On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:47:02 -0500, Morpheus wrote:
> It has nothing to do with morality or legality. The proscription of
> nude pictures is merely a means of social control. Any power-craving
> despotic government will undertake a couple of things straightaway. The
> first is to subvert culture (often by banning dialects or native
> languages) and the second is to criminalize normal behavior.
>
Yes, it's social control, but I also think it is other things. That's
another (deeper) level of analysis. Freud may have been the first to
point out that control of the sex drive as he called it was a key task
for any society to maintain the power structure, actually just to
maintain order. Marcuse went further and framed this in political terms.
On the nutty but interesting side, there was Reich, who I haven't read.
Then much more recently, Foucault discussed the control of sexuality as
sociopolitical control, but being a popular guy who valued his success,
he sold out and stuck to gay rights of course, retaining the view that
pedosexuality was pathological, afaik. Other may be abke to inform us
better.
You have probably seen the Inquisition 21C website (those who haven't
should look it up - be aware there were claims the FBI were trying to
monitor visitors' IP addresses, I don't know if that was just
scaremongering,) This takes the social control view, though from a
rather idealist viewpoint, and has some good stuff, but, like much of my
own scribbling on this topic, has a habit of ranting circuitously and
stridently at times. It is hard to be cool and analytical when faced
with such unreasoning hatred and hegemony.
Re: Y Not - I have no knowledge or viewpoint on this since I am not a
usenet regular, so I cannot comment and do not knwo fi you are correct or
not. I only remember Y-Not as a poster of pics.
But there is a lot of effort going in to creating petty spats and
disputes between posters, regardless of whoever is doing it, it needs to
be ignored.
|
Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|