Tackling controversial issues

The_Traveler · Mar 9, 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography

Extreme Pornography is a term introduced by the UK Government to refer to pornography depicting acts of serious violence, necrophilia or bestiality. Serious violence is defined as that which "appears to be life threatening or likely to result in serious, disabling injury". The term covers "actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts", which is intended "to catch material which either is genuinely violent or conveys a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm". As a specific technical term, it appears to have been introduced in England following the death of Jane Longhurst in 2003 caused by Graham Coutts who was obsessed with such depictions downloaded from web sites dedicated to such content.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=759

[SIZE=-0]The traditional definition of pornography -- material that is sexually arousing or appeals to prurient interests -- is no longer satisfactory. The critical feature of all pornography is not that it deals with sexual themes, but that it eroticizes violence, humiliation, degradation and other explicit forms of abuse. Churches disagree widely over how we might best cope with the rapid and relentless growth of the pornography industry. One possibility, suggested by religious right groups and the Catholics, is censorship. The mainline Protestant churches, by contrast, have urged education and consciousness-raising.[/SIZE]

PetersCreek · Mar 9, 2007

I could debate a lot mischaracterizations here...but then, it wouldn't be about the photography. Can we please not cause this thread to get locked down while there's still valid photography discussion to be had on the subject?

Efergoh · Mar 9, 2007

RMThompson said:
I hate that. That statement indicates that victims CHOOSE to be victims, which is not true. Surely some, and I emphasize SOME, victims could do more to protect themselves, but in no way did someone choose to be raped or murdered. (Im most cases).

Inaction is a choice. If you do not take steps to ensure your own safety, you have chosen not to do so. No, it does not make it right that anyone should be victimized. I am in no way suggesting that a person "was asking for it."

The simple fact of the matter is that there is only one person that can be held responsible for your safety and that is you. You cannot count on the police to protect you...they are usually the last person to reach the scene of a crime.

The simple fact is that a woman, even walking in naked down an alley at three am, is not "ASKING" for any crime to be commited to her. The idea of victim's responsibilty in a crime is uterrly ridiculous, and needs to be stamped out.

That is not something I am promoting. You're putting words in my mouth.

Your mentality of choosing to NOT be a victim would lead to a world filled with weapons, knives and guns.

I don't see that as a problem. I see that as beneficial. Society is much more polite when folks don't know who is armed and who isn't. Criminals prefer easy targets. They prefer small weak unarmed victims who cannot offer resistance. A revolver in the purse of a woman is one hell of an equalizer against a male attacker.

Furthermore - your pictures still don't create awareness.

We'll see. It is still a rough idea, and needs refinement. I already have a couple ideas to incorporate, and it has grown from 2 photos to 4.

RMThompson · Mar 9, 2007

PetersCreek said:
I could debate a lot mischaracterizations here...but then, it wouldn't be about the photography. Can we please not cause this thread to get locked down while there's still valid photography discussion to be had on the subject?

Photography and pornography, in any form, are inherently tied together! It's a valid point to discuss porn and it's ethical implications.

Efergoh · Mar 9, 2007

The_Traveler said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography

Extreme Pornography is a term introduced by the UK Government to refer to pornography depicting acts of serious violence...[SIZE=-0]

...One possibility, suggested by religious right groups and the Catholics, is censorship.[/SIZE]

Good thing I am neither British nor Catholic, huh?

RMThompson · Mar 9, 2007

Efergoh said:
Inaction is a choice. If you do not take steps to ensure your own safety, you have chosen not to do so. No, it does not make it right that anyone should be victimized. I am in no way suggesting that a person "was asking for it."

No, inaction is NOT a choice, in fact, inherently it's lack of a choice. Furthermore, most women do take some action, but in your opinion I suppose unless they are weilding an AK 47, it's not ENOUGH of a choice.

Efergoh · Mar 9, 2007

Ah...

I get it. Is it your distaste for firearms themselves that has you so wrapped around the axle here? That is the tone I'm getting.

Is it because I condone violence as a response to violence?

The_Traveler · Mar 9, 2007

Efergoh said:
Ah...

I get it. Is it your distaste for firearms themselves that has you so wrapped around the axle here? That is the tone I'm getting.

Is it because I condone violence as a response to violence?

Actually for me, it's that you're trying to rope a community of photographers into your own little display of fetishism - and justify it as art.

Efergoh · Mar 9, 2007

hmm. had not thought of it as fetishism. Not sure what kind of freak would consider violence a turn on...

And thank you for using the word "little" to put emphasis on the personal attack.
Attack the message, not the messenger.

Just because you or other don't see artistic value in something of this nature does not mean it is not art. Photos of puppies and kittens don't trip my trigger, but I'm not inclined to attack the photographer who made them.

I expect several things to happen when I publish these photos...

1. Folks will be shocked.
2. Some folks will decry the message
3. Some folks will cheer the message
4. Some will miss the point
5. Good or bad, it will get folks to think

PetersCreek · Mar 9, 2007

RMThompson said:
Photography and pornography, in any form, are inherently tied together! It's a valid point to discuss porn and it's ethical implications.

Although it immediately followed, my post wasn't in response to The Traveler's post. I wasn't addressing the subject of pornography. I was voicing my concern that many of the comments are straying far from the OP...and any other photography-related concept...onto purely political and highly contentious ground. And it doesn't look to be improving.

But then, I'm no moderator...don't pretend to be one...and don't even play one on television. Knock yourself out.

xfloggingkylex · Mar 9, 2007

Efergoh said:
Inaction is a choice. If you do not take steps to ensure your own safety, you have chosen not to do so. No, it does not make it right that anyone should be victimized. I am in no way suggesting that a person "was asking for it."

The simple fact of the matter is that there is only one person that can be held responsible for your safety and that is you. You cannot count on the police to protect you...they are usually the last person to reach the scene of a crime.

That is not something I am promoting. You're putting words in my mouth.

I don't see that as a problem. I see that as beneficial. Society is much more polite when folks don't know who is armed and who isn't. Criminals prefer easy targets. They prefer small weak unarmed victims who cannot offer resistance. A revolver in the purse of a woman is one hell of an equalizer against a male attacker.

We'll see. It is still a rough idea, and needs refinement. I already have a couple ideas to incorporate, and it has grown from 2 photos to 4.

sorry man, I was all for it until your second response here. To say that you are the only one responsible for your safety is boarderline psychotic. You are introducing the idea that others dont need to be held responsible for their actions because if the victim had done more to protect themselves, it would never have happened.

But as far as the photo goes, it would do a lot more emotionally to have your scene depicted in one picture, and add light on the cell phone and the 9mm, 22, 38, 44, 45 or whatever you decide to use as your handgun.

Also make sure the knife is clearly visable, because without that the scene looses a lot of its feeling.

RMThompson · Mar 9, 2007

PetersCreek said:
Although it immediately followed, my post wasn't in response to The Traveler's post. I wasn't addressing the subject of pornography. I was voicing my concern that many of the comments are straying far from the OP...and any other photography-related concept...onto purely political and highly contentious ground. And it doesn't look to be improving.

But then, I'm no moderator...don't pretend to be one...and don't even play one on television. Knock yourself out.

I'm sorry.

RMThompson · Mar 9, 2007

Efergoh said:
hmm. had not thought of it as fetishism. Not sure what kind of freak would consider violence a turn on...

And thank you for using the word "little" to put emphasis on the personal attack.
Attack the message, not the messenger.

Just because you or other don't see artistic value in something of this nature does not mean it is not art. Photos of puppies and kittens don't trip my trigger, but I'm not inclined to attack the photographer who made them.

I expect several things to happen when I publish these photos...

1. Folks will be shocked.
2. Some folks will decry the message
3. Some folks will cheer the message
4. Some will miss the point
5. Good or bad, it will get folks to think

I can no longer argue with you on this. I personally get the feeling you're only in it because it's shocking, and you're trying to use the mask of "art" to cover it up. I hope that's not true, but it's pointless to go back and forth on this matter.

Efergoh · Mar 9, 2007

xfloggingkylex said:
sorry man, I was all for it until your second response here. To say that you are the only one responsible for your safety is boarderline psychotic. You are introducing the idea that others dont need to be held responsible for their actions because if the victim had done more to protect themselves, it would never have happened.

Let me see if I can clarify.

You and you alone are responsible for your own safety. There are goblins in the world that will do you harm. You cannot count on anyone else to protect you. Those who would do you harm should b held accountable. But I would rather see the intended victim hold that person immediately accountable and see that person go home to their families that night rather than have a prosecuting attorney and jury hold that person accountable after a successful attack.