What’s the significance of Tupelo being the first to sell out showtimes? Well, probably because Tupelo, Mississippi is where the American Family Association, which has taken the lead in organizing a boycott of the film, is headquartered.
Orinoco, snark aside, that is actually a commonly observed phenomenon in such societies.
Apparently those who ‘self-pleasure’ the most and watch the most pornography are also those who view it as a ‘sin’, while those who do not adhere to such conservative lifestyles tend to less.
I was listening to a guy the other day talk about his own country(a highly conservative / highly religious country) and how they were number 1 in the world for streaming pornography.
Not surprising in the least.
I dont have time to comment right now. But i will not sign this petition.
I ll just say this to Rigby40…who said that thought crimes dont exist.
Thought crime exist and i can prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt. It is in plain sight but it uses a psichology trick so people accept it without even thnking about it! The ones who understand the trick are silent becouse its so controversial and such a taboo that its better to be quiet.
For this “crime” a lot of people in EU and US go to jail every year.
Before i tell you what this thought crime is…
Lets have a guessing match so it ll be more interesting.
Vandorius, I’d be interested to hear more about what you’re asserting. Though I won’t engage in a guessing game with you I’d be more than happy to listen to you try to substantiate your claim.
Let me make clear what I am saying and that is that thoughts are neither moral nor immoral and should not be treated as an action.
But obviously there have been certain groups of people throughout history(still happens to this day) who have in fact criminalized thought, that much is true.
ROSENCRANTZ
We think not so, my lord.
HAMLET
Why, then, ’tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.
Ignorance has never been an impressive platform with which to make arguments; it only makes you look dumb. The thing about forming opinions based on nothing more than reading reviews in tabloid media or repeating other people’s thoughts like an absent-minded parrot is that you don’t really know what you’re talking about and care more about allowing others to form your thoughts for you. You could do the intelligent thing in reading the book or watching the film. Then at least your opinions would be your own and have more merit even if they still remain stupid.
If you’re so deeply conservative that you obsess over every minutiae of the mundanity of your own life and finding how really tripe it actually is, you will invariably expect everyone else to be just as ignorant and boring as you instead of opening your mind that little bit more and putting in a lot more effort into forming a more interesting life of your own so that you can leave everyone else to theirs.
It seems to sexual bigots that anything that isn’t five minutes in the missionary position with the lights out and no noise at all must be perverted and stopped because “it demeans women and objectifies them”. It sounds the same as “won’t sumwun think of the chiljrun!!!” when someone who’s anti-social wants to get something banned simply because they don’t like it. I can assure you that I’ve met many kinky women that’ll make the contents of Fifty Shades of Shit look like a sex manual for virgins. And those who don’t know what the fine line is between abuse and kink can’t be said to know much at all about the complexities of human sexuality and all its fantastic shades of technicolour.
For those who don’t know the difference, it’s called safe, sane, informed consent. Kink may be a very taboo form of sexuality. But then again so was homosexuality and treated with much the same disdain and ignorance as I see in this thread by people stupid enough to want to bring attention to a real pathetic and puerile petition, of all things, to get it censored. Quite clearly that book (despite it being terrible and clichéd) and film are more politically and culturally necessary because of this ignorance.
It’s not enough to simply request that those who don’t like this type of content to don’t watch it. It’s only enough when they want to force everyone else to not see it as well. That is the mind of a childish simpleton with a sociopathic lack of regard for socialising because their minds operate within the higher end of the autism spectrum to even give a damn about developing good social skills. And that’s usually because they’re too drunk on their own sociopathy to grow a pair, be a cool person to everyone else and get some of their own like an adult.
With regard to contact sexual abuse, experts have found that a “layering of harms” can occur when images or video of abuse have been distributed online. The contact sexual abuse constitutes the first layer of harm, and the production of an image or video – which exacerbates the negative effects of the abuse – represents a separate, second layer of harm. Each subsequent viewing or distribution of that material serves to re-victimize and thus further exacerbate the psychological damage to the abused.
And again: Each subsequent viewing of that material serves to re-victimize and thus further exacerbate the psychological damage to the abused.
So EACH viewing of this information victimizes and gives more psichological damage to the viewed?! HOW? TELEPATHY?
Another example to understand how the iinformation changes content depending by whom it is viewed:
Parent takes a nude photo of his kid on a beach (photo shows nude kid standing on a beach - thats not porn-YET!)This parent than stores this photo on his computer and everithing is ok.
But then.
Parent shares this photo with someone else (even consently) with someone else. Police find the photo of that kid on that guys computer and the guy is charged of (lets leave posesion out for the sake of argument) watching a forbiden porn.
So the same picture changes its content on basis of thoughts (someone watches a video and THINKS of doing something to that person)
I am really short but i think i ve written enough to explain that there obviously is a thought crime and you can get punished by it.
So watching bombing of Iraq makes it the same as u bombed Iraq again?? HMMMM
nother example to understand how the iinformation changes content depending by whom it is viewed:
Parent takes a nude photo of his kid on a beach (photo shows nude kid standing on a beach - thats not porn-YET!)This parent than stores this photo on his computer and everithing is ok.
But then.
Parent shares this photo with someone else (even consently) with someone else. Police find the photo of that kid on that guys computer and the guy is charged of (lets leave posesion out for the sake of argument) watching a forbiden porn.
So the same picture changes its content on basis of thoughts (someone watches a video and THINKS of doing something to that person)
I am really short but i think i ve written enough to explain that there obviously is a thought crime and you can get punished by it.
So watching bombing of Iraq makes it the same as u bombed Iraq again?? HMMMM
I understand what you’re saying but I think you missed the last thing I wrote in which I stated that people have been and still are criminalized for thought. That’s not the issue here, I understand that it happens. Although the examples you gave involve action not merely thought alone.
What I am saying is that thoughts DO NOT deserve penalizing.
The parent taking the nude photo for starters
Actions can be misconstrued and land people in jail but again that’s irrelevant as I’m not concerned with actions at this point.
It looks like you didnt listen. Or the psichology trick is affecting your critical thinking. Like i said…
Taking that photo is not ‘wrong’ at least in kriminal sense. But the person watching this (leave all other actions away, he just sits and watches) is then applyed he is harming the person becouse it is surely watching the image with bad (or how to say?) thoughts
I ll say no more. It is the last thing i ll write considering this theme. If anyone understands what i am saying is Ok if not its Ok too.
Behavior is formed by the totality of environmental stimuli and is founded in the developmental years. Media of all types does have a small influence however it is tempered by real life experience. If some form of media were to have a significant (not just measurable) impact on a persons behavior, then there is another issue that needs attention. To have such a strong reaction to any form of media doesn’t seem to be justified unless it is real harm being documented.
The reason that such things exist is because of modern social issues. Desensitization has made it somewhat difficult to move an audience. Researchers are saying that our upbringing in this rat race has left us emotionally unavailable in comparison to those of tribal cultures. The reason that reverse psychology works so well is because these days, we are doing 180 degrees the wrong thing.
The way to address these issues with not only the most effect but also with an effect at all, is to address the underlying social issues. I would suggest the works of Dr. Gabor Mate, and Dr. Robert Sopalsky for reference.
Though the story in this particular movie may be appalling, it’s not likely to be a danger; especially considering the social system it resides in. I will not sign this petition because I find it to be a poor approach to social issues.
It looks like you didnt listen. Or the psichology trick is affecting your critical thinking. Like i said…
Taking that photo is not ‘wrong’ at least in kriminal sense. But the person watching this (leave all other actions away, he just sits and watches) is then applyed he is harming the person becouse it is surely watching the image with bad (or how to say?) thoughts
I ll say no more. It is the last thing i ll write considering this theme. If anyone understands what i am saying is Ok if not its Ok too.
No, it’s just that you’re talking about something different and not addressing my original statement or sentiment.
You seem to be primarily interested in ‘harm’ as you keep brining it up in your replies.
I could care less about what ‘harm’ is done due to manifested thoughts / actions.
Blonder thanks for the books. I ll sure read em both.
Rigby40 Am i abusing u by watching a video of u being abused? Can u measure that effect on you? Is this abuse happening only in my head? If its only in my head why is it wrong?
Im not saying of using this info to get u abused in some sort of way or anything simmilar. Im just watching a video and thinking!
Vandorius, your first two questions are interesting and I will definitely give them some thought! But they are not relevant to what I had originally stated because what goes on in your head has no moral value.
If its only in my head why is it wrong?
Regarding your last question, I don’t believe it is wrong or right(whatever goes on in your head) so that question is not applicable in my case.
When i read the books (didn’t read the 3rd one) I thought it was a sort of sad story to sort of raise awareness on abuse. Considering that I thought the story was not so bad, I’ve read better but a story of a girl entering a relationship slowly getting abusive changes quite a bit from the regular “I love you, you love me, let’s make babies” type of romance story.
If only it wasn’t for how the fans reacted. I’ve seen a lot of girls who thinks Christian Grey is the perfect man, although the book clearly depicts an abusive bilionnaire (Chapter 2 of first book, so very very early in the story, Gery already is possessive with Ana although they barely know each other, he clearly stalks her, tracing her phone to know her whereabouts amongst other things), isolating her from her family and friends (he gets mad because she received a phone call? Wow), claims her body as his, and I can continue all day (well, this blogger did).
And that’s not getting into the whole sex contract (which she never sign, despite Christian’s behavior) that is going on between them, because some people are into that (and those people absolutely hate 50 Shades of Grey for the image it give to the fetish, so there’s that too).
So no, I’m not signing this petition because the movie, although I’ve not seen it, depicts an abusive relationship (this is freedom of speech, banning art in an art forum, really people?), but I’m really concerned as of the way people thought it out here after watching the movie or reading the books.
