The matter of using libido triggering images in order to make people click an article

[367kGNh0]

Mainly directed to a specific person

We set off like this(not fully verbatim):

*person 1*
"On my Chinese friend's laptop, it shows news from China, which almost always includes an Asian person posed/dressed to look appealing."

*myself, responding to the above*
"This is what I hate about most the clickbaiting world. They will go as so far to sexualise people in order to get attention. They are derogatory, degrading and are among the more frequent objectifiers in today's doomed earth. "

Simply, it escalates and I say I do not find sexualisation offensive, I just despise it. Person 2 asks why I despise it, I say
"The human body is an phenominal organism. It can withstand the most brutal injury yet repair itself miraculously. We all know this too well, how many cuts have these publishers and viewers taken to the arm? The more we are sliced, the more we are prepared for the proceeding cut. We are supposed to be harmed, we were NOT however supposed to view enticing images of other beings, let the video talk for me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2mhQf8RjQs

In a sense these degrading images are pornography, just a little less extreme in comparison to, god forbid, what twisted teenagers are watching. One pornography user is too many in general. We should be watching baking shows, ted talks, and to suggest from experience, a language course from Michel Thomas etc ideally, so we can expand our brains rather than shrink them

Also, I despise how due to the lack of regulation for what goes on the news feed thumbnail images, these pathetic websites can slip an inappropriate image before the eyes of an under 12, just for opening the browser! And they probably already have 500k+ times"

*Person 2 replies*
"you claimed We are supposed to be harmed, we were NOT however supposed to view enticing images of other beings,
to that I say What??
First, so given the choice you'd rather be punched in the face than be shown a sexually arousing picture?
Second, "supposed to be"? According to whose edict?

You also feel We should be watching baking shows, ted talks, and to suggest from experience, a language course from Michel Thomas etc ideally, so we can expand our brains rather than shrink them,
Rascake, Why "should" anyone do anything?
Also, why can't we do both? Why can't someone watch whatever it is you've arbitrarily deemed acceptable and then put on a porno? Or are you saying every second of our waking lives should be filled with baking shows, TED talks, and documentaries?

You ended saying these pathetic websites can slip an inappropriate image before the eyes of an under 12, just for opening the browser!
OH WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!
Oh, no. Kids with erections. What's the world coming to?
Hell, if my kid looked at a bare nipple, I'd take him to the basement and give him a good belting. And none of that pansy five or ten, either; as hard as I can until I can't lift my arm anymore. That's what you said, right? People are supposed to be harmed, not aroused.

Jesus, man. And you have the balls to call teenagers "twisted".

PS: Sorry about the tangent, original poster. I'll leave this here. If Rascake wants to continue they can create another thread, but I won't respond in this one.
"

I respond to you here, as you said, to avoid goind adrift

[367kGNh0]

Hell, if my kid looked at an uncovered breast, I'd take him to the basement and give him a good belting. And none of that pansy five or ten, either; as hard as I can until I can't lift my arm anymore. That's what you said, right? People are supposed to be harmed, not aroused.

Not in that way, take the way vaccines work, for example.

Jesus, man. And you have the temerity to call teenagers "twisted".

They have debased another human being, some call the, curious, I call them enforcers, of the twisted entertainment system

[helios]

What was the point of paraphrasing? You could have just linked to the previous thread.

Not in that way, take the way vaccines work, for example.

Vaccines don't produce harm. Not normally, anyway; they can have adverse effects, but those are undesirable.

They have debased another human being

Are we talking about teenagers who kidnap people and force them to perform in their own pornographic productions, or about teenagers who look at legally produced pornography? I assume you're talking about the latter, in which case: Whether anyone or anything has been "debased" is a matter of opinion. The idea of debasement presupposes that there are some things that are sacred, which I personally don't agree with.
But let's suppose that someone has been debased. Can we really say that it's because of the medium's consumer's choice, and not because of the performer's choice? Millions of people have sex every day, and the vast majority of them don't choose to film themselves during the act, I assure you, regardless of how many horny teenagers would like to see it.

So, really, what we have is a group of people who want to have sex [or get naked] in front of a camera for money, and another group of people who want to pay to look at people having sex [or be naked]. If you yourself don't feel particularly inclined to do either you really don't have to. What, exactly, is the problem?

EDIT: Added a couple phrases.

[367kGNh0]

Vaccines don't produce harm. Not normally, anyway; they can have adverse effects, but those are undesirable.

Sorry if I implied it in an unclear way, but in the sense of recognising a threat the next time

What, exactly, is the problem?

Well, you tell me,

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

The problem is, though I accept you may debate on the morality of the use of seducing, degrading images on articles and ads, they are exposing these so publicly that children can inadvertently look at, and this has happened*, an inappropriate photo. I once myself asked an elder(I assure you I do not, and have never, engaged in it, just saying this to avoid prejudice), what is the issue with watching such content, he said it can cause one to look at a woman, and see an object of sex, rather than another miraculous, intelligent, beautiful and unique human being.

*Innocently on the bus going to a place, the bus stops infront of a billboard, exposing a billboard sized image of an uncovered woman's bosom, my 9-year-old brother had to see that.

[Cubbi]

Rascake wrote:

I once myself asked an elder [...] he said it can cause one to look at a woman, and see an object of sex

Sounds like that "elder" is projecting the way he sees women.

[367kGNh0]

sounds like that "elder" is projecting the way he sees women.

So, according to your logic, somebody who claims suicidal pill overdosage will cause your legs to paralyse first, has probably overdosed pills in an attempt to kill themself?

[helios]

Sorry if I implied it in an unclear way, but in the sense of recognising a threat the next time

It's still extremely unclear. If anything, I'm more confused.

they are exposing these so publicly that children can inadvertently look at

And? I'm sorry, but if the only argument you have is "but children might look at them and realize sex is a thing!" then you may as well save your typing, because it's entirely unconvincing.

I once myself asked an elder [...] what is the issue with watching such content, he said

Why should anyone care what that man said? Everyone, old people included, believe all sorts of unfounded nonsense.

it can cause one to look at a woman, and see an object of sex, rather than another miraculous, intelligent, beautiful and unique human being.

So presumably, if that man is married, when he has sex with his wife he's just sawing it in and out like an automaton, without any sexual thoughts. In his mind it's impossible to be attracted solely sexually to a person one moment, and then to the whole, same person at another moment.

a billboard sized image of an uncovered woman's bosom, my 9-year-old brother had to see that.

I know, what a crime. Some kids I knew developed PTSD the first time they saw a tit. They were in therapy for years, and a few of them ended up taking their own lives when they saw what vaginas were like.

EDIT:

So, according to your logic, somebody who claims suicidal pill overdosage will cause your legs to paralyse first, has probably overdosed pills in an attempt to kill themself?

Invalid analogy. The effects of overdoses are more easily studied than the effects of exposure to pornography. An overdose is generally completely evident and externally measurable, while the proposed effect of pornography is entirely internal and subjective.

[Cubbi]

Rascake wrote:

according to your logic, somebody who claims suicidal pill overdosage will cause your legs to paralyse first

no, I'm just pointing out a false statement typically made by immoral people like that "elder".

[z05DSL3A]

(.)(.)

You bring your own baggage to the party, keep it to yourself and don't try to offload it on others. I can appreciate beauty without seeing 'an object of sex'; if you can't, that is your problem not mine.

[367kGNh0]

Nice little typed up eyes at the top left corner of your post :)

[zapshe]

This all seems a bit over the top.

I know, what a crime. Some kids I knew developed PTSD the first time they saw a tit. They were in therapy for years, and a few of them ended up taking their own lives when they saw what vaginas were like.

As an add-on, I've had two odd friends who'd gotten raped and were making jokes about it. I myself was at a regular beach before-ish my teen years and saw 2 girls in the nude getting a tan. It's more the made up fear/consequences of nudity and sex that make these things seem bad rather than any inherit evil.

Unless you ONLY can get off to porn, in which case I suspect the issue was something deeper, porn wont replace the actual touch of another person. Even though porn hasn't been something in our lives during evolution, people have certainly watched other people have sex before, either by peeping or because that was someone's kink.

I once myself asked an elder(I assure you I do not, and have never, engaged in it, just saying this to avoid prejudice), what is the issue with watching such content, he said it can cause one to look at a woman, and see an object of sex, rather than another miraculous, intelligent, beautiful and unique human being.

Helios is reading my mind constantly, I agree with him again. I've met many elders who are just plain stupid. Age doesn't equate to intelligence. But anyway, you can see someone as intelligent, beautiful, and whatever else, that isn't thrown out the window because you want to have sex with them. And when you're horny, it's not like your in the most philosophic and moral mindset, you can have sex with someone whose personality you don't even like. So yea, you can see someone as just an object for sex, that's what porn is mostly for, but that doesn't mean that one is too stupid to realize there's more to every person (or maybe even less!).

Being connected to people through instant messaging/forums like this who are literally across an ocean from you isn't something that was present during evolution either, but people are adaptive. Our brains don't melt and die because we've encountered the new and unknown. These things become the norm.

[367kGNh0]

I've met many elders who are just plain stupid.

I did not try to imply due to his age he was more intelligent, goodness the man was probably barely 30! I just have a habit of calling older people elders.

As an add-on, I've had two odd friends who'd gotten raped and were making jokes about it. I myself was at a regular beach before-ish my teen years and saw 2 girls in the nude getting a tan. It's more the made up fear/consequences of nudity and sex that make these things seem bad rather than any inherit evil.

So in a sense, helios/zapshe, you are justifying public nudity?

And? I'm sorry, but if the only argument you have is "but children might look at them and realize sex is a thing!" then you may as well save your typing, because it's entirely unconvincing.

Think of the Mormons, these corporates are preventing people like them from peacefully going on a simple walk...

[helios]

So in a sense, helios/zapshe, you are justifying public nudity?

I don't think it needs justifying. Puritanism, including being ashamed of body parts and functions, is IMO among the worst aspects of Western culture.

Think of the Mormons, these corporates are preventing people like them from peacefully going on a simple walk.

If Mormons (or anyone else) decide not to take walks outside (or do anything else) because they might see nudity, that's their prerogative. I'm perfectly fine with it.
I think it's idiotic, but that's beside the point.

Also, I'm pretty sure public advertising has some kind of approval process pretty much everywhere. In most municipalities you can't just publicly display any image you want just because it's on your private property. The city will have something to say about the aesthetics, or about how it might affect the moral of prudes such as yourself.
You can't blame only the advertiser for your indignation.

[zapshe]

Think of the Mormons, these corporates are preventing people like them from peacefully going on a simple walk...

That's like saying the real world makes it so we can't live without dying. Stuff happens, the world doesn't conform to how people feel.

So in a sense, helios/zapshe, you are justifying public nudity?

Only if the nudity in question is hot. Lol, well more seriously, no I don't justify public nudity in the sense that everyone should be free to walk around naked on the streets. But, I also don't go on witch hunts for people who decide to be nude at a beach.

[367kGNh0]

I will ask this,

Does a man who is obsessed with playboy magazines have a higher chance of becoming a rapist, in comparison to one who does not read the magazine?

[zapshe]

Does a man who is obsessed with playboy magazines have a higher chance of becoming a rapist, in comparison to one who does not read the magazine?

Umm.. No? Raping someone means there's a lot of other issues behind the scenes with the person. Being obsessed with playboy magazines doesn't seem healthy, but wouldn't in of itself be something that would make someone assume they might be a rapist.

[helios]

I will ask this,

Does a man who is obsessed with playboy magazines have a higher chance of becoming a rapist, in comparison to one who does not read the magazine?

Firstly, are you asking if X is true or are you implying that X is true?

Secondly, let's suppose for the sake of argument that people who are obsessed with Playboy magazines are more likely to rape someone that someone chosen at random from the general population. What would that imply? We found a correlation, but what's the causation? a) Are rapists more likely to be obsessed with Playboy, b) does obsessing with Playboy create rapists at increased likelyhood, or c) they're both consequences of a single cause?

Also, why are we talking in extremes? It's either "not reading the magazine" or "being obsessed with the magazine". What about the people who just read the magazine normally? Or is your very question an implication that such a thing is impossible?

(Incidentally, I've never read Playboy, but purely because other resources are more convenient. If anything the magazine seems to contain fairly tame stuff, IIRC.)

[zapshe]

(Incidentally, I've never read Playboy, but purely because other resources are more convenient. If anything the magazine seems to contain fairly tame stuff, IINM.)

Same, never had a reason to look at any magazine. Though I did once see scraps of a porn magazine while walking home.

Anyway, Rascake, I can see that you're against the clickbaity sexualized article pictures, but would you also want to ban porn all together if you could?

[dutch]

We are engaged in a brave experiment where hundreds of millions of young boys furiously beat off while staring at images of people being treated like objects. I don't see how that's a good thing.

[367kGNh0]

Anyway, Rascake, I can see that you're against the clickbaity sexualized article pictures, but would you also want to ban porn all together if you could?

This is how topics derail, Such is irrelevant.

Incidentally, I've never read Playboy, but purely because other resources are more convenient.

No, no, no, no, si, nein, huwezi, ではない!, ha ha you mean you have seen better good in entertaining yourself with educational and productive content that teaches you topics such as psychology or anything non nudity related, please tell me the latter is correct..