Gus, thanks for the science thread.
On Rod Dreher’s blog — Crunchy Con — there is a lively thread about pornography that is stuck in the mud (all puns intended). I suggest we look at a more general path: sex (and sexuality) is both sacred and mundane, and pornography is a broken (flawed, corrupted, choose your qualifiers) view of both.

I think we almost need a new word for a movie which depicts sexuality. Pornography as a term represents an insult and erotica sounds overly flowery to me. We need something dirty, soulful yet respects everyone involved. Any ideas?

Franklin Evans said;
>
Were you making that as a statement of fact, or proposing it as a hypothesis for debate?
If you think it’s a statement of fact, can you prove it?
Hmmm…excellent, very complex subject.
While I have no answers except my own improbable opinions, I have lots of questions. Maybe I’ll offer some of my opinions later.
Dirty? What does that mean?
What percent of internet transmissions is devoted to erotic art?
Is there any difference between erotic art and pornography other than the viewpoint of the observer?
Is there something wrong with erotic art? Or something wrong with a culture unable to accept it?
Is there some fundamental error in “exciting prurient interest? Or in an individual unable to discern images from people?
Is getting horny by looking at images bad?
Since every culture on the planet seems to have its own sex taboos, and successful cultures have existed in which community erotic dancing was an accepted form of entertainment, is the fear or condemnation of erotic art simply another sex taboo?
Where do cultural norms and imperatives fit in? There are cultures which regard Americans as hopelessly repressed about sex, other cultures in which any picture of an American beach with women and men in swimsuits is legally pornography. Where do we draw the lines?
Why draw lines?
Is it even possible for anyone to discuss this subject as an “impartial scientific observer”?
Thermal

Continuing the discussion from Gus’ blog post on the limits of science: http://blog.beliefnet.com/apagansblog/2009/07/on-the-limits-of-science.html
We (the public in general as well as scientists) seem to have place ‘science’ on a pedestal, and in some cases, an altar. The scientific method is innate within us. There’s nothing special involved; it’s how we all learn in our environments.
Hypothesis -
“Hmm. I wonder if fire ‘really’ hurts if I put my finger in it like Mom says.”
Test – Jimmy put his hand in the fire today.
Result -
“Ouch!”
Repeatable Result -
“Hey, David! Ya know if you put your hand in the fire it really hurts?”
“Really? Lessee… Ouch!”
Revised Hypothesis -
“But what if I put my hand in and out, REAL fast?”
… and so on.
The scientific method is as old as humanity. So is shamanism. I wonder if they’re not just two ways of doing the same thing?

Thermal,
Were you making that as a statement of fact, or proposing it as a hypothesis for debate?
Will you hit me if I answer both?
Some of your further questions are, IMO, getting too much into the details. The general view I’m taking — and suggesting for such a topic — is the strict definition of pornography (connoting disapprobation by some reasonable definition of mainstream and including some level of damage to the participants being depicted) always going to come down in the general area of bad/dirty/wrong/evil/criminal/exploitative/damaging(to xyz class of people)?
One thing I look to get out of this is a working distinction (being successful in the application without needing scientific agreement on the definition of it) between porn and erotica. Many people knee-jerk this distinction, being the main reason why “porn” doesn’t mean what they think it means. Putting a figleaf on Michelangelo’s David is covering up porn for those doing it, as is blurring out a woman’s breasts but not a man’s.
If sex is sacred, who gets to define what aspects of it (if any) are “fit for public consumption”? If sex is mundane, who gets to define what aspects of it should remain private?
Seriously, I am freely mixing personal views and hypothetications for the sake of spurring debate. Should such a debate transpire, I will clarify which is what.

The scientific method is innate within us.
Using belief — whether heartfelt or in compliance with dogma, makes no difference to me — to deny the results of the scientific method is ubiquitous to the human experience. In short, denial is also innate within us, and easily trumps the truth no matter its source.
My own shamanic experience has a clear line of demarcation: Those things which I can later confirm rationally, and those which I cannot confirm (no matter how hard I try). With respect, this is not a value judgment on either approach. It is simply the observation of which tool can be trusted to bring valid results.

For those not faint of heart, I have an example to suggest: “In the Realm of the Senses” (English title) by Nagisa Oshima. This movie is about a true story, and it includes a true depiction of the objectification of women by a culture, sexual obsession and nihilism. It includes graphic depictions of sex. I do not label it either pornography or erotica.

I like the word dirty, reconnecting to the dark parts of our sexuality and recognizing our connection to the dirt, to the earth.

I’m not a pagan/neo-pagan. I like to think that I have an open mind. In all sincerity, I’d love for folks to share what the pentagram symbol means to them. And if possible, I’d love to know the history of the symbol.

It’s nearly nine hours since I asked folks to share what they think of the pentagram.
Well, after staying up all night, and reflecting/meditating… I think I might be a pagan.
Will all you bona fides accept me into the fold?
Blessed be all!

New Age, one can never really know the validity of comments on an anonymous forum. If you are at all serious, I think it might take a tad bit more time to arrive at the decision that you are a pagan. To go from not knowing the meaning of a pentagram to thinking you are a pagan in nine hours is something of a stretch.
By you just being here, you know the power of the Internet. A simple search would provide you with the answer to your original question. That’s what makes your comments a bit suspect. If you are sincere, then that’s another story…..
By the way Gus, thanks for that link to Frank Rich’s column. Somehow I missed it.

NA Cowboy’s request should be taken as a thread topic suggestion, not a request for this thread. I also try to refrain from judging how much time a person takes on any matter spiritual or otherwise. One cannot know how much rumination has already been taking place for days, months or years.
Patchouli Sky, based on some months of acquaintance with our Cowboy, I suggest you jumped on his second comment just a bit too quickly. My two cents, change accepted.

I like Aron G’s statement, and I think that is also holds something deeper, if I may dig in. How we relate to words, the ideas and symbolism held behind those words. Reversing the meaning, like many minority groups tend to do with derogatory phrases, throwing them in the athanor of their anger, the pain inflicted by those words and fashioning a new meaning.
That we can take words like dirty, (which when I was younger used to imply anything that was not of God, or was perverse or societally wrong or impure), and now can take it to mean, as Aron suggests “reconnecting to the dark parts of our sexuality and recognizing our connection to the dirt, to the earth.” I feel it represents our powerful use of choice and will to do so.

I was thinking along the same lines, Sarenth, about reclaiming the word “dirty” much like we’ve reclaimed the word Pagan, realizing the sacred in the dirt.
I don’t really have any problem with trying to connect to the eros in erotica, but the word erotica has come to be associated in my mind with movies with good production values, yet still no one takes seriously the depth of sex and it’s soulfulness.

Franklin Evans
July 15, 2009 12:50 PM
Thermal, said;
(T) Were you making that as a statement of fact, or proposing it as a hypothesis for debate?
(F) Will you hit me if I answer both?
(T) Nope, I’m not into S&M..
(F) Some of your further questions are, IMO, getting too much into the details.
(T) This is a very emotionally charged issue, examining its details is a way past ranting out conflicting opinions to no avail. Assumung truth about details which are merely cultural biases leads nowhere except to conflict.
(F) The general view I’m taking — and suggesting for such a topic — is the strict definition of pornography (connoting disapprobation by some reasonable definition of mainstream and including some level of damage to the participants being depicted) always going to come down in the general area of bad/dirty/wrong/evil/criminal/exploitative/damaging(to xyz class of people)?
(T) Whose strict definition? My dictionary defines pornography as “Written or pictorial matter intended to arouse sexual feelings.” And some of the highest courts in the land have foundered on “reasonable definition of mainstream”. When you say damage to the participants, are you speakng of physical violence or assuming that performing erotically is harming them? There is good reason to assume that any harm to the individuals is caused by cultural imperatives, not by erotic behaviour. And “the general area of bad./dirty/wrong/evil” etc. has morality police in other nations beating up women in weird public displays of S&M because they didn’t cover every inch of skin or wore pants.
(F) One thing I look to get out of this is a working distinction (being successful in the application without needing scientific agreement on the definition of it) between porn and erotica.
(T) I don’t think you’re going to get it. If it is to be law, it has to have a hard definition. Without that, the “morality police” get to attack whoever they decide to do S&M on/with. They seek to prevent what they think of as porn, but since images of them beating women are no doubt scxually stimulating to some people, they are creating porn by your own sketchy definition.
If you are seeking the distinction for purpose of discussion, the working distinction will be based on the people’s opinions/cultural biases in the discussion group. Like I said, in some cultures a beach scene showing women in bikinis is pornography, in others the same scene with everyone naked is not. But saying “outside of the cultural norms” leaves you trying to determine which cultural norms apply.
(F) Many people knee-jerk this distinction, being the main reason why “porn” doesn’t mean what they think it means. Putting a figleaf on Michelangelo’s David is covering up porn for those doing it, as is blurring out a woman’s breasts but not a man’s.
(T) “Porn” is such a variable term that it doesn’t really have a meaning which can be pinned down. “Offensive” doesn’t work, what offends one person may please another. If people think being sexually aroused is bad, then anything which is arousing is bad, and most of the advertising in this country which associates consumer goods with attractive women is porn. If people think being sexually aroused is good or harmless, then “porn” is a null term.
(F) If sex is sacred, who gets to define what aspects of it (if any) are “fit for public consumption”? If sex is mundane, who gets to define what aspects of it should remain private?
Seriously, I am freely mixing personal views and hypothetications for the sake of spurring debate. Should such a debate transpire, I will clarify which is what.
(T) And I’m not trying to obfuscate with details. As a Pagan, I regard sex as sacred, and much of the current cultural norms about sex as weird and offensive. I don’t want to force my “cultural norms” on others, though, I just don’t want them to force their “cultural norms” on me. The whole subject is so tangled up in and with the religious repression and social dictatorship of the dark ages that it is much more amenable to people expressing their opinions than deriving any solid “working distinction.”
In my opinion, if a person enjoys creatiing erotic imagery, is not bothered by the cultural disapproval caused by doing it, is doing so of their own free will for profit or self-aggrandizement, and their art is not forced on anyone, then there is no harm and thus no reason for repressing them.
On the other hand, if they are forced to do so against their will it’s the same as rape, and if they are physically or mentally assaulted the crime is battery and the images are not about sex, they’re about domination, which is a whole different game. But these crimes can be prosecuted for themselves, without repressing images.
I’m very suspicious of giving any government any control over imagery, the next step is usually the censoring of any criticism of whatever gang of crooks is currently in power.
But it’s a good subject for debate, just because of the vast numbers of differing opinions.
Thermal

Franklin Evans,
I agree with you that identifying with a spiritual path is an intensive process.
I proselytized as an Evangelical through my teens. Had a huge crisis of faith after my first year of university.
I have practiced mantra chants since the 90s. I attempted seminary candidacy via the local Lutheran Synod. I shared a house for a year with a lovely Neo Pagan woman. I lived in a Zen center for a year. I have attended the Church of Religious Science. I’ve studied some Kabbalah…. I even joined the Freemasons.
I’ve had beautiful experiences with all of that. I probed each thing above as much as I could. Many wonderful impressions.
I still read C.S. Lewis and Meister Eckhart. I chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo when I see divine light in nature, (I love watching the sun light dance on water). I believe in reincarnation. I believe that we can practice White Magic when we really become one with the objects of our desires in nature. I try to be on the level with all mankind.
Recently I read Aleister Crowley’s “Book 4″ It really resonated with the divine I encountered in my more serene moments with all the stuff above. I’ve also been trying to read through “Drawing Down the Moon” this year, and really dig what I’m reading… which brings me to this:
The latest chapter I’m reading in “Drawing Down the Moon” covers the topic of Pagans from different areas convening to draw up common articles of faith. It made me wonder how many folks are Pagan and don’t even know it.
Articles of faith may not be appropriate for Paganism. I do love the phrase that goes something like this: “Lest it harm none, do what ye will”.
I really enjoy reading this blog and the posts from thoughtful folks. Maybe I’m pagan too. I guess it’s an identity for which only I can take ownership.