Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Threatens Suicidegirls Over IP Use
An anonymous reader writes "Suicidegirls (a not safe for work adult community) posted a nasty letter they received from Nintendo demanding they remove a member's page on their site because the member listed Metroid and Zelda as their favorite video games." Update: 10/28 02:49 GMT by Z : BoingBoing has an update to the story (probably where the reader saw it in the first place), saying the law firm that represents Nintendo Seattle is looking into it.
Honestly, companies have become so overprotective of their intellectual property. We can blame a whole host of things, downoading, overzealous lawsuits against consumers that solve nothing, disregard for the work of others, discrepancies betwixt creators and distributors. It's becoming increasingly ridiculous. I have no doubt that this threat will be met head-on and demolished for the sham that it is. Having received such letters in the past, the bark is truly worse than the bite.
It seems to me, that a trademark infringement like creating a new game with Link and Zelda or Samus Arun in it is very obviously a legal event waiting to happen. But simply stating "Hey, I love playing Zelda" ... That can't possibly be an event Nintendo would win in anything other than "We have enough money to out lawyer you into the poor house"
Right?
"Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
Any publicity Nintendo can get these days is good publicity.
SG has had a bad rep for years over aggressively "protecting" their IP.
Should we all cry foul because a far, far bigger company has decided to pull the same sort of stunt SG has pulled dozens of times?
I think not.
Meh, as far as I'm concerned, the email they received was unsolicited and therefore SPAM. Plus, that stupid ass disclaimer on the email just makes the sender look like a moron.
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
Probably a bot. Some litigious bastard wrote a script that searched for Nintendo copywrites and "objectional content" then sent threatening emails to the admins of the hits.
At least I hope that's the case. If a sane human being actually read the site, saw the context, and still decided to send the threatening email it doesn't say much for the state of common sense in the world.
Are we even talking about IP, here?
What gives Nintendo the right to censor the mere mention of something? They weren't discussing any secrets of IP or using the namesakes or images illegally... their member simply named two games as their favorite.
How is it even conceivable that they should be allowed to do this??
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
Doing a quick search does yield Nintendo as part of their client list, this may just be over zealousness on the part of the law firm or even just a lonely bored employee and not something Nintendo directed them to do. We have seen law firms in the past do this kind of stuff without the IP owner directing them to so do(or at least that's what they tell us).
Then again it could just be some jerk who spoofed an email to get everyone's dander up.
Nintendo's customers--including many children and their parents--have come to identify the Nintendo trademark(s)/works with the high quality of Nintendo products. Your unauthorized use of the Nintendo trademark(s)/works will tarnish Nintendo's reputation.
Tarnish it how? Because the children are trolling the SG message boards? Because Hey, when I think Metroid, I automatically associate her with a SG pin-up girl? (Well, I do have a thing for chicks with ink, but I digress)
Yet another example of why a seemingly huge majority of lawyers contribute absolutely nothing to society. I honestly don't see this diluting the Nintendo trademark at all. What, I can't even mention a word associated with a Nintendo product in certain environments? This is akin to Nintendo saying that "If you are in a strip club, you can't talk to your buddies about Mario Kart."
Nevermind why you would be talking about Mario in nudie bar.
If this article confuses you, don't worry. It was posted yesterday in a much clearer fashion.
I think Nintendo's issue with this is that they have their IP mentioned on an adult website. Although, I'm pretty sure this is fair use... it's not like it says "Watch Zelda get Fsck'd by Metroid!"
I'm pretty sure that this text was picked up by a bot that the lawfirm probably convinced nintendo to run. the bot probably ran a list of URL's that contained certain keywords and checked to see if any were adult websites. Probably part of a naked-nintendo-character-website crackdown.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
While I agree that Nintendo is probably way out of line in any possible suit, it's not as open and shut as you trumpet here.
From my reading of the letter, Nintendo's claim could be that SG was using "Metroid", "Zelda" etc within the meta tags for the page, or perhaps more extensive terms like "Zelda: Wind Waker" "Metroid video game" and so forth... terms obviously constructed to generate hits to the page that were NOT searches for the actual content of the page.
I don't know if this was the case with the SG page, but imagine that it was. Is that legal? It's a business practice. It's a business practice that is predicated on an odd use of someone else's trademark. Can I put up a billboard that says "My tree clearing business is just as good as Link in the Legend of Zelda video game series!" ?
Perhaps I can, perhaps I can't, the fact that Nintendo is questioning it isn't the problem, imo... and it's not "clearly" fair use. This being said, if SG just used the terms Metroid and Zelda in the text of a web page, I think they should be entirely in the clear... but was that all they were doing?
-Greg
That's the whole point of the site, I believe. They're NOT your standard Playboy bunnies with fake perky boobs and blonde hair. They're people that you might actually know, if you lived in the same area.
You're allowed to say you like Nintendo's
products. But that's not what's at stake
here.
FACT: these girls are not "real". Yes,
there are models with their pictures online.
But the online personalities are fiction.
So, they are trying to capitalize on
Nintendo's popularity.
You can mod this down now, since it doesn't
take the ra-ra pro-speech, nihilist, anarchy
point-of-view that is required of highly
mod'd posts.
What is the girls dressed up like hobbits or
Harry Potter, in attempt to interest different
segments of the population? Clearly, these
fictional "identities" are just attempts to
cash in on the brand popularity of other
products and markets.
This is a clear example of how "intellectual property" laws are nothing but censorship. They don't promote the progress of science and the useful arts anymore, they impede it. Perhaps they always did. Locking up an idea as property is ultimately the same as suppressing it.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
If Nintendo has a valid claim, then imagine how much Slashdot is screwed. Daily we offer our commentaries about products and "IP" we do or do not like. We review books and games and criticize them to death, each person being a member of the Slashdot community. (And lets be honest, posting naked user photos for karma is the next logical step for Slashdot).
If Nintendo is able to win this and violate what I think are freedom of speech and press, then we're all screwed.
can't sleep. clowns will eat me.
Perhaps they're concerned that some young kid googling for web sites about Zelda and Mario will come across a link to suicidegirls.com. That wouldn't do a whole lot for their family image.
From the content of the letter
" It has come to our client's attention recently that you are using the Nintendo trademark(s)/works in the hidden text/visible text/meta tags and/or title and/or links of the above-referenced sexually explicit Web site."
it sounds like that's the case.
They certainly can't forbid people from listing one of their games as being their favorite though. I would hope that somebody at the law firm or Nintdeno would look at the real issue here and retract their little infringement letter.
Of course with me, Mattel learned their lesson, as they didn't say a word about Mattelabuse.com or BarbieSLAPP.com.
But, they didn't learn their lesson before they were ordered to pay $1.8 million to a photographer that they sued for using the Barbie image.
Fight Spammers!
You're a prude. Feel better?
What you really wanted was for one of us liberal "First Amendment" ACLU-types to get offended by your flamebait post and respond in insulting, hostile and/or crass terms, proving your moral superiority. I'm not going to give you the satisfaction.
There is a line. It's called the First Amendment. And Slashdot's been quite responsible enough in this matter, by bringing to light yet another attempt by a mega-corporation to cram our rights into the wastebasket.
If you're not into porn, good for you. Don't look at it. Post volumes, should you wish, anywhere that you're allowed to, on how evil and horrible and destructive you consider porn to be. But don't you dare interfere with my right to look at and enjoy it, for I do have that right. That's my business...it is surely none of yours.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
Lol, this is even funnier than the parent!
What you really wanted was for one of us liberal "First Amendment" ACLU-types to get offended by your flamebait post and respond in insulting, hostile and/or crass terms, proving your moral superiority. I'm not going to give you the satisfaction.
Then you go ahead and DO respond as a "First Amendment" ACLU-type! Don't you see the irony in that?
Irony, the most sublime of the humors.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
The thing is, while they are posting links to it, it's not an ad. The links are being posted because the "megacorp" has decided that for one of their members to say "I like Metroid" is not right.
I remember when one of my friends (in grade school) called Mother Brain (of Metroid fame) Mother Hemorroid. (Yes I know I misspelled that. I'm too lazy to look up how to really spell it.) Do you think Nintendo will sue me now for saying that?
You think there should be a "line" for what consenting adults do in their own privacy? Are we a fan of small government... so small it fits into the bedroom?
People are sheep, they will protest whatever a stronger, more influental person tells them too. Hence religion.
So is that subversive for religous responsibility? Morality is a highly subjective topic. I'm sure there are people out there that find women with more than 2^2 inches of exposed skin a threat to society. I'm also sure there are people out there that find all clothing a threat to society. How about we let
I submit you are smoking crack.
" Geek guys tend to like goth women. Don't know why."
Maybe it is this "opposites attract" theory. Geek men want DIFFERENT women
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
I submit that the grandparent shouldn't be looking at Slashdot at work to begin with.
But, I don't think a link belongs on slashdot, given that MANY people read /. from work (for better or worse).
So what? If your workplace is so anal that you can get in trouble for bringing up a page with a *link* to an adult site, then they're probably also not happy with you reading Slashdot in the first place.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
There's a fair overlap between the tastes of at least a certain subset of geeks and a certain subset of goths (or sort-of-goth) in terms of music, books, tv shows, and so on - they probably bump into each other at Buffy conventions and the like :) Both groups tend to have a dislike of the mainstream subculture - they may well have both suffered through high school.
And finally, goth girls seem to often be quite intelligent and worldly, and they seem to appreciate somebody they can have a decent conversation with. Most geek guys, if they can get over their shyness, can do that.
Anyway, that's my 2c...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
You can't get a general answer for this question and get a very good response. This is a societal question more than it is a philisophical one. If one society believes that female breasts are generally sexually explicit regardless of the context and it makes them somewhat taboo to discuss or photograph, then it becomes so.
WHereas, if you take a society that believes in complete nudity and this society is raised on this culture then full nudity is not as arousing to the average person in this society, whereas in a more conservative society the same full nudity could be considered quite explicit.
I think its pretty clear in America where society draws the line.
At an individual level it amounts to preference and taste, and thus can't be quantified to a general rule. Thus we use society as our yard stick for these types of social issues.
Jeremy
Humans by nature want to make the world a grey situation but it could be very easily black and white if we [wanted] it to be.
So who gets to define that black and white you mention so easily? You? Your religious leaders or inspiration? Your political party of choice? What gives any of them a greater right to define those absolutes than anyone else?
You can argue that moral relativism sucks, and in practical application I might sometimes agree, but the absolutes it would seem often get proposed are based on belief, and belief is subjective and quite individual.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
It's a soft-core porn site where subscribers can post a user profile and journal, and there are forums. The girls who model for the pics usually participate in the forums and keep journals, which adds to the community feel of the site. They recently added slashdot-style news posts to the front page, which doesn't really make sense to me, given their main focus.
Why does everyone keep talking about goth girls? The vast majority of the girls on the site aren't even remotely goth. "Alternative" might be a better word.
It's a decent site for a while, if you're into that type of thing (I certainly am, having been involved in the punk and goth scenes all of my post-adolescent life), but it gets old fairly quickly.
I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
And Fark would be a bunch of guys says "I'd hit that" or being pissed off that she has fake boobs
The Suicide Girls website is primarily designed to provide a place for other women who share the same lifestyle throughout the world to find each other. It's not intended to be a porn site although it has the secondary effect of invoking male sexual arousal. It does that rather well and that goes a long way to pay the overhead costs, but it is not the site's main purpose.
I call bullshit. Worse, pretentious bullshit. If they weren't intending to profit from arousing men then they wouldn't be charging for access. It's a straight up porn site, one that found a smart niche-- pictures of "alternative girls" for the guys with weirder tastes (like punk or goth.) Perhaps it makes the models feel better about what they're doing to say they're "empowering" themselves or whatever, but in the end they're taking their clothes off for money.
my password is private, but unchanged.
people who use phrases like "sharing the self-actualization of women in Portland's post-punk subculture" should, for the good of the gene pool, walk themselves off a cliff.
-dk
Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
It's pretty simple, really. If it has shadows, it's art. Porn is usually pretty well-lit.
There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
If they want DIFFERENT women they shouldn't go for a goth.
Being a goth is not different. You can spot a goth, right? How can they be different when they are so, well, similar? I'm not saying all goths are goths because they want to be different, just the stupid "teenage rebellion" ones.
Clue: If you want to be different, don't try to be different in exactly the same fucking way as a whole bunch of other people.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
I was going to comment about the yummy punk-rock girls, but everyone is calling them "goth".
Bah. Humbug.
I find the site offensive as an objectification of women, and think it is socially detrimental as it fosters a focus on prurient interests.
You should at least go to the trouble of reading a little about that which you criticize. Did you even bother to read what SG is, who run's it, where and why it was created, or what the whole point to the page is? Clearly not, by your comment.
It doesn't take a webpage to objectify women, that happens everyday while we're breathing... it does take brave, smart, woman/women with attitude to turn objectification into a platform for self expression. The fact that these women are sexy is precisely because these women are sexually powerful, proud, and are absolutely clear at the inside out, upside down insanity of this culture. Putting a page out, to turn objectification against itself, is genius.
Intelligent, artistic men, have always been intrigued by women who are smart, beautiful, iconoclastic, and have attitude. That however, is a byproduct of the site, not it's primary purpose. It allows this site to get empowerment, and subvert the dominant paradigm.
I applaud these women, and as far as I can see, it's all upside.
I'm sure there are those who will argue about freedoms and consenting adults and such, but I always wonder where one should begin to draw the line on such things. Clearly many would object to advertisement to sites that promote bestiality or child pornography. I submit that if a site is not suitable for work, there should not be a damn hot link to it on Slashdot's front page.
So should we hide Michelangello's David, because certain gay men might find it purient? How about "Venus rising from the foam", a tremendous amount of classical art was the pornography of it's day. What about differing standards and cultures? To a Mullah, any woman with any hair or skin showing is obscene. To an Amazonian tribesman, nudity is the norm, and there is no meaning to the word "objectification". Even inside of our own culture... During Elizabethan times, bare breasts were perfectly acceptable, but a bare ankle or uncovered head was absolutely scandalous.
Who would you have secure the air waves, webspace, or any other venue for human interaction. Would you use the lowest common denominator for all human culture. That would certainly leave a pretty barren space with which to share and trade ideas.
Our Puritan heritage has left us with terrible discomfort and dis-ease with regards to sex and sexuallity. One must be concerned about bestiality and child pornography, not because sex is involved, but because it's a violent act committed against a helpless being that hasn't the capacity to protect or defend itself. The sexualization of these act, like the sexualization of rape, actually get's in the way of properly responding to these heinous acts. Sex is not evil. Women who are proudly sexual are not evil. Human skin is not evil. In fact, the very idea of making these things evil perpetuates the sad behaviors of objectification, prejudice, abuse, fear, violence, and addiction. One doesn't make these problems go away, by avoiding the subject of sex. One makes them go away, by addressing the fear and ignorance surrounding the subject, and in this case the Suicide Girls are providing a wonderful service to those with the intelligence, and human dignity, to step beyond their own phobic behavior.
If I were interested in porn, it is easy enough to find.
But how many sites can you find, that have real women, no artificial colorings, or flavors added? Where can you find artists, and scholars, strutting their stuff because they are proud of who they are? Where can you go to find a site that shows skin because the women want it that way, more than the men who pander to it? Where can you go to read a woman's thoughts... and trust me, that's way sexier than her skin. Tell me of a site where women display their beauty, and find there isn't a "Stepford Wife" in the bunch. That's why this sit
Three cheers for mass culture. One, two, poo.
Both groups tend to have a dislike of the mainstream subculture - they may well have both suffered through high school.
Yeah, whatever. I'm not about to mutilate my penis over it. Nor will I use pictures like that of myself and others to make a slimy buck.
Suicidegirls is sad the same way punks demanding money for photographs in London is pathetic. If it's recorded, it's static and dead. Culture is to be lived not ogled.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Is everyone absolutely sure this letter is indeed from Perkins Coie? SG didn't show any headers, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find it came from somewhere else; real lawyers send warnings of this sort via certified mail or FedEx.
It reads like a cart00ney to me (cart00neys are the term of art in the anti-spam community for the squeaky-voiced legal threats ill advised spammers occasionally send out), so I'd be surprised a tech-savvy firm like PC emailed this hunk-o-junk with no paper support.
Francois.
1. Everybody has an equal right to define things. They may be wrong of course.
And far be it from me to deny someone the right to their definitions, though I would necessarily deny them the right to dictate mine. (Barring points of obvious exception, such as gun-to-the-head, etc.)
2. Actually, nobody defines them. It's just what they are.
Oh, come now - we're not discussing HTML color codes, or even portions of the visible spectrum. We're talking about moral absolutes versus moral relativism. If you want to discuss how relativism in its purest form advocates anarchy, and how to best mediate this in societal function to prevent collapse of the human community, that's one thing. But to indicate that there are actual moral absolutes when we can't even quantify the "best" text editor is kind of silly, in my thoughts.
Often, those who advocate a specific morality base such upon their religious beliefs. I'm not saying that makes them inherently wrong, but at their core, religious beliefs are items of faith, not fact. They are not quantifiable or scientifically provable or dis-provable. They are neither correct nor incorrect, and they are as varied and variable as the day is long.
Do they make a good starting point for a discussion on agreed-upon moral standards? Sure. History shows it's far from an easy discussion, and someone claiming their side is in the "right" simply because their faith says it to be true doesn't lend credibility to their argument. Show me, for example, that it's not in the community's best interest to presume guilt first, and illustrate the benefits of erring on the side of caution, thinking things through, etc., and we're having a viable discussion about agreed-upon standards of moral conduct. Tell me, however, that your religious beliefs dictate that you know what's best for me and that your decision about it supercedes mine, that your choice in my life is more important than mine - and it's no longer a discussion.
3. Logically, some things must necessarily be black and white.
Again, by whose standards? The logic follows only if the assumed premise (morality is physical fact, immutable truth) is correct. I'll agree that standards are necessary, but someone claiming a moral high-ground based on their beliefs and opinions is not contributing to the facts. It sounds as silly as Manifest Destiny.
Morality is necessary, but realize it is not immutable fact or truth. It is an agreement that is generally (to greater or lesser degree, varying from topic-to-topic) accepted by a populace. "Thou shalt not kill," for example - I think we can (mostly) agree on that. There are plenty of others (many related to sexuality, since so many people are so messed up about that) where there's not a whole lot of consensus going on. Should one wish to bring their religious beliefs or personal opinions to a discussion of morality, fine - but let's keep it a discussion, and not a dictated demand.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
Excuse me? You mean the portion of their audience that sends, for example, Christy Canyon letters talking about how the first beautiful thing about her they noticed was the intelligent look in her eyes and the appreciation they have for her non-sex acting ability? Give me a break. I don't even appreciate MAINSTREAM actors - the ones I like - as "human beings"; instead, I appreciate their skill at their job. When I watch porn, what bloody interest should I have in the naked women I see on the internet, in magazines and in videos APART from how hot they are?
Your post seems typical of the kind of drivel people spout in an effort to make themselves feel better about their guilty pleasures.
Is SG saying "One of our members loves Zelda and Metroid, so you should subscribe?"
Actually, quite the opposite if you read the Terms of Use.
"User acknowledges and understands that all content a User transmits to the site, whether publically posted on the site or privately transmitted onto or via the site, is not reviewed or pre-screened by SuicideGirls and is the sole responsibility of such user from whom such Content originates or is uploaded " (emphasis mine).
That means the user in question is responsible for the posting in his profile. Does he get any commercial gain from someone subscribing to the site? No. So It's a noncommercial opinion, covered under exception B.
So call me a prude and mod me as flamebait, but I vainly hope that Slashdot will show a little bit of social responsibility
Done, done, and the last part got you a "funny" mod : )
I submit that if a site is not suitable for work, there should not be a damn hot link to it on Slashdot's front page.
They say its porn, if you follow the link, you're obviously looking for porn.
What's your problem? That there's porn out there, or that you can't resist looking at it?
I find the site offensive as an objectification of women
Yup, you went and looked.
I wasn't gonna RTFA, but now, I just have to see what got your panties up in a notch...
Ok, so the link up there points to a page devoid of porn, you'd have to keep on looking, in a site you know has porn, knowing you hate porn, to see the porn that so disturbs you.
You need counseling. You have some unhealthy impulse to go view pornographic images and then post message about how it offends you to be given the opportunity to view pornographic images. Go see a shrink, or a priest, someone that can help you being less of a troll. Don't wanna see porn? Don't dig in the site untill you get to the porn. Simple, easy.
Its not like they lured you to goatse under false pretense. They say its a porn site, you clicked the link, then had to dig deeper. Slashdot is a site for nerds, not puritains. Go read "bibles and angels and resisting our urges dot com" or something, if this bothers you so much.
freedoms and consenting adults and such, I always wonder where one should begin to draw the line on such things.
Stop wondering, its straight forward: Your freedom ends where mine begins. And vice-versa.
Is anyone forcing to RTFA? Having read the FA, seing that it was devoid of pornographic imagery yet hosted on a pornographic site, was anyone forcing you to look deeper into the site to get to the naughty bits? Your freedom to not seing porn isn't infringed by the existance of porn sites. And when that sote makes the news, don't go see it and then complain about it. Just -don't clink the link-.
Clearly many would object to advertisement to sites that promote bestiality or child pornography.
Those are illegal. Clearly, the jusdicial system has drawn that line.
And BTW, there'a absolutly no reason for you to mention these, you have horse-dick-into-preteen-virgins on the brain buddy. You're kinda sick if you ask me. I wasn't picturing any of those things until you mentioned them. Its like saying to someone "don't think about elephants". Why are you thinking about bestiality? Why do you feel the need to talk about bestiality?
I reiterate the suggestion to go get some form of counseling to help you deal with these issues, you aren't supressing them well.
You can't take the sky from me...
But, I don't think a link belongs on slashdot, given that MANY people read /. from work (for better or worse).
So. Do what people usually do: DRTFA.
Simple, easy, no one gets hurt.
Its a link about internet censorship! It belongs on slashdot more than most of the crap that gets posted (and then reposted a couple more times, for luck).
I also think it's unfortunate that a fair bit of the amateur porn out there is a bunch of desperate girls in college who can't afford their tuition
You're right, desperate girls should not have ways to make money. They should stay poor and fully clothed and uneducated... Sheesh. If you have no money, but a nice body, and people are willing to give you money to look at it: Its a way to make ends meet. Its not the ideal way, but its either that or no money, then I'm happy they have that option. It beats having no option.
You can't take the sky from me...
"I hate the sun!" is goth-speak for either "I think I look better witout a tan." or "I don't like it when it's too hot."
I can tell you: She doesn't hate you at all. She just think you are a dork. Because OF COURSE she would die without the sun, everybody would. That's not what she meant.
Strong left-brainers and strong right-brainers don't match. She think you are a boring nerd and you think she is snotty. Probably neither is true.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Like your sense of self-worth being dependent upon sexually arousing the opposite sex.
Do you know these girls? Do you have any basis at all for your speculation about how they derive their sense of self-worth?
I frankly pity women that choose to pay the bills by selling their bodies.
They're not selling their bodies, they're showing their bodies, and if you can't tell the difference, then you need some serious professional help.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Please, reread my post and just try and understand my point.
Your so-called "point" is nothing more than your projection of your own prejudice onto people that you don't know.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Like I said, do you know even one of them? Do you have any idea what else they may do in their daily lives?
I don't know a single suicide girl, but I'm not wholly ignorant on the matter.
Actually, you are profoundly ignorant on the matter, and knowing precisely squat about why any of the SG models does what she does, you smugly assert your prejudice as fact.
Why is it I always see that phrase when someone like you is arguing vehemently against their own straw-man?
Get over yourself.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"What is my prejudice? That women shouldn't show their naked bodies for money?" Precisely. If one is inclined to show their body, whether for money or not, doesn that automatically label them a bad or immoral person? I don't believe that it does. "Fine, I'm prejudiced. I'm not requiring you to join with me in this antiquated, prosaic ideology of sexual "suppression."" The funny thing is that you say that with hints of derision. One could certainly look at sexual suppression as being an outdated and archaic form of control and censorship. And, yes, I do fully understand that many past or "antiquated" social groups have at one point or another, embraced sexual freedom. I'm not stating that this is any type of new sexual revelation (or revolution depending on who you speak to), it's no different, nor something to be frowned upon simply because it's not your cup of tea. "But I think you have a far stronger prejudice here which you are projecting--that our sexuality has no boundaries, and thus no room for deviation. Yet there isn't a single pair of eyes reading Slashdot that doesn't think at least some act of sexuality is perverse. There are boundaries, and I very much believe that selling your own sexuality, be it the act or the photographict depictions of the act, is damaging to both the viewer and the model. You can draw the line at pedastasy and necrophilia, I'll draw it sex without proper emotional context." Sexual boundaries, or boundaries in relation to any topic is subjective to the individual. For you to make a blanket statement asserting that your view is more correct or moral is quite selfish. For some, it's a way to pay the bills, for others, it's the experience of it all. How is selling images of your naked body fundamentally any different than selling images of landscapes? Both are natural, both are beautiful. Personally, I enjoy sex without emotional context on some occasions. It doesn't mean that I am incapable of conveying and nurturing more connected sexual relations. It is also neither necessarily disrespectful nor illegal. Thus drawing a comparison with your emotional boundary to the boundary of pedarasty and necrophilia is ridiculous. "Yet now there's a moral absolute drawn by the sexual liberation crowd--an absolute that has absolutely no rational context surrounding it. Normalcy cannot exist without definitions, therefore by extension, neither can deviation." Moral absolutes exist everywhere, in every clique. You've made this point without realising that you were shooting down your own argument. "At this point I'm not so much refuting your point as I am refuting "sexual liberation" in general." But why? Are you so bothered by what other people do that you feel the need to interject and tell them that they are wrong for what they do? Is it perhaps an issue of repression within your own psyche? "I'll assume the opposite of my premise--that these women (and by these I mean not just SG's) really do find self-realization or at least gratification by their line of work. That would mean that either they enjoy being naked for the sake of being naked, or they enjoy being naked for the attention (i.e. for the reaction they get from themselves, or the reaction they get from others). The first case is unlikely, because we all spend ample time naked by ourselves. That need is already fulfilled. There could be a case for combining this theoretical enjoyment derived from nakedness with earning wage, but this is a real stretch. I'm going to dismiss it on grounds of absurdity." I enjoy wearing my necklace at all times. Is it possible that someone might enjoy wearing nothing at all times? You have to calculate in the thought processes of many people before you can summarily dismiss the notion. "The second case actually works for my position Engaging in any act in order to solicit attention from strangers suggests serious psychological problems, not the least of which is self worth!" Are you saying that artists, musicians and actors, whose professions by defi
Yes, I'm if you will a Nintendo anti-fanboy. I want to see them die a horrible death, or at least go away for ever.
I hope the PSP finally puts these fuckers out of their retarded misery. Better yet, I hope MS gets into the handheld market and puts as much money behind it as they put behind the XBox. Heck, I'd even preorder some 20 MS handhelds.
They've been using every single strong-arm tactic they thought they could get away with.
They threatened emu makers. They threaten sites for merely mentioning their games.
They broke trade laws in Europe and actually _planned_ that they'll get fined, but probably will make more money than the fine. (Much to their surprise, the EU had a much nastier bite than they had planned.)
When they were still the number 1 console, they imposed all sorts of surrealistic restrictions on the game devs. Just because they're the big N, and you're just a worthless peon begging to make a game for their console.
And generally, I dunno, they just fucking act like they whole fucking Earth revolves around them. They're the Alpha and the Omega, they're The Big N, God's bless to gamers, and so on.
At a time when the N64 was having a grand total of some 3 genres for it, and about 2 games per whole fucking year (at least in Europe, anyway), Nintendo was shooting its mouth off to the press about how they're great and have all the games they need. See, it's Sony who'll go bankrupt for having hundreds of games on their consoles. You just wait and see. All those stray developpers will come begging back to Nintendo.
No, literally.
Not only idiotic, but a downright slap in the face to all of us whose N64 was catching dust for lack of games.
And so on.
And I don't know... I wish they just ate shit and died already. All this corporate narcisism is making me sick already.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"What is my prejudice? That women shouldn't show their naked bodies for money?"
Precisely. If one is inclined to show their body, whether for money or not, doesn that automatically label them a bad or immoral person? I don't believe that it does.
"Fine, I'm prejudiced. I'm not requiring you to join with me in this antiquated, prosaic ideology of sexual "suppression.""
The funny thing is that you say that with hints of derision. One could certainly look at sexual suppression as being an outdated and archaic form of control and censorship. And, yes, I do fully understand that many past or "antiquated" social groups have at one point or another, embraced sexual freedom. I'm not stating that this is any type of new sexual revelation (or revolution depending on who you speak to), it's no different, nor something to be frowned upon simply because it's not your cup of tea.
"But I think you have a far stronger prejudice here which you are projecting--that our sexuality has no boundaries, and thus no room for deviation. Yet there isn't a single pair of eyes reading Slashdot that doesn't think at least some act of sexuality is perverse. There are boundaries, and I very much believe that selling your own sexuality, be it the act or the photographict depictions of the act, is damaging to both the viewer and the model. You can draw the line at pedastasy and necrophilia, I'll draw it sex without proper emotional context."
Sexual boundaries, or boundaries in relation to any topic is subjective to the individual. For you to make a blanket statement asserting that your view is more correct or moral is quite selfish. For some, it's a way to pay the bills, for others, it's the experience of it all. How is selling images of your naked body fundamentally any different than selling images of landscapes? Both are natural, both are beautiful.
Personally, I enjoy sex without emotional context on some occasions. It doesn't mean that I am incapable of conveying and nurturing more connected sexual relations. It is also neither necessarily disrespectful nor illegal. Thus drawing a comparison with your emotional boundary to the boundary of pedarasty and necrophilia is ridiculous.
"Yet now there's a moral absolute drawn by the sexual liberation crowd--an absolute that has absolutely no rational context surrounding it. Normalcy cannot exist without definitions, therefore by extension, neither can deviation."
Moral absolutes exist everywhere, in every clique. You've made this point without realising that you were shooting down your own argument.
"At this point I'm not so much refuting your point as I am refuting "sexual liberation" in general."
But why? Are you so bothered by what other people do that you feel the need to interject and tell them that they are wrong for what they do? Is it perhaps an issue of repression within your own psyche?
"I'll assume the opposite of my premise--that these women (and by these I mean not just SG's) really do find self-realization or at least gratification by their line of work. That would mean that either they enjoy being naked for the sake of being naked, or they enjoy being naked for the attention (i.e. for the reaction they get from themselves, or the reaction they get from others).
The first case is unlikely, because we all spend ample time naked by ourselves. That need is already fulfilled. There could be a case for combining this theoretical enjoyment derived from nakedness with earning wage, but this is a real stretch. I'm going to dismiss it on grounds of absurdity."
I enjoy wearing my necklace at all times. Is it possible that someone might enjoy wearing nothing at all times? You have to calculate in the thought processes of many people before you can summarily dismiss the notion.
"The second case actually works for my position Engaging in any act in
Technically a constructure worker rents his body as well. I rent my brain out every day I go to work. This is life. So if a woman rents her body and provides a service in, say, a Wal Mart checkout it's okay, but if she does it in a bed it isn't? Who says?
I think you're talking about legality--in this case, I think I agree with you. We'll never approach an agreement here. There are folks that don't even think a midriff should be shown in a movie--I'd be hard-pressed to let them decide what can get put into a movie.
So because we have no chance at agreeing upon standards for acceptible sexual conduct, we'll have to settle for anything consentual. My point is that I believe that posing naked is destructive to the poser, and the viewer. You don't have to accept it, I'm just disagreeing with someone else's post.
Can it be proven that selling sex is inherently self destructive?
It's not a strictly scientific claim from a logical positivist perspective, but a case can certainly be made to suggest it. I think a famous sexual predator was quoted as saying something like in jail, there wasn't a single sex offender that wasn't a frequent viewer of pornography.
Porn changes us when we view it, and it changes us when we're part of it. The extent to which it does, and whether or not the effects are good or bad, is open for debate. And certainly the degradation of women is almost a requirement in much pornography
So if that's what you think, never having been one, and someone who has been one swears it's not true. what is the reality?
The woman who has posed naked has certainly not become a sex object--she didn't charge, and she doesn't do it regularly.
You wont admit they're right, because you are comitted to the idea that (at the very least) they can't tell, or more likely wont admit, that they have been damaged.
Sure--I can't fathom how selling your body out for cash won't damage you. I'm not making a case for women that casually pose naked for the 'thrill' of it. I'm talking about women that pose naked as their primary source of income. Do you really believe that it doesn't harm them?
Resign yourself: It's impossible to know for sure. You speak with no weight of authority, none of us do. We can only cite specific cases back and forth until we get tired and go home.
You're right--I'm certainly no expert here. And I'll even concede that it's possible that posing naked is completely harmless. However, this seems unlikely to me, and I don't think my reasons for thinking that it is harmful are totally off base.
I'll resign myself if you concede that because none of us speak with authority, none of us knows whether or not a life of pseude-prostitution is acutally harmful. In which case, the original parent that I was rebutting, who claimed that there is nothing wrong with posing naked, is equally baseless.
If we're all going to settle for ignorance, then we should at least have a desire to investigate this further before we view more porn. It could be the case that these women are living in hell right now, and that by purchasing porn that they're part of, we're perpetuating that living hell. This kind possibility deserves some kind of consideration.
In the end, I'll just get labeled a moralist that wants to impose my views of right and wrong on everyone else.
My political belief is that porn ought not be illegal, at least at the federal level. Not even child porn.
It's a sign of sad times when we take philisophical ideas and make them into political ones. What is legal isn't necessarily acceptable.
I guess there are just a lot of moralists out there who want to impose their morality on us through legislation that we get jumpy when we hear anyone speak of moral absolutes.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
And somehow, I can hear this conversation 2500 years ago:
People are people are people and they have been since we have had a culture to define us. It's not "Objectifying" women. It's answering a need that comes right after food and shelter.
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
And probably both are true.