies. But people ARE actually having SEX in the movies. And if you truly ‘fantasize’ about blowing people up and raping strangers then you need professional help or a cage. And just because you watch a movie doesn’t mean it’s your fantasy. Some movies are adventurous and creative but I don’t ‘fantasize’ about them, wishing they were reality. If you ever find yourself doing that with a movie then there’s a problem. And everyone does that with porn.
@ Nikki
Just look at the language you use. “Big tit chicks.” If you feel so sorry for these women because they are so “degraded,” maybe the language you choose should be a little more respectful.
The rest of your logic is so flawed that I can’t even begin to argue with you. Last three lines in particular.
I don’t feel sorry for them at all. They do it to themselves because it pays well. But that doesn’t mean that they actually enjoy it or that it is actually good or right or beneficial to anyone else.
@ Nikki
Luckily, all women do not have to base their personal or career choices on what YOU personally think is “good or right.”
Likewise, I don’t have to base my event-planning decisions on your personal preferences either.
Good, have fun jerking off with your attendees. Maybe at the end you could all get in a big orgy pile and that would be the ultimate educational experience
@Nikki and Everyone Else.
Let’s get real here, porn is, indeed, beneficial. Girls are as shallow as guys are, albeit a bit more, actually. For most men, porn serves as a great outlet for sex that they would, otherwise, never receive from a girl like that. I’d rather some poor guy get the chance to take care of business with a beautiful girl by himself than going out and committing a sex crime. That’s just common sense and that’s really what porn does for society.
The thing that bothers me about this screening, however, is that Pirates II isn’t really a good porn film. For really decent ones, you’d have to watch something like Tell Them Johnny Wadd is Here or the Jade Pussy Cat. Those are very decent porn films that are entertaining to watch, even once you’ve blown your load. The only notable thing about Pirates II is the special effects are very top notch for a porn and it does have some decent dialogue, but it is not the genesis of porn by any chance of the imagination.
My point being, if UMBC wants to weekly show porn, then I’m all for it. Or, if they want to talk about the societal impacts of porn, then I’m all for it, but they’d have to show porn films that actually made some sort of impact, like Deep Throat or the John Holmes films I mentioned. Those were films that quite literally, even if most Americans didn’t see the actual films, every American sure as heck knew about them, when they were released, at that point in time.
They didn’t know about those classical films, because of some stupid, college controversies, but because actual people went out and saw them, in some dank and dark porn theaters across America. They started asking their friends, if they saw Deep Throat, because “dude, you’d never believe what that girl did”. Plus, for many of those classical films, couples would, actually, sneak out from their kids one night, go see the films, and experiment with the new techniques they saw. Porn, back then, actually, meant something for the majority of society. It was not until these recent waves of puritanical nonsense from the liberal socialist and bible thumping socialist that everything is all the sudden bad. When the USPS made all porn magazines be shipped in solid black of white plastic envelopes, the porn industry went straight down hill.
The point being, to show a film, because it’s making the college rounds is, in my opinion, just plain out ridiculous and stupid. If the Maryland College System was trying to prove that they don’t have the sand to be individualistic, they once again proved such a statement to be all too true.
I just want to correct whoever said that if a girl is ‘hot’ (i.e. attractive, beautiful), then as a guy I would try to picture her naked. I don’t. Whoever said that might not realize it, but that’s a very sexist thing to say about guys. There’s lots of us who genuinely don’t care about sex, in an everyday sort of way. We’re not obsessed. You know what the most beautiful/sexy body parts of a woman are?
Her eyes.
The Maryland state legislature has been very law-happy lately. They need to be restrained. So does the U.S. Congress. Why can’t we just stick with the current set of laws we have today and stop making new ones?
There is nothing wrong with pornography, technically, and it can be considered free speech, I suppose.
However, UMBC is a public, highly subsidized (taxpayer funded), University and if the State legislature, elected by the taxpayers, chooses this to be deemed inappropriate it is wholly within their right as representatives.
P.S If people understood the constitution and the laws of our State and Country they would not pretend that an issue such as this is 1st Amendment, freedom of speech, infringement.
P.P.S. The supreme court has found several times that Pornography is often not free speech anyway. Thus we do not have Porn on Public Television or Radio, which is wholly public on the terrestrial level.
@Thomas Conroy
This issue could be a 1st amendment issue depending on how a court interprets it.
You are right that Pornography is not always free speech. However, the cases where pornography has been restricted have often been in public venues such a the Post Office Mailings, and more specifically in public venues where it is accessible (ie the specific case referred to drive in theaters).
While the whole of UMBC is highly subsidized, the funds that would be used to promote such a screening are Student Fees which are not subsidized by the state legislature.
I will qualify everything by saying that I would not attend a screening of this film because I don’t want to be in a theatre full of people watching porn. I find it creepy, but I support the right of people who want to do this.
The problem that I have with this issue is that the State Legislature is specifically intervening directly within the operations of the university. They also, as some have pointed out, created a situation out of what to me is a non-issue. If no one in Annapolis had said anything, the media coverage (and subsequent free promotion for the pornographers) would not have occurred.
I’m assuming that any screening such as this would not occur in a completely public venue, but behind a closed door so that those who did not want to participate would not be bothered by it.
“and that creation of an explicit sex-specific university policy is desirable to avoid the same issues in the future”
this is something I happen to completely disagree with. I do not believe that there should be limits on the playing of any kind of media, especially is theres a way to place it in an educational context
censorship = bullshit
LOL @ everyone trying to make a huge debate about whether or not porn is degrading and what the difference between right and wrong is.
Hate to use comedy as a reference, but go watch Orgazmo and look for this scene:
Lisa: [to Maxxx] You pig, you’re responsible for degrading all of those women.
Clark: Equally degradable in pornographic films.
Lisa: Men are always in a position of power.
Rodgers: They’re the ones who want the product so bad, they’re the victims.
Lisa: Well, it exploits men by exploiting women.
Clark: Hence, it exploits people.
Probably the only legitimate, intelligent quote in the whole movie
In any case, it’s silly to simply talk about how WOMEN are degraded. And, on that note, it doesn’t matter because they’re doing their job… which is completely legal if they are over 18.
I don’t like porn and I don’t care to watch it but I don’t give two shits if anyone else does because it’s a form of entertainment, pure and simple, that is not directly harming anyone.
People who rape and abuse women do it because they are FUCKED UP, not because they watch porn… that’s like saying that kids shoot up their schools because a musician told them to (not because all they really need is some medication and a hug)… bullshit… it’s called bad parenting. Simple as that.