AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > January > 13 > Entry
Do pornography college courses have intellectual merit?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Pornography is no longer taboo. It’s a trendy new college course. You may think porn in the classroom is the idle exercise of college kids looking for an easy ‘A.’ But that’s only to the untrained eye.
Without a doubt, academia can take itself a bit too seriously. But isn’t analyzing trends better than being ineffectual bystanders?
As a survivor of a feminist theory class, I can attest to both the silliness and the merits of such classes. In a discussion with as much depth as Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness,” my class explored the terrain of Madonna’s music videos. Our first observation: Madonna exposed her breasts. No surprise there. But she did it while wearing a tuxedo jacket. Hmm. The professor’s analysis? Madonna was deconstructing masculinity and femininity.
Years later, I still think Madonna was simply exposing her breasts. But the professor’s point wasn’t without merit. She was attempting to uncover the reasons why Madonna’s videos are popular, taking her class beyond the ‘duh’ factor.
This is what Film Studies Professor Linda Williams and author of “Porn Studies” would like us to consider in her film classes taught at UC Berkeley. “Pornography is the most popular and enduring of all the movie genres,” she told me. “That alone, aside from all the other issues of sexuality that it raises, is reason to consider it academically.”
And consider the staggering facts: Pornography is a multi-billion dollar a year industry in the United States alone. New cultural forms of pornography flood the market every year. There are the varying forms in gay pornography and the myriad international influences informing our cultural imagination. You can’t watch television, surf online or walk down the street without seeing pornographic images, be it via through the “female-friendly” pages of Cosmo or the blinking neon sign atop your corner topless bar.
Penetrating pornography with a critical eye could teach us how pornography manipulates, distorts, and colors our perceptions. Because the more someone understands pornography’s social implications and manipulative tactics, the better someone can deconstruct these cultural messages. Knowledge is power. Without it, we are hapless puppets to any industry keen on seducing us.
Rebuttal
If an ‘academic’ pornography class includes the viewing of any actual porn — which nearly all do — it simply legitimizes a degraded industry that itself has no merit.
The National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, an anti-pornography think tank, estimates that fifty universities around the country have classes studying pornography. And we’re not talking about Uncle Joe’s University here; Berkeley Wesleyan, New York University, MIT … numerous esteemed institutions are legitimizing this type of ‘study.’
The problem is that students aren’t just studying porn academically. They are watching it, soaking it in, letting those harmful and degraded images and experiences impact their psyches and bodies … all under the guise of academic discipline. As these classes are currently structured, students aren’t studying porn because it’s “the most popular and enduring of all the movie genres” (a characterization I disagree with, by the way). They’re studying porn to get a thrill for college credit. And it is unforgivable that a university would sanction the intake of something so harmful.
If these classes did focus exclusively on the impact of porn on people or our culture, then students would indeed learn something very valuable. Because every research study on this has demonstrated how radically harmful the use of porn is to individuals and relationships, as users gravitate toward more and more shocking material, desensitization to it, and an increased tendency to “act out” what they see — and expect the same of their sexual partners. Mary Anne Layden, the prominent co-director of a sexual trauma program at the University of Pennsylvania, testified before congress in 2004 that pornography’s addictive brain effects mirror those of heroin.
National Coalition president Rick Schatz explains the fallacy of thinking that porn-watching could have intellectual merit. “Do schools offer classes on alcohol in which part of the course includes drinking? No, partly because we all know there’s a certain percentage who have drinking problems. Instead of actually studying the legal, political and moral issues associated with porn, the vast majority of these courses are validating it and showing addictive pornography to students, even requiring them to produce it. There’s absolutely no academic basis for that type of course.”
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Just Being Me
January 13, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
Hey, it’s still Friday, Jan. 13th! How the heck did I end up in here? I just clicked refresh… I’m not ready for this yet. It’s Friday! I’m burned out!!!!!!!! I need a weekend!!!!!!!!
Hey, it’s kinda fun being in here all by myself. No one can hear me. I can talk to myself… this is fun! I should do this more often…
By blablabla
January 13, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
somehow i got here too. weird…
By Brian Curtis
January 16, 2006 07:39 AM | Link to this
Well, no surprises here. As usual, Shaunti starts with the assumption that porn is inherently wicked, and then “proves” that any attempt to study or discuss it simply exposes impressionable youth (including those over 18) to its Harmful Soul-Destroying Rays.
I believe that’s called “begging the question,” i.e., assuming what you set out to prove.
By Denise Noe
January 16, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this
For colleges to show actual pornography to students is as outrageous as it is ridiculous. If showing porn is considered necessary for a class on the subject, then there is not excuse for offering such courses. Without pandering to the lowest common denominator however, it would be possible to have a course examining the issues around the legal concept of obscenity and the questions of harm that surround pornogrphy. But only a course that sticks to these academically relevant issues and doesn’t display titillating material should be considered for college classes.
By Billy
January 16, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this
Can you truly examine its effects without seeing it for a frame of reference? It’s a primary source. Excluding it from the course would be stupid.
And Shaunti’s list of colleges (And we’re not talking about Uncle Joe’s University here; Berkeley Wesleyan, New York University, MIT …) actually reassures me more than it worries me. It’s not being taught at Bob Jones or Liberty. It’s not even a class at UGA or Tech. You’re going to find it in colleges in NY and California. You’ll see it in relatively liberal (socially speaking) universities. Universities that like to look at tough social issues. Universities that didn’t require the threat of military force before allowing Blacks to enroll.
By Lyrazel
January 16, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this
Lump it with that valuable Ceramics 101 course or let students get a humanities credit, whatever. One thinks enrolled students will attend it despite being out binge drinking all night, certainly enrolled athletes will get higher GPAs and actually show up for class. I can see the rigorous test for the final grade: What purpose do fluffers serve? Prof. Someone saying: Please keep aware of the plot for discussion groups…
Wonder if anyone except me would fall asleep during the movies? Porn is incredibly boring… Sure would not want to use the auditorium AFTER Fundamentals of Porn 101 class is over.
By Renee
January 16, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this
Actually “Ceramics 101” would be a valuable class to someone majoring in the Arts.
A porn course could very well have intellectual merit. I think a lot depends on the instructor and how the course is handled. I think Billy’s first sentence in his post hits it on the head. Additionally, it wouldn’t be a required course, so if it’s not in agreement with someone’s moral, ethical, or religious standards then don’t take it.
Personally, the class would serve no purpose for me, but that’s not because I think porn is evil etc.
By Rich
January 16, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
Using Diane and Billy’s line of thinking, to study the effects of heroin and crack cocaine, medical researchers must use them in order to understand their effects. That is ludicrous and so is studying porn. Instead research the victims and see the effect it has on their lives and relationships. It enhances neither and is destructive to both. And by the way, Diane, I don’t have a “corner strip bar” anywhere near my neighborhood. Don’t treat porn like its normal or trendy. It isn’t; it is still “taboo” and its trash!
By Chilao
January 16, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
As a survivor of a feminist theory class
starting off with humor are we? LOL And Madonna was just showing her breasts, nothing DEEP in that. LOL
and all this time I thought porn reflected what viewers wanted to see and could not see at home, it being fantasy after all. You mean I wanted my wife to wear crotchless panties because I saw it in porn? All this time I thought it had appeal because I could see crotchless panties, hassle-free. Not to imply she was no fun, indeed she was, just making a point.
And the ‘increasingly more bizarre porn needed’ argument, while perhaps valid for a small segment of the population of porn viewers, is itself bizarre. Kinda like most heroin addicts started off drinking mother’s milk, so let’s ban mother’s milk.
Okay, back to class: Sure, as an elective class, like any other. Lots of “interesting* classes out there, why not add another? And with the very wide availibility of porn, doubt any actually shown in class will be exposing young innocents to something new.
I would be real curious as to the DEPTH of the class, for example, would it be studied as art as well? Not arguing that it should be called art, however, there is a wide variety of genres out there and one COULD argue that.
By Brian Curtis
January 16, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Rich: Its “victims”? Drug and alcohol abuse cause actual damage; porn is simply another medium of words and images. Do we talk about the “victims” of action movies, sonnets, or documentaries?
Do some disturbed individuals get obsessive about it and do harm to themselves and others? You betcha… just like the Bible, or political fringe groups, or sock puppets for that matter. But for normal, sane individuals, it’s simply another category of entertainment. If it doesn’t interest you, you don’t have to take the course.
By Renee
January 16, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
Don’t treat porn like its normal or trendy. It isn’t; it is still “taboo� and its trash!
All your opinion. While others may share it, it still remains, your opinion.
By Renee
January 16, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Shaunti’s comment The problem is that students aren’t just studying porn academically. They are watching it, soaking it in, letting those harmful and degraded images and experiences impact their psyches and bodies … all under the guise of academic discipline.
Harmful and degraded images and experiences. Too funny!!! Shaunti comments are really humorous this week. So as the porn soaks in, what then happens???
By Renee
January 16, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
I agree Brian. Who are the porn victims????
By Greg
January 16, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
You don’t get into Berkeley Wesleyan, New York University, or MIT by being stupid and unable to think. I’m confident these students, whom Shaunti seems to credit with the emotional maturity of toddlers, can handle an exotic film class.
I was exposed to pornography in college when my dorm had “porno night”. I found it pretty boring after about five minutes…personally, I like the real thing more than watching someone else…but that’s just me. I certainly didn’t become addicted to porn though.
Shaunti needs to learn that there are thousands of free thinking, emotionally stable adults in the world who are much more intelligent than she is.
By Chilao
January 16, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
Samford University in Birmingham Alabama is one of the Southern Baptists flag-ship universities. About 3-4 years ago, they published a Student Handbook and on the cover was a young attractive coed, her profile made up of a collage of very small pictures. Coming to find out, if you looked at the pics enlarged, the collage was made up by a graphic artist working there from hundreds of p*rn thumbnail pics. Funny, and yes, he got fired and they recalled all of the handbooks, I think they had been distributed though.
By Randy
January 16, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
I use to think that Brian C. made intelligent posts, I didn’t usually agree with them, but they weren’t stupid. However, with these opinions this morning Brian, you have shown just how uncaring and out of your mind you really are. I don’t have the studies and don’t care enough to do the research but someone will and the studies will show how porn leads to rape, incest etc. You have told us alot about you this morning Brian. Goes to women’s safety.
By Renee
January 16, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
porn leads to rape, incest etc.
Too funny!!! So if porn was removed from our society, then rapes and incest would end???? It couldn’t be that these are disturbed individuals committing these crimes. Contrary to that belief, porn is not the driving force behind a rapist or a child molester. So if this is listed as a college course, the people taking the class are more likely to have an incestous relationship or rape someone soon after class lets out???
By Chilao
January 16, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
So all those rapes and incests from years ago were the result of people watching wood-cut prints prn? Maybe it was because the table cloth did not go to the floor, some guy saw the sexy calf/leg at the bottom of the table, the table leg, and his mind wandered, and he had to leave the dinner party and go on a raping rampage. Could be, maybe the Victorians had a point with the floor-length table cloth. After all, some of those wood-workers were real good with *form.
By Jack
January 16, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
The victims of porn are the starlets who are forced to do it against their will. Just like guns, porn doesn’t hurt people, people hurt people.
By Walker
January 16, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Some women are actually forced into p!rn and prostitution. I thereby declare all sex bad and evil.
Some people die every year from car accidents. I thereby declare all motorized vehicles bad and evil.
Some people die every year from buggy accidents. I thereby declare all horse-pulled buggies bad and evil.
Start walking folks and don’t trip and hit your head on a rock, I might have to declare all walking-traffic bad and evil.
By Randy
January 16, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
The problem with porn is simple, where does it end?? Do you stop at incest, beastiality, snuff films??? Porn is a road you go down and some people want more and more. It may be OK until it’s your daughter, mother, sister that’s victimized. This column shows just how selfish, self-centered and out of touch you liberals are. It’s OK, Alito, will be confirmed and you nuts will be in check. Again, liberals want to play GOD. How many times does a society have to learn the evils of Porn, before we look back and say, hey, that type of behavior destroyed that natiion.
By southerncal
January 16, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
As a male who struggles seriously with issues of porn addiction, this is a very real discussion for me. And in my first hand experience, porn has been a more difficult addiction to break than cigarette smoking. Porn has never led me to rape someone or even to think about incest. I can with complete honesty assure you, however, that after periods of using porn, there is a very real change in the way I look at the women I pass on the street or in the office. And, contrary (I think) to Chilao, it definitely affects the quality and health of my sexual relationship with my wife. I don’t know if I am an average guy. But I am at the least willing to acknowledge that porn has a negative impact on my social interactions and my interpersonal relationship. That is not my opinion. That is a fact in my life.
That said, I think that very aspect of porn is definitely worth a college class. I think it is the reality of porn that even many of the commenters on this post refuse to acknowledge.
Honestly my only fear of such a class would be that, even if for only a small portion of the population, it would open the door to addiction. It would have been for me, like giving crack to a recovering drug addict, for the sake of studying crack.
On the other hand, you are a naive fool if you don’t at least recognize that probably every person in such a class has seen countless porn images on their home computer since they were in middle school.
Feels like I needed about 8 hands to state my case.
By southerncal
January 16, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
I just went back and re-read Diane’s column. In all honesty, this left leaning conservative actually agrees with her whole heartedly.
I don’t think the conservative right has much help to offer for folks (potential or real porn addicts) who they want to “protect”. Telling someone just to avoid is, well, it just doesn’t help. I think the academic study of the effects of porn on social institutions and personal interactions is exactly the kind of thing that can help folks actually deal with an addiction.
By Renee
January 16, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this
Well I’m not a liberal but it seems to me, that if you want to do away with porn that you are trying to play God. It’s the mentality of “I think it’s bad and evil and against all morals therefore nobody should take part in it”.
Porn is a road you go down and some people want more and more.
The key words - some people. Yes, some people will watch porn and want more and gasp call up someone they know and engage in sexual encounter. Or they may turn over to their husband/wife and do the same. And yes there is a select few who may do something stupid. These people are neither the norm nor the majority, so why is porn related to these individuals? It’s simple. I don’t agree with it, let the government get involved and police the distribution, manufacturing and enjoyment of it. Please don’t try to push your views on me, I’m not interested.
And calling someone a “nut” for clearly stating an opinion is not right. Opinions don’t always agree, but what has anywone said to make them a “nut”.
It also amazes me how when the word porn or gay is used it is immediately followed (or soon thereafter) by the words incest and beastiality.
By Mara
January 16, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
One wonders what kind of porn they study. After all, JOhn Ashcroft was offended by the bare breasts of Juistice and the art of Rob Maplethorpe almost brought federal fine arts funding crashing down because of his “pornographic” subject matter. Some foreign films (and some foreign commercial advertisements too!) could be considered “porn”, so what difference does it make whether you study the inferior “artistry” of pornography or the iconic art of film noir? Are our 18-20 year old chil’dens so sheltered and chaste that even an academic look at pornography is going to corrupt and poison thier views to the point where sexual violence becomes inevitable?
By Brian Curtis
January 16, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
While we’re at it, we may want to outlaw doughnuts, since some people use them too often and to an unhealthy degree.
By Grant
January 16, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
If its deemed bad by people like Shaunti then it should be ignored. Universities where ADULTS study should sweep such amoral topics under the carpet.
Its also the same stupid argument that smoking marajuana will lead to the use of heavier drugs… Shaunti and those that think like her should go bury their head back in the sand.
And to Randy’s comment about “Again, liberals want to play GOD.” I think its the other way around. Giving grown adults the opportunity to choose what they want to learn about is hardly playing GOD. Restricting availability on what you deem as wrong is playing GOD.
There’s nothing like a little porn to add a little spice back into a relationship!
By Walker
January 16, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
It also amazes me how when the word porn or gay is used it is immediately followed (or soon thereafter) by the words incest and beastiality
When you need to demonize something different than you or something you do not like, it helps to go all-out. LOL
By War Eagle
January 16, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
Ms. Feldman, Get a grip! Most damage is done by OVER CHURCHING and over Religionizing kids! They rebel! Case in point-Colorado! The kids were forced to go to church and the parents allegedly beat them over the heads with Bibles! Religion is a personal thing and should not be paraded around. that is what the USA was founded on-getting away from the “Wicked” church of England so that they could worship in their own way, without torturing anyone or bible beating them. Religion, not pronography is the problem. Another case-see fanatical Muslimism! Islamic Muslims are calling for the deaths of all non Muslims. I don’t recall anyone in the porn industry calling for the heads of non porn watchers (aka puritains). Ms. Feldman, you and your husband need to chill out and maybe watch a good one. Make sure you bring your pill/condom. We don’t want you to put yourself at risk!
By Jack
January 16, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
The quality of the weekly subject of the blog is in direct proportion to the number of posters.
By The72John
January 16, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
As with anything else, some people are addicted to porn and it ruins their lives. Just like there are people addicted to work, to gambling, to internet chat rooms, to video games, to television, to alcohol, to eating…
It’s called an addictive personality. Because one may become addicted to something doesn’t make that something inherently evil. Only the Randys of the world with their narrow-minded, puritanical hatred of sex buy into this nonsense that anyone who views porn, or even MOST people who view porn, are going to become addicted, sleep with their family members, bugger the sheep or go out and rape someone. It’s idiotic.
And yes, I’m sure that there are porn stars who are “forced” into the profession, and taken advantage of, and that’s sad, but there are also a lot of people who do it because A) It pays well and B) They enjoy it. All women (or men, for that matter) are not innocent victims under the thumb of some porn-kingpin lothario.
As for the academic value of a class in porn, I agree with the earlier poster who said that it’s impossible to study something without having a frame of reference. You can’t study art without looking at it. You can’t study music without listening to it. You can study literature without reading it. If a professor is able to develop a course that explores the societal issues of pornography from an academic standpoint, then yes - students are going to need to watch it.
Frankly, it’s ridiculous to suggest that these are poor, innocent people being exposed to smut against their will. It’s been 10 years since I finished my undergraduate degree, and trust me, even 10 years ago there were very, very few “innocent” college students, and I highly doubt that anyone signing up for a college course in porn would be one of them.
Yet again, Shaunti is imposing her overly morallistic and self-righteous attitudes on her subject matter without having any idea of what she is talking about.
Big surprise.
By Jolene
January 16, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
Like it or not, sex and pornography is a part of this culture and the study thereof is of social scientific significance in understanding the culture that produced it.
It is not taboo to read the text of the Kama Sutra and is actually encouraged for many therapists to reccomend in order to help couples or individuals in regards to their own sexuality and issues regarding the opposite sex (and I would hope for same sex couples as well).
Studying the impact, the structure, and the consequences, good and bad with pornography can only increase awareness of the human psyche and socialology of the current era. As a society, we go through ebbs and flows of conservative and liberal standards, by the inspection of the taboo can we find ways to strengthen our communities for both tolerance and law.
How can anyone make a difference when they have no idea of the subject matter? A little knowledge is dangerous. I would rather people know the whole truth before laying down judgement.
What exactly is the sylabus? Is it just the film itself or the production in a whole? Does it explore the social changes that have occured since “The Green Door”? Facts are not here, this is just an assumption, based on what the title of the course is.
It suprises me how people can rail against pornography and then look into their houses and see at least one example of obscene materiel therein. The two sides of the coin have to be uncovered to make a difference.
By Vern L. Bullough
January 16, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
As one who has taught courses on human sexuality in which pornography plays a part, and who has presided at a university sponsored conference on pornography, I am surprised at the emotional response of those speaking aginst such courses. Pornography is a significant part of the culture of many people, and I do not know how one can understand the United States without realizing the existence of pornography and its influence. I agree there is a major fear of him, and I myself was investigated by the legislature for my part int he discussion of the issue, but after a few crazies had tstified against me, the investigation was dropped. Pornography is part of our culture and it is important that people be aware of it and how they themselves should deal with it.
By Jack
January 16, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
If one doesn’t want to look, don’t sign up for the course. DUH!
By The72John
January 16, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
But Jack…according to Shaunti those poor, innocent Berkley students don’t have any choice! They are being drawn in against their better nature by the sheer addictive power of Gang Bang Boobies VI! They have no choice in the matter, and before you know it they’ll all be wearing leather gimp masks and demanding that they be called Mistress Heather!
By Jack
January 16, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
I don’t ever bother to read what Shanti or diane have to say. I only care about the opinions of the good folks who post on this blog. Why haven’t Randy or Zack come on to tell us that porn causes the number of abortions to increase? After all, when finished watching a good film, it makes on want to have sex with anyone or anything.
By Jack
January 16, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
My grammar & spelling is lacking today. Sorry.
By Renee
January 16, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
No need to apologize Jack!! How r u doing?
By Jack
January 16, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
OK. Monday is not my favorite day. How’s the frozen North?
By Renee
January 16, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
Frozen says it all! We went from 50 Saturday afternoon to 5 degrees that night with 6 inches of snow and a windshield factor -15. Sure makes me miss red clay Georgia!
By The72John
January 16, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Obviously you don’t remember red clay as well as you should, Renee. No one misses trying to get THAT out of clothes O-o!
Jack, obviously until you get your spelling and sentence structure under control, I can’t be bothered to read your posts. You’ll just have to be old-fashioned for someone else.
By Jack
January 16, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
I want 12 inches of snow (and not ice) to fall in Georgia starting about Noon on Thursday after stopping by the liquor store and maybe the grocery store. (not to get bread and milk)It should melt sometime Sunday night enabling us to go back to work after a long weekend of fun and frolick.
By Renee
January 16, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
yeah, I remember the days of snow = no work. It would have to be a full fledged blizzard/ice storm taking down power lines before we wouldn’t have work here. What’s funny is everyone here is telling me this is a mild winter. If this is mild, I hate to see a real winter.
By The72John
January 16, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
I mean, what’s up with the bread and milk? I’ve lived in Georgia off and on most of my life and I’ve never understood that. Why do people thinking they are about to be snowed in develop a sudden craving for sandwiches?
Personally, I want some gin, some tonic, a few big steaks, a couple of bottles of wine, and for the power to stay on so that I can enjoy them!
By Jack
January 16, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
You got that right John. Why have bread and milk when you can have wine & steak? Do people sit around and eat bread and drink milk everytime it snows? (does the body good but not very much fun)
By Viewer
January 16, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
I’ll have to make sure I spend alot of time tonight getting ready for class. Never know what adult film that teacher will be asking about next. hehehehehehehe
By cynic
January 16, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
the72john, a few steaks? a couple of bottles of wine? don’t you know that in excessive quantities those are bad for you? shaunti would probably label you an anti-family, baby-killing heathen and then propose outlawing steaks and wine.
By Viewer
January 16, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
People with addictive personality traits do have to eliminate all addictive material. Now those of us who can more properly do many things in moderation, for example do not have to drink the full case of beer each time we have a beer, can enjoy the visual affects of adult films.
By The72John
January 16, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Hey, the last time I got snowed in (That would be the bliz of ‘03, obviously) it took a couple of days to dig out, adn the only means of cooking that worked was the grill. You never know when that extra steak or bottle of wine will come in handy!
Hmm. Maybe next time I get snowed in I’ll try steak, wine and porn!
By Ben
January 17, 2006 08:08 AM | Link to this
When is the writer of the rebuttal Shaunti Feldhahn going to grow up? The adult enternaiment industry is a multi-billion dollar industry enjoyed by millions of normal and healthy consenting adults world wide. The reasons why colleges offer classes in the study of porn is because it is an accepted form of media just like film or videogames. She needs to get up off her high horse and holier than thou attitude.
By cynic
January 17, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this
In the good old days-the ones Shaunti dreams about going back to-when 90% of the population lived on farms (and the slave trade was going strong, or at least, the KKK), most children growing up on farms were exposed to every kind of natural and unnatural sex act imaginable. Including beastiality (as in farm animals mating!). There was enough incest, any trip through the Appalacia range would prove that out. Where were the porn movies or classses that forced people into this behavior? They lived in one room cabins, with families of 6 or more were the parents having sex at some hotel on the weekends?
Conservatives like shaunti live in a world that never existed, bellieve in things that don’t exist and when you read some of the crap they write-soaking it in?-makes you wonder if they are not only missing a few cards in the deck but are wired so tight that there must be some really nasty garbage going on in their little brains. Dare I mention that the BTK killer was very conservative and religious?
Porn is a social phenomena and social scientists will study it. Shaunti is opposed to science, as she is opposed to any intellectual pursuit in her ilk’s battle on reason and thinking in society. Nothing threatens a democracy more than learning and being exposed to the real world, and if it’s anything the right wing hates more it’s thinking for yourself and real democracy.
By Chris
January 17, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
Sometimes I agree with Shaunti and sometimes I don’t but it is unfair to pit someone with her analytical mind and gift for expression against someone like Diane. All Diane can do is regurgitate the shallowest of liberal thinking and she doesn’t demonstrate original thought. The “Liberalâ€? side does have an important contribution to the dialogue but for this forum to work properly the “Liberal” side needs someone a whole lot smarter than poor Diane.
By dylan
January 17, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
I love how the lady keeps talking about how damaging porn is to people and society and then doesn’t provide one shread of evidence this is true, the closest she comes is with a doctor comparing the addictiveness to heroin which is absurd when you come off of heroin there is such a physical addiction the withdrawals can be deadly name one recorded case of someone dying from porn withdrawals.
By matt
January 17, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
Isn’t it interesting that Shaunti is opposed to academic study of porn, but in making her point she cites “research studies?” Don’t cite research studies if you are opposed to studying it in the first place.
By Steve
January 17, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
Kudos, Diane!
And shame on you Shaunti for championing ingnorance over academics. The line between degrading, exploitative pornography and erotic art is blurry indeed and we won’t get any better at recognizing it by burying our head in the sand.
By Renee
January 17, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
Funny Matt!
By Ben
January 17, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this
As a matter of fact this will really tick off Shaunti the conseverative writer of the rebuttal. Just this week I ordered some XXX rated dvds, I am also a college student and no I do not have any sexual or mental issues.
By Jack
January 17, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
By Ken
January 17, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
Like it or not, pornography always has been and always will be part of human culture.
I wonder why Shaunti is so opposed to the study of pornography. I assume she and others would like to see pornography eliminated all together. Well, the only way to eliminate it, is to understand the need for it’s existence. and eliminate that need. It exists for a reason and the only way to understand that reason is to study it.
By Viewer
January 17, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
Professor, sorry I am late for class and appear like I have not slept. I spent all night last night reviewing all the p@rn I could find, so I would be ready for class. hehehehehehehe
By Boscoe
January 17, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
Drug and alcohol abuse cause actual damage; porn is simply another medium of words and images.Brian Curtis. And to think at one point I thought you were capable of intelligent and lucid ideas. Pornography is harmful to everyone. Eighteen separate studies have shown pornography desensitizes all viewers, and may lead to extremely violent behavior. All pornography—soft, hard, and even so-called ‘neutral’ sex-education materials, desensitize the viewer, enabling him to be conditioned to sexual acts, violent and nonviolent, as an essential part of human behavior. This conclusion has been reached in 26 separate studies. Leading sexual violence researchers Neil Malamuth, Ed Donnerstein, and Dolf Zillman state that, in general, “Pornography desensitizes. Exposure to these materials, whether violent or nonviolent, coercive or noncoercive, experimentally increases male aggressive behavior against women, and decreases both male and female sensitivity to rape and the plight of the rape victim. Both males and females, after viewing this material, judge the female rape victim to be less injured, less worthy, and more responsible for her own plight.” Several studies have shown that all persons, normal and unbalanced, who view pornography develop a craving for ever more deviant materials. Many persons even begin to employ more violent methods in their sexual relations. As with drug users, those who use pornography seek more and more deviant materials to maintain their previous level of sexual arousal. You don’t think it’s addictive? Try not looking at it for a month. Go cold turkey and see how you do. Pornography also degrades marriages. Pornography users generally view material that shows attractive women performing almost any type of act with any number of men, or animals, for that matter. The users begin to expect that their wives should also perform acts that are at least a little more ‘adventurous’ or ‘experimental’ that those they are used to, and will become dissatisfied when their non-using partners will not live up to their porn-induced fantasies. They even become dissatisfied with their wive’s physical imperfections. Pornography increases crime in dangerous offenders. More than 65 studies have shown that dangerous offenders (child molesters, killers, rapists, incest fathers) are not only more likely to commit their crimes if they employ pornography, they are likely to precede their violent acts with the extended use of deviant materials. Male sex offenders soon begin to display addictive and compulsive behavior when using porn. Their mechanisms for relieving stress soon all become related to deviant sex. They offend more and more often. About two million pedophiles, rapists, child molesters, sadists, and those who solicit teenaged or child prostitutes commit more than two million crimes annually. This number accounts only for those incidents that are reported—the total number is obviously much higher. Those who naively cling to the belief that pornography is ‘victimless’ should wake up and look at the facts. Thousands of persons have been tortured, raped, and murdered by warped human beings as a direct result of pornography. There are thousands of such cases cramming police files all over the nation. Ted Bundy, an infamous serial killer responsible for the murder of as many as 36 to 50 young women and girls, granted an interview the day before he was executed. Ted Bundy stated in this interview, “In the beginning, it [pornography] fuels this kind of thought process … Like an addiction, you keep craving something that is harder, harder, something which gives you a greater sense of excitement—until you reach a point where the pornography only goes so far, you reach that jumping-off point where you begin to wonder if maybe actually doing it would give you that which is beyond just reading or looking at it.” Arthur Gary Bishop, who was executed in Utah in 1983 for sodomizing and killing five boys aged 4 to 13, stated that: “Pornography was not the only negative influence in my life, but its effect on me was devastating. I am a homosexual pedophile convicted of murder, and pornography was a determining factor in my downfall.” The Miami Pillow Case Rapist. FBI scientists at Quantico, Virginia, commented on the role of pornography and its effect upon the Miami Pillow Case Rapist: “He collected Playboy, then Penthouse magazines … and dreamed of rape. Then he slipped over the threshold of fantasy into the reality of sexual assault.” The Federal Bureau of Investigation found that eighty percent of recent mass murderers used pornography extensively and used it as an integral part of their murderous sexual activity, which often included serial rape-murders. Some of these killers photographed their dead victims and pasted cutouts of their faces on hard- and soft-core pornographic pictures as preparation for their next ‘kill.’ The FBI and police nationwide have reported finding extensive pornography collections in the homes of virtually every mass-murderer and child molester that they arrest. Chapter 18 of the Attorney General Pornography Commission’s study noted that the eight major men’s magazines (Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, Chic, Club, Gallery, Genesis, and Oui) have a circulation rate five times higher in Alaska and Nevada than in North Dakota. It is very significant that the rape rates in Alaska and Nevada are eight times higher than in North Dakota!
By Jack
January 17, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
See no evil, hear no evil, have no fun.
By Ken
January 17, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
dear cynic… Shaunti’s (and many conservatives’) ideal world may not exist, but doesn’t the “other side” want an unattainable ideal as well?
Do you really think there will every be a world where the “liberal” ideal exists?
Definitely not. Humanity will invariably oscillate between the two, swinging from one side to the other and occaisionally, though rarely, settle directly in between. For humanity to ever hit either ideal, it would require us to completely reject our individuality for the betterment of the whole. This will never, especially in America, ever happen.
By Renee
January 17, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
So using that logic, one would be to believe that if Ted Bundy had never been exposed to the horrors of pornography that he might be an upstanding citizen in the community. Additionally, I don’t doubt that pornography can be found in the homes of mass murderer. I assume that is not the only thing found. Rope, knives, guns etc are found too. In addition to porn movies, they have movies depicting violence. A movie that a normal person can watch and move on. Should we then ban all violent movies, video games, rock and rap music. If most serial killers are found to eat chocolate do we then ban chocolate. See how insane this can get?
These killers, child molesters are not victims of the pornography takeover. They use pornography as a step within in their crimes, it was not the ultimate driving force.
Most murders are committed with a gun. Should we then ban firearms (I’m sure someone here will say yes).
By Viewer
January 17, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
Ban ROPE, Ban ROPE.
Bundy’s Blame it all on p!rn routine, which he did not even start discussing until just before his death, has been thoroughly discounted by, also, many studies. I guess that got missed by the anti-p!rn crusaders.
By Renee
January 17, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
Additionally, interviewing a crazy person such as a serial killer seems kind of dumb to say the least. While on one end, it may seem to provide more information into the mind of a killer, who’s to believe anything a nut like this says. This person has just killed people for no particular rhyme or reason, yet we are to believe that in these interviews they now see the light, and can comment on what made them this way. Yes, the analytical ravings of a serial killer should be taken very seriously, lol.
By RF
January 17, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Good 10:43 Jack! You just summed up the entire fundamentalist argument for the week! Either that or you met my ex-wife somewhere along the way.
By FatMoose
January 17, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
Was sick friday and happend to watch Opra (always a bad idea).
She had the wife of a serial child molester on; and the ONLY advise the mother and Opra could give on warning signs that your husband/wife may be into was “He browsed a lot of porn.”
Way to hit the topic and warning signs on the head Opra! (srczm!)
People like this keep the bs info that porn is unnatural alive and kicking. I wonder how many husband heard some type of rant when they got home?
By The72John
January 17, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
I wonder how many cases of murder, rape, torture, abuse, etc. have been committed in the name of religion, or inspired by religion?
A lot more than those inspired by porn, I guarantee.
Why do I have the suspicion that any “study” cited by Shaunti and her fellow religious fanatics was probably conducted by biased “family” groups who pre-supposed their findings?
By liana
January 17, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
cynic, your 8:38post…. take a bow, applause, applause.
By Jack
January 17, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
Hey FM. If you want to get a bunch of ladies riled up, say something bad about Oprah. (then take cover)
By The72John
January 17, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
helps Jack put on some flame-retardent outerwear
By lozen
January 17, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
How do they come up with these earth-shattering topics each week for this forum? I work in a liberal university and have never even heard of pornography courses until now. In other words it hardly seems as if it’s wide-spread and I doubt anyone will ever try to teach such a class here in the bible-belt! Meanwhile, a man who does not believe women have the right to choose for themselves when it comes to our reproductive rights, is sliding right onto the supreme court. Let’s make some “what illegal abortion was like” films and show them in college classes. Start saving those coat hangers, ladies!
By Scalia
January 17, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
Being a linguist, you have to look at the wording of the study. “Eighteen separate studies have shown pornography desensitizes all viewers, and may lead to extremely violent behavior.”
That doesn’t mean that it does. I can say that crossing my eyes several times a day, as my Grandmother told me, may lead to my eyes becoming constantly crossed. I can also say that reading this blog every day, several times a day, may lead to addiction.
By NowIzeSkared
January 17, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
I seen those kinds of movies my whole life, and dat a long time. used to be in black and white. when am I expected to start raping little kids and doing it with the dog? ize skared about dat. will i have to join a church first, go into youth ministries or something like that?
By Jack
January 17, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
After a while it just reminds one of oysters on the half-shell.
Someone please pass the cocktail sauce.
By The72John
January 17, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
As always, a good Googling of Boscoe’s cut-and-pastes reveals that his “sources” are fundamentalist Christian websites. The text of the article from which he pulled is also distinctly anti-gay, and attempts to draw the same tired connections between homosexuality and pedophilia, linking porn in their somewhere. It even refers to Dahmer as an “admitted homosexual”.
On a scary note, it also pulled up this very blog, and the very post he made earlier today…Google is spooky.
By Jack
January 17, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
That is spooky.
By The72John
January 17, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
I stand corrected - Google actually pulled up an OLD blog where Boscoe cut-and-pasted the exact same thing. LOL.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
I was on a video conference call this morning, and I had a strange, growing urge to unbutton my blouse — even though I have never unbuttoned my blouse in front of a camera (or in a meeting) before.
BAN VIDEO CONFERENCING!
By Jack
January 17, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
What was that conference bridge number?
By The72John
January 17, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
That’s not a porn problem - that’s just a sign that your video conference is really boring. I have that urge anytime our CEO wants to get in a little coast-to-coast face time with us. That man could put a meth-head to sleep.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Oh good. Thanks. For a minute there, I was beginning to think I was a pervert. {;->
By Viewer
January 17, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
See, we have people right here on this blog who want to be in the movies(wink, wink) LMAO
By Viewer
January 17, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
I get it, it’s the BLOG’S fault, coming up with such a suggestive topic.
By SUZAN
January 17, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
Religion aside it is a disgusting industry full of nasty creepy, people. It may be a multi billion dollar industry but that does not give it real legitimacy. Truth be known here Im sure all here speaking up for porn would love to see thier sister, daughter and wife starring in one of these movies sleeping with countless people and never really know what thier taking home with in the form of diseases. would you not love to see your mother starring in something like this. How wonderful would that be. How how about a family epic…..
By FatMoose
January 17, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
As for studies have shown pornography desensitizes all viewers; I would take arguement with whether that is bad.
Try to follow: I used to find it exciting to look at playboy; then hustler; and finaly mags that had sex acts in them. In the end, I had a revalation: A ch=oochie is a coochie is a coochie! What turns me on now is WHO the coochie is part of - otherwise there is no fundimental difference bw it and my, um..hand. I appericiate my GFs “flaws” {uniqueness to me} bc all the stimulation of “perfect” bodies with fake boobs now bores me. Now, does this neccesitate being with someone that is fun and adventurous in bed as part of their being? Yes, yet who does not want that?
Where-as my dad chacked out one of my hustlers (he was a doctor) and plainly stated “Reminds me of my medical school years.” I do not hear anyone warning people against becoming a doctor; much less an OBGYN. Why? BC of the same reasoning above. A doctor would have a very hard time operating on his wifes/sons heart (although a heart is a heart is a heart to him) bc this heart was different - there is emotional attachment bc of the PERSON it belongs to.
So, in short; porn can LEAD to the appreciation of a mates uniqueness.
As for SOME people taking it to the nth degree and still not understanding it comes down to the uniqueness of an individual? SOME people are idiots! And that has nothing to do with porn;)
By Netbanker
January 17, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
Ohhh Man! Oysters on the half shell! SLURP! They always make me think of Thanksgiving and my Grand Daddy.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
Actually, Suzan, I was thinking of showing some to my daughter when she’s a little older, to DE-glamorize it for her. Like the “girls gone wild” videos… before she takes off on Spring Break when she’s 18. Let’s look at how drunk those girls are. Let’s look at how embarrassing that is. Let’s look at how PERMANENT that is. Those girls can NEVER ever ever take it back. Do you think they’re PROUD now? How do you think they feel, now that they’re out interviewing for jobs and finding a mate? Do they always wonder who has seen their stuff? Do you think they wish they hadn’t done that?
We all know the forbidden has a mystique, because it’s forbidden… Any thoughts?
By Viewer
January 17, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
SUZAN - if you search in google, you may be able to find that, the family epic.
There are so many aspiring actresses who want to be in the movies, fully, and many do not consider sexual activity creepy. Jenna Jemison(sp?) comes to mind, a host of other names as well.
By Netbanker
January 17, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
I’d like to know WHO is buying all that porn. I’m placing my bet on religious conservatives causing the explosion in the growth of the industry as porn became available online. Who else could it be? The net made it available to the all those folks who also couldn’t be caught in the liquor store.
Let’s face it…this country has MAJOR hang ups on SEX which are primarily religion-based! That which is forbidden is the most desired. God made everything and in HIS own image, but bodies aren’t to be looked at much less discussed. That could lead to understanding and informed decision making! Which in turn leads to questions being asked. Can’t have questions because that’s bad. But blind faith is GOOD and leads to the creation of more sheeple…and Sheeple are easy to lead.
By Scalia
January 17, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
Fatmoose, I agree about the desensitize. Would any woman want to go to a male gynecologist knowing that it might be exciting them to see what is below the waist or what is part of their torso?
By FatMoose
January 17, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
Religion aside it is a disgusting industry full of nasty creepy, people.
No longer the case in general; you must still be watching 70s porn!
It may be a multi billion dollar industry but that does not give it real legitimacy.
Not a point anyone has made or would condone - evangelical churches are a multi billion dollar industry but that does not give it real legitimacy as well.
Truth be known here Im sure all here speaking up for porn would love to see thier sister, daughter and wife starring in one of these movies sleeping with countless people and never really know what thier taking home with in the form of diseases. would you not love to see your mother starring in something like this. How wonderful would that be.
Well, they do that “dirty stuff” already - I personally do not care to watch them & and if they had a movie, I simpley would not rent/buy it. Makes me wonder why people feel the NEED to picture what other people are doing in bed when they clearly find it unappealing. You do the same thing with gay people - not once have I walk up and met someones grandma and choose to picture her having sex with the Mr. Should we ban old person sex because it grosses some people out to imagine it?
As for diseases: The industry is pretty incredible at regulating itself. You are providing more untrue bs.
How how about a family epic
Now you are just being sick. I have watched tons of porn, but those thoughts are no-where in my head; yet they are in yours durring your first post. Makes me wonder what makes you think like that; maybe sexual suppression by the hand(no pun intended) of religion?
By Jack
January 17, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
LMAO @ NetB and his Grand Daddy.
By Jack
January 17, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
What is that saying? Forbidden fruit is the sweetest. :)
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
You mean…. That really IS a banana in the doctor’s pocket?
By Jack
January 17, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
No it is a crotchfruit.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Hahahaha! The real problem with porn is that your man watches that and then thinks it would be perfectly NORMAL for you to perform the same stunt. Yeah-huh…. Hold your breath, I’ll get right on that one. Hahaha!
By Jack
January 17, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Condemn the man for wishful thinking.
By The72John
January 17, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Ah, Suzan. What would the rest of us do with you members of the morality police telling us how we should live our lives?
You must know a lot of porn stars, to know that they are all creepy people. Actually, there are a lot of gay porn stars and producers who are very active in the gay community and who have AIDS awareness foundations and other charitable organizations, so - shows what you know, Ms. Self-Righteous Christer.
And the porn industry is VERY stringent about its anti-disease measures. Again - shows what you know.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
I’d never condemn the man for wishful thinking, only for continued nagging or prodding. Of course, he’s always free to persue that elsewhere. “Really? Millions of women do that? Well, certainly SOME of those nice women have phones, so feel free to call THEM.” Hahaha!
By Jack
January 17, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
We’re pretty good at prodding. LOL
By FatMoose
January 17, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
Really? Millions of women do that? Well, certainly SOME of those nice women have phones, so feel free to call THEM.
And the punchline will be; okay hun, but you are going to have to perform like them also!
And in the end (again - no pun intended) it is not that big of a whup. Same goes for threesomes - lots of things are much better in fantasy.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
HAHAHA! Y’all are killing me today! You’re right FM. Everybody has a wish list! {:-D Yes, Jack. Now you know my terrible secret. No one loves me, ‘cause I’m frigid. HAHAHAHA!
By blablabla
January 17, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
for some reason all this talk of porn has me thinking about prostitution. why is prostitution illegal if porn is fair game? in one scenario i’m paying somebody to screw me. in another, producers are paying people to screw each other for film. how are the porn stars not selling their bodies for sex? i digress.
as for the question, do porn college courses have intellectual merit: not really. should it be studied by social scientists, sure, but if i’m a parent paying for MIT’s annual tuition, i’d be pretty p** that my kid was getting credits in porn. either that or i got hosed by not having the chance to take porn classes in college myself. LOL.
would it be a bad thing if i graduated with a minor in porn? can that go on my resume?
By Brian Curtis
January 17, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
Boscoe: Aside from your snide insults, I appreciate the fact that—unlike Shaunti—you’ve at least ATTEMPTED to provide some actual evidence in support of your beliefs.
Unfortunately, the heavily biased researchers you cite—Zillman, Malamuth, and Donnerstein—are what are called “advocacy researchers.� They have very little publishing credit outside of this particular topic; their methods are suspect; and their conclusions far too generalized and broad to be valid. In addition, they’re ONLY cited by anti-porn activists. No one else references their work in any area of sociology or psychology.
Several, more reputable, scholars have addressed and largely debunked them—not their methods, mind you (which are passable), but their broad and unfounded conclusions.
Here’s an excerpt: “Comparative studies, which typically find no consistent link between circulation of pornographic materials and sex crimes or gender inequality, are of two sorts. The first sort of study reveals that societies in which there are high levels of pornography experience low levels of sexual violence (Denmark, Japan). … it seems that high levels of pornography in a society do not ensure higher levels of sexual violence against women.
“The second sort of study shows that societies in which there are relatively low levels of pornography experience high levels of sexual violence or gender inequality (Singapore, the American Southwest)…. it seems that relatively high levels of sexual violence and gender inequality can occur in the absence of high levels of circulation of pornography, likely as a result of other factors.�
Read the rest at http://www.marciapally.com/harm.html
Additionally, “The research disproving the claim that sexual imagery triggers aggression would exhaust the remainder of this volume. The best overview can be read in The Question of Pornography: Research Findings and Policy Implications, where authors Daniel Linz and Steven Penrod conclude, “Should harsher penalties be leveled against persons who traffic in pornography? We do not believe so…as we have noted, the existing research probably does not justify this approach” (p. 172).
“Neither the overview of the research prepared by Dr. Edna Einsiedel for the Meese Commission nor the Surgeon’s General Report found a causal link between sexual material and anti-social behavior. When the Meese Commission, ignoring its own research, recommended restrictions on sexual material, two commissioners — both women — issued a dissenting report (Becker & Levine) saying, “No self-respecting investigator would accept conclusions based on such a study” (p. 4, 7). A number of studies over the last 20 years show that nonviolent pornography reduces aggression in laboratory settings.â€?
http://ptw.uchicago.edu//Eaton01.htm
Finally, read this information at http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/harm.htm http://www.wendymcelroy.com/topics.html
And aside from a lack of provable causality, all that’s left is religious zealotry and a general censorship principle of “better safe than sorry.� The religious impulse we can dispense with immediately; the entertainment and media doctrines of a single sect can, and should, have no effect on the rest of our pluralistic society.
That leaves the “why take chances?� crowd. The underlying notion there is that government is justified in censoring forms of expression that MAY cause harm, or that simply CONTRIBUTE to a group’s inequality.
That’s a view I cannot agree with. Freedom of expression has no meaning if it’s used to protect popular ideas only, or if it serves the interests of everyone equally. Unpopular, discriminatory, even outright bigoted ideas likewise deserve protection from the hand of government. That’s why we have public-opinion blogs, for example, like the one we’re posting on right here.
By Jack
January 17, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
I doubt that Kim. You ain’t no ice-princess. :)
By Just Being Me
January 17, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
Hey there, Everybody!
I think Jack hit the nail on the head with his 10:26a.
Y’all have a nice day, now.
By Scalia
January 17, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
Porn does not make somebody want to run out and do bad things. Some of the stuff that I’ve seen grosses me out beyond belief. Spit isn’t meant for everything, or usage. And some things weren’t meant to go in some places.
To be honest, I am more offended by somebody getting their head cut open by CDs (He!!raiser 3), and having their bald head bitten into by a vampire and stuff flying out of their head (The Lost Boys) than porn.
By The72John
January 17, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
Scalia, don’t go messing with The Lost Boys!
Brain Curtis - you are my new hero.
By Renee
January 17, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
heyyyyy JBM
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
The Lost Boys were all HOT. One of them later went on to work for the government, in a counter-terrorist unit. That one is REALLY hot.
By Netbanker
January 17, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
BTW…I WAS talking about real oysters. Family tradition is to have them as appetizers for Thanksgiving Dinner. I can recall sitting outside in the cold with my Grand Daddy while he shucked the oysters and put them on a tray of ice to keep them fresh for dinner. Of course, we always had to test a few out to make sure they met our quality standards.
By The72John
January 17, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Kimberly…I don’t know how to break this to you…but Keiffer Sutherland was neither really a vampire, nor does he actually work for a counter-terrorist organization…
;-)
He is kinda hot, though.
By Scalia
January 17, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Um…Michael Patric, Michael from the Lost Boys. Now he is hot.
Does anybody remember the song with the children singing? “Thou shalt not…”
By blablabla
January 17, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
does anybody else hate president logan? what a loser.
By Jack
January 17, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Hot is in the eye of the beholder.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
Scalia, was that song titled “Cry little sister?”
Yes, Logan is a whiny loser.
By useless info dept
January 17, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
The song you refer to, Scalia, is “Cry Little Sister” by Gerard McMann. I used to crank that tune along with a ton of Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds around Halloween during my days as a campus bus driver at UGA.
Speaking of which, it’s about time someone tackles the really important issue with porn (and far and away the most offensive part of porn) — the awful music! Please! Can’t we just have a natural soundtrack without the hiddeous circa-70’s faux-funk crapola? It’s totally killing the mood for me, seriously.
By Renee
January 17, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
It’s better than those low budget black porn. The straight ones are on dirty mattresses in junky apartments, the lesbian ones, the women look real “interesting” to say the least. There seems to be such a high demand to crank them out that they don’t do body or screen tests prior to shooting.
By Jack
January 17, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
The 70’s music is a bit better than slurping sounds. Besides, the slurping sounds are made by an old couple sucking on their hands.
By chuck
January 17, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis,
When you dissected Boscoe’s post as to the overreaching conclusions reached by the researchers, you fell into your own trap with this quote:
“Neither the overview of the research prepared by Dr. Edna Einsiedel for the Meese Commission nor the Surgeon’s General Report found a causal link between sexual material and anti-social behavior.
In social science research it is not possible to show causality because the researcher does not have control over the independent variable. The only way to show causality is through experimental research, which in this field and on this particular question, would be highly unethical. The best that they could hope for would be to show a statistically significant difference between the groups. While that may allow one to infer causality, it certainly would not prove it, so to say that it doesn’t show causality is meaningless.
If I didn’t know that you are a degreed scientist, I would chalk it up to inexperience or lack of knowledge about research…but I know that is not the case with you, so I have to wonder if you just forgot that little point or if you were using subterfuge, thinking that no one else would know or be familiar enough with research methods to catch you. Hmmmmmm.
By useless info dept
January 17, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Dangit, Jack — you just ruined the slurping sounds for me. I guess it’s the “mute” button for me now…
By The72John
January 17, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
Very true, Jack. Very true.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
Jack… stop it! Hahahaha! Seriously. I’ve found it better to mute the sound and crank up one’s own stereo instead! (Nine-Inch-Nails….Yes.)
By Jack
January 17, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
I’m not joking. I saw a program about the porn industry and they had an old couple who were sucking their hands while watching the movie and that’s what they used for sound.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
HAHAHA! Stop it! Hahaha!
By Viewer
January 17, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
Why go to some low-credit class when we have the full dissection/dissertation right here?
By useless info dept
January 17, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
Nine Inch Nails, eh? Hmmmm…. into leather, are we? (Just kidding.)
Well, if you’re ever in the mood for a slightly less — ummm… — agressive sountrack, try “Twangy Wig-out” by Transvision Vamp. Good times.
By The72John
January 17, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
It’s just funny to hear the nimrod who believes he can scientifically prove the Old Testament blather on about scientific methods. It’s like being lectured about sex by a nun.
By Brian Curtis
January 17, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Chuck: You’re quite right. Social science does NOT typically prove causality… which is why any attempt to use it for that purpose (as the anti-porn crusaders always do) is invalid.
I’m not claiming that any evidence of causality was found; quite the opposite. It’s the anti-porn folks who are CLAIMING to have proof causality where there is none—where, indeed, there can BE none—who have made this fundamental error.
It’s the basis of most anti-porn screeds that “studies prove porn causes rape.” Those claims are not only unproven, but automatically dead wrong… because social science doesn’t work that way. Sort of like claiming “evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” Umm, no it doesn’t… because anyone who claims that doesn’t even understand what the Second Law is.
Thanks for the clarification to any who may have missed that point.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Careful now…. Soon a good citizen will explain to us that we’re all depraved little miscreants.
By Jack
January 17, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Useless Info’s posts sound have a familiar ring. Tim. Is that you?
By Jack
January 17, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
We know my grammar stinks.
By useless info dept
January 17, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Nope, sorry. No Tim here. Though he sounds like an incredibly wise and handsome fellow.
By The72John
January 17, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Come on, Kimberly. That’s half the fun. Any moment now, you-know-who is going to start in on immorality and sin and all that fun stuff. Let’s see if we can give him an aneurism!
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
Hey… what if he’s RIGHT? I mean… what if we ARE depraved?
By Scalia
January 17, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Should we call him “He Who Shall Not be Named”? Or just go with Lord Voldemort?
By useless info dept
January 17, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Better to be depraved than deprived. (I think Confusius said that)
By The72John
January 17, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
I prefer to refer to him as Peter Petigrew - he reminds me of a sniveling rat who can’t think for himself, after all.
Only, instead of cutting off his own finger, he has cut off his ability for rational thought.
Ok, that was a stretch, I know.
By smart alec
January 17, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
What is the required text for a porn course: Playboy, Penthouse, or both? And as parent of a child in school, can I call the subscription to the magazine of choice a tax deduction for educational purposes?
By Jack
January 17, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
Playboy & Penthouse porn? That’s a stretch.
By Netbanker
January 17, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Kimberely…if WE aren’t depraved then that means it’s the other people…which is a far more scary prospect in my book.
By Viewer
January 17, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
SmartALec - you may want to move to North Dakota before you subscribe, so your kid not inclined to go on a raping rampage once he sees the pics.
By FatMoose
January 17, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
Tuesday and already the topic is running out of steam….again.
Which means the diversions begin soon, and (near) everybody gets restless and vile;)
tic,toc,tic,toc…
By Netbanker
January 17, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Jack…why not just go with Scabbers?
By chuck
January 17, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
Yes Brian, but the point is, in the quote you try to make it seem that because the researcher points that out, that it could show causality but doesn’t. Having not read the study, I can only trust what you said about it that it was done correctly in terms of methodology. That being the case, I would assume that the researchers pointed out in their conclusion that there was a significant difference between the groups or a positive relationship between the 2 activities. The statement that it doesn’t show causality is like me saying, “Brian is NOT and NEVER WAS a pastor of a church.”
From Boscoe’s post all I saw in the way of causality was this innocuous statement:
…may lead to extremely violent behavior. All pornography—soft, hard, and even so-called ‘neutral’ sex-education materials, desensitize the viewer, enabling him to be conditioned to sexual acts, violent and nonviolent, as an essential part of human behavior. This conclusion has been reached in 26 separate studies. Leading sexual violence researchers Neil Malamuth, Ed Donnerstein, and Dolf Zillman state that, in general, “Pornography desensitizes.
That is hardly a statement that is all inclusive. It does NOT claim conclusively that pornography CAUSES rape. It probably (again, I have not read the study) says that there is a POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP between using pornography and the incidence of violent behavior.
As for you, “doing #2in the john”, you did the same thing when you said, referring to me:
“who believes he can scientifically prove the Old Testament”
You know that I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT. What I have said, is that there is an alternative explanation for the beginning of life and the variation and diversity of life that is just as plausible as evolution. While there is some geological evidence that has been shown to be true in a number of studies and that refutes significant aspects of evolution, that does not mean that creation has been PROVEN. In my mind, there is more than enough evidence, but that won’t suffice for the skeptics among us.
Having finished my coursework for a doctor of education degree, and since I have been working on my dissertation for a couple of years, I can assure you that I know my way around a research article. I’ll be glad to educate you any time.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
Ooooo… here he is! Who’s gonna ask him? C’mon…
By Jack
January 17, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
I want to be as smart as Chuck when I grow up.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
Jack… ASK him. I’m a girl; I can’t.
By Boscoe
January 17, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Did you know… …that pornography consumption can be as mood altering and as addictive as narcotics? (Richard Drake, assistant professor at Brigham Young University College of Nursing) In fact, some studies have indicated that pornography can have the same effect on the brain as cocaine. Images can be permanently “burned” into the memory by epinephrine, a chemical in the brain.
…that according to Nielson NetRatings, 17.5 million people visited porn sites in January 2000? (U.S. News & World Report, 3/27/2000)
…that there are more outlets for hard-core pornography in this country than there are McDonalds restaurants?
…that rape statistics are proportionately higher in those states with higher pornography sales and lower in those states with lower pornography sales?
…that cyberporn sales - including videos and accessories ordered online - accounted for 8% of 1999’s $18 billion E-commerce pie? (U.S. News & World Report, 3/27/2000) That’s nearly $5.25 for every man, woman, and child in the United States!
…that boys ages 12-17 are one of the largest consumers of pornography and pornographers target them for that reason? If the pornographers can arrange for the young person to become addicted, then a steady flow of income is assured.
**Brian are these biased sources for the religious right? Perhaps you could explain exactly what good porn provides for society. How DOES porn benifit society exactly?
By FatMoose
January 17, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
What I have said, is that there is an alternative explanation for the beginning of life and the variation and diversity of life that is just as plausible as evolution.
Only if you throw reason out the window and are satisfied with “then something magical happens;” which is fine for FAITH - but not science.
While there is some geological evidence that has been shown to be true in a number of studies and that refutes significant aspects of evolution, that does not mean that creation has been PROVEN.
That is why it is a working theory. BTW the aspects that might have question marks in them are not washed away by an imagined belief or FAITH in science.
Scientist make fun of other scientists who use the “and then something magical happens here” explaination to present a theory as total FACT. So, it is not a personal attack on religion, just a lesson already learned by scientist and applied universally.
For example, Einstiens Cosmological Constant; there was no reason or proof of it, so it HAD to be disregarded until there was some kind of proof (although it made ‘total mass/energy in the universe’ equations work nicely). That proof IS now potentially becoming a reality; yet means nothing until fully realized and explained/understood {ie dark matter/energy}.
By Jack
January 17, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
Kim. You know he’ll lie like a rug.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
True, but come on. 98% of men do it, and the other 2% lie. Sooooo…. staying on this fine weekly topic…. Which mag or tape?…. I mean, doncha want to know what GOOD citizens use? Wouldn’t that be germaine to the topic, and educational as well? I’m a girl, Dude. I can be curious, but I can’t ask.
By Renee
January 17, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Porn does no good for society, but if it’s not doing good doesn’t mean it’s doing bad either. What is it not to understand that bad people could utilize porn and go commit crimes. These type of people are “bad” to begin with, and if porn was not available, the probability of them committing these criminal acts is 100%. It’s really easy to blame porn or anything else for the actions of someone, rather than holding the person activity.
What good does McDonalds do for a society? As with porn it’s not good or bad, it’s to meet supply and demand. If one chooses to eat too much McDonalds, it could prove to be bad to that individual, others know to eat it in moderation or not order it all.
By Jack
January 17, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
Probably “Glamour”
By Renee
January 17, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
I meant “rather than holding the person responsible”.
By The72John
January 17, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
Actually, Chuck, I belive that you have claimed that “higher oxegyn levels in the atmosphere accounted for the longer life spans in the OT” and also claimed to offer proof that all species on the earth could have fit into a tiny arc.
that pornography consumption can be as mood altering and as addictive as narcotics? (Richard Drake, assistant professor at Brigham Young University College of Nursing) In fact, some studies have indicated that pornography can have the same effect on the brain as cocaine. Images can be permanently “burned� into the memory by epinephrine, a chemical in the brain.
The same can be said of ANY possibly addictive behavior, which, as we have established, includes many, many things that the average person is able to enjoy in moderation without becomind addicted.
As for the rest of your “facts”, they have no qualitative substance. So…porn is a big industry. Duh? We know? So, what is your point?
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
Will one of you depraved men please just ASK one of these good-citizen types the OBVIOUS question in this discussion? If not xxx, then WHAT? Inquiring minds want to know!
By Dr. Feel Good
January 17, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
Boscoe,
There are many couples in this world, straight and gay, that enjoy porn films together, and watch them to enhance their sex lives…NOTE..I said enhance, not replace. And these couples don’t become addicted, or become molesters, or become rapists. Pornography when viewed by intelligent, emotionally stable adults can bring new scenarios and emotions into the bedroom, which can make for a richer sex life for couples. Of course this can only happen for adults that see sex as something to be celebrated and enjoyed (among monogamous couples) and not something that is dirty and only exists for the sake of procreation.
By useless info dept
January 17, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
I think all self-respecting, morally upstanding citizens would follow the lead of Clarence Thomas — “Long Dong Silver.”
By FatMoose
January 17, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Perhaps you could explain exactly what good porn provides for society.
Any increase in honesty regarding humans and what we are about benefits us. It also removes the shame and lowered self esteem which is derived from thinking you are odd - something the church does to people regularly. It also takes porn/sex out of the dark ally; and into a regulated venue - ensuring (more-so) that the illegal activity does not occur or get furthered.
How DOES porn benifit society exactly?
One is more confident in themself and having a relationship based on who they are without having the need of secrets.
Also; When one finds his son or daughter playing with themselves (or doctor…etc); they are more apt to act and not react out of shame. One can honestly explain that everyone likes sex and those feelings in a manner that is open and honest without worry that their child would say something “inappropriate” in public and adopt a shamefull feeling associated with their sexuality. It would not be a “dirty secret” that everyone knows; but is still insanely hidden - thereby indicating to a child that they cannot use mom/dad as a resource for questions.
But until ADULTS can confront their sexuality, there is little hope of them confronting their childs (or their own) emerging sexuality in ANY healthy way - therefore continuing the cycle of guilt and denial of the simple fact that we ARE sexual beings.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this
Grrrr…. Are you ALL running for US Senate, a requirement for which is that you cannot actually ask a direct meaningful, pertinent question?
By The72John
January 17, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
What the heck is the question, Kimberly?
By useless info dept
January 17, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Okay, okay. On behalf of Kimberly — a 2 part question for all who think porn is the crotch-fruit of Lucifer:
1) Do you now or have you ever engaged in masturbatory actvity?
2) If the answer to the above is affirmative, then just exactly what did you use if not pornographic images?
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
Refer to 3:42 or 3:55…
By Jack
January 17, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
The right hand. Sometimes the left if the right gets tired.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
THANK you! Okay, NOW we’re about to be edu-macated! Woo-HOO!
By Viewer
January 17, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
The first many times I masturbated I did not even know what p@rn was.
By The72John
January 17, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
1) Of course - did I mention I was a guy?
2) At various times, pictures, movies, mental images, hot workman barechested outside my window…
that was probably TMI
By Dr. Feel Good
January 17, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this
My imagination Kimberly…
By The72John
January 17, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
yeah, the first time I didn’t even really know what I was doing…I was like - hey, this is interesting…hmm…hmm…HEY - WTF was THAT!?!?
By useless info dept
January 17, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
Ahhh, memories… If only every time could be like the first time.
By The72John
January 17, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
Hey Viewer - why are you using 733t-speak?
Porn doesn’t get caught in the filter.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
Thank you, my fellow depraved individuals, for answering. My heart is truly warmed, and you have my deepest affection.
But what about the “GOOD CITIZENS?” who educate us to the evils of porn. What do they offer as a substitute? I mean, if you say “Don’t eat a Big Mac & fries, ‘cause they’re bad for you,” you say, “Try a turkey sandwich and an apple instead!” What’s the instead here?
By useless info dept
January 17, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
An altar boy, perhaps? Okay, yeah, that was wrong wasn’t it?
By Viewer
January 17, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
72John - your filter perhaps. every company’s different.
first time, it hit the bathroom floor, i thought my mom could probably still see it even after I scrubbed and scrubbed. Needless to say, I no longer “worry” about such things. Last time she was over, she reviewed my book-shelf and did not comment on the several ‘adult toy’ catalogs I have.
By The72John
January 17, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
They don’t want us to have a substitute because they believe that sex is inherently evil unless you’re doing it to make babies.
And just for the record, any guy who says he has never masturbated is lying through his teeth.
Either that, or he’s Chuck or Boscoe. Come to think of it, that explains a lot…
By Viewer
January 17, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
72John - in fact every time I post here, this week only, due to the title above, I get the company message about internet use. I can still post, however I see it flash before I refresh and come back to this page.
it is not normal for me to see that message merely for posting here. just this week, and only here at woman-to-woman.
By The72John
January 17, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
The profanity filter is on AJC’s end.
By The72John
January 17, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
OH, I see. You have an overly-intrusive firewall, hmm? :-0
By Old Horse
January 17, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
Don’t like it, don’t watch.
As a recovering Cathlolic, one was regularly beaten by nuns growing up in the 60s, I have a very poor opinion of religion in general, and the older I get, the more and more hypocrisy I see in it.
That being said, do I try to discourage anyone else from going to church because I don’t? No.
I don’t watch porn either, mainly because I find it boring. However, do I try to discourage anyone else from watching because I don’t? Again, no.
There is very little in this life in which you can not find something that someone deems distasteful or wrong and wants to “save” the rest of us from.
People ought to get their own lives straightened out before telling anyone else what to do.
By Netbanker
January 17, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
Kimberly I can’t believe you were just such a GIRL about asking. That’s not like you to hold back an opinion, question, or statement. See how bad our societal shame about SEX is?!
Out of curiosity…who here has been to a nude beach? Did you find it to be a sexual experience? Yes, I have been (as if y’all even needed to ask. )
By Jack
January 17, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Something About Mary. Hair Gel.
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
NetB, I know…. It’s just that when women do something of a manly nature (which we often HAVE to do ‘cause nobody else will), then we’re criticized for not being feminine and sweet. 2006 is the year I become like, totally feminine and sweet, you know, like God intended! Haha…
By Jack
January 17, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
No way could I get my wife to a nude beach. (yes, I tried)
By Just Being Me
January 17, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
Can’t count how many times I’ve been to the nude beach… and no, it’s not at all a sexual experience. In fact, it’s a lot less fascinating than you’d think.
By Viewer
January 17, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
see, they are right, I started off masturbating with no p@rn at all and before you knew it, as an adult, I had adult toy catalogs in the house, that I have even ordered from.
Shame, Shame. (NOT!, NOT!)
hahahahahahahaha
By Netbanker
January 17, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
And when Men do something sweet and kind they’re accusing of being a F*. It’s a 2 way street.
I also think that wrapped up in the sex hang up thing is this American Male Macho complex. Metrosexuals are about the closest thing to a non-American male that exists in this country. I find it interesting that good grooming, being somewhat fashionable, and not being afraid to show emotions are traits one finds in males of other countries. My experiences living in and visiting some of those places is that men have much closer, emotionally supportive relationships with each other. The men seem much more relaxed and secure with themselves.
By Netbanker
January 17, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this
JBM…I don’t find them sexual at all. I thought it was interesting to see whole families in Europe on the beaches. Boobs aren’t a big deal over there either. Interesting how the sexuality aspect of European culture is one that many Americans find scandalous or shameful, yet they don’t have the same issues with numbers of abortions or teen pregnancy or spread of STDs that occur here.
Of course, prostitution is also legal in most of those countries. I don’t get why it is illegal here. You can give it away for free, but you can’t openly charge for it. “No Your Honor, I’m not a prostitute…I’m a high-end condom sales person. The condoms are $150 and come with a free demonstration.”
By kimberly
January 17, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this
NetB, I agree. Totally!! Been to Europe a few times, and know exactly what you mean. (Had FUN there too! hee hee) I wish more American men were secure with themselves. Then maybe they wouldn’t feel the need to put me down to prove how manly they are.
By Ben
January 18, 2006 07:34 AM | Link to this
Does anyone have any XXX movies that they want to trade?
By Brian Curtis
January 18, 2006 07:42 AM | Link to this
Chuck: So if you agree that there’s no link between porn and abnormal/criminal behavior… what’s the conflict? Over whether it can be studied in a college class?
Easy answer: Of COURSE it can, just like any other form of media. And I was able to say that without announcing that anyone who disagrees with me must be stupid.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 07:52 AM | Link to this
I want to go to Rio. No movies necessary there.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 08:07 AM | Link to this
Obviously, the problem is that porn makes the Baby Jesus cry.
Or something like that.
By chuck
January 18, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this
I didn’t agree to that point at all Brian. I think that both anecdotally with serial rapists and murderers and through causal comparative research that it has been shown that there is a relationship between the two. I only agreed that it cannot be PROVEN scientifically because it would be unethical to do an experiment. I was in a Psych class and the professor there at a state university brought up a couple of studies showing a correlation. I couldn’t find my notes from the class last night or I would have cited them for you.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this
Anyone see ” A Clockwork Orange”? More entertaining than “Eyes Wide Shut” .
By Brian Curtis
January 18, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this
Fine. But you know that, even if a correlation is demonstrated, that’s a LONG way from causation… and since that requires study regardless, why would we oppose having classes to study it in the first place?
By The72John
January 18, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this
You should read the book, Jack. It’s much better than the movie.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
I’ll have to try and find it. The book is always better than the movie. There was one movie that I have seen that follows the book more than any other one I saw, that was Silence of the Lambs. Didn’t see any porno in his house.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
Must…refrain…from joke about…porn…and…eating people.
By Shaunti and Diane
January 18, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
Good Morning Friends!
We wanted to take this time to apologize to you for this week’s topic and its lack of depth. It appears that you intellectuals have exhausted the subject in just two days, except for, of course, one of our favorite bloggers, Chuck (who could probably discuss this for weeks, if not months).
At the time that we decided to discuss this, it seemed like a good idea. When we noticed that our regular bloggers had grown weary of the topic, Diane suggested we throw in a few random discussion points to stir things up (since our usual pot stirrers didn’t seem to be on the job). But, even we couldn’t come up with any discussion points to add to what you great minds had already come up with.
So, we concede that you are right this time. Therefore, this subject is now closed, and we will talk about what is certainly of a much greater importance: American Idol, Season 5. Should teenagers be permitted to miss school to audition for AI? What kind of person would allow untalented friend or family member to travel such a distance to audition? Does Randy look any better post-gastric bypass? Did Paula really have the affair with the ex-Idol wannabe/former felon?
By Jack
January 18, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this
We didn’t think you read our posts. I’m flattered.
By Chilao
January 18, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this
American Idol, Season 5. Should teenagers be permitted to miss school to audition for AI? What kind of person would allow untalented friend or family member to travel such a distance to audition? Does Randy look any better post-gastric bypass? Did Paula really have the affair with the ex-Idol wannabe/former felon?
FINALLY the really IMPORTANT things in life. LMAO
Do not watch the show but they could not have come up with a better name for it, with the emphasis on IDOL, the way we worship celebrities.
By chuck
January 18, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this
I don’t have any problem with them studying pornography academically, i.e. looking at its impact on society, but that’s not exactly what they are doing. They are using MY TAX dollars to sit in class with their perverted professors and just WATCH pornography. THAT, I have a problem with.
If any of these studies are correct, and I believe that they very well could be, then this exposure to pornography COULD BE the start of something really bad…especially if someone in the class has an addictive personality and gets caught up in it.
I can see the headlines now:
MIT SUED BY VICTIMS OF SERIAL RAPIST
By Jack
January 18, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
Chuck. The teachers have instructed us to change the subject to the 5th season of Amerian Idol. No more porn talk or it will be put into your permanent record.
By chuck
January 18, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
Maybe they could do a show on homeless people OR JACK and call it American IDLE.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this
Chuck, if you can see that headline, you have a more vivid imagination than I thought.
As for American Idol, as much as I hate the show, it’s my drug of choice. I’m an addict, and there’s nothing I can do about it.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this
You two aren’t supposed to have “favorite bloggers” You might give him a big head. LOL
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this
LOL Jack! That’s not really Diane and Shaunti.
By Renee
January 18, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
Me too JBM, unfortunate but true.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
I don’t think the cameras and such would fit under the bridge where I now reside. It would be nice if Chuck would tell us what school system he teaches in so that those who still have school age children would know which one to avoid.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
~waving~ Heyyyyyyy Renee! And, hey, there are worse things to be addicted to… LOL!
By Jack
January 18, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
Hi Renee’ & JBM. XOXOXOXO
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this
Lawwwwd, somebody done put some sugar in Jack’s koolaid this mornin’! LOL!
xoxoxo back atcha, Jack!
By Jack
January 18, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
If Paula did have that affair with the contestant, she should be ashamed. She could have done much better than him.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
I thought he was a cutie, Jack.
By Renee
January 18, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
xoxoxo to Jack and JBM!!!!! He was cute JBM, but I didn’t like his attitude. And even if it was true, what was his motive for coming out with it. Really tacky to me.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
I just laugh so hard whenever someone like Chuck pulls out the “They’re using MY TAX DOLLARS” BS.
First, I doubt that state-funded universities are teaching these courses. I would imagine that it’s PRIVATE universities that would be more likely to offer such a course.
Second, even if it were being taught at state universities - deal with it. You conservative curriculum Nazis are already out of control. They’re still using taxpayer dollars to teach your primitive mythology of a religion, aren’t they Chuck? Do you have to control EVERYTHING, Bible Banger?
Third, anyone can find things that “their” tax dollars are paying for that they find objectionable. For instance, I find the use of tax dollars to develop our own weapons of mass destruction to be highly objectionable. Chuck, the war-mongering Christian Crusader wanna-be that he is, on the other hand, is thrilled, and would no doubt love to nuke all those darn Muslims into hell. Jesus is Love!
I find it objectionable that the state government of Georgia and the federal government both want to pour taxpayer dollars into religious institutions that are rabidly anti-gay. Of course, Chuck will also have some answer to that. Because, you see, it’s only conservative Christians who have the right to object to how “their” tax dollars are spent. Everyone else is just plain wrong.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
His motive was definitely to attain wealth and/or fame. I think I read that he had written a book, and was trying to get his name out there for promotional purposes or something… I agree that it was totally tacky for him to “come out” that way. I thought he was sweet, though. Confident, but not arrogant at all…
By Jack
January 18, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
If everyone knew what their tax money was really spent on, there would be a revolution.
By Renee
January 18, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
I found him incredibly arrogant. I’m glad his little stupid album bombed (don’t I sound like a little ray of sunshine today, lol).
By Jack
January 18, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
You are a ray of sunshine.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
A ray of sunshine living in a really, really cold place.
By Renee
January 18, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
Lol, you got that right John!!!
Thanks Jack!
By Archie
January 18, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
“Any increase in honesty regarding humans and what we are about benefits us. It also removes the shame and lowered self esteem which is derived from thinking you are odd - something the church does to people regularly. It also takes porn/sex out of the dark ally; and into a regulated venue - ensuring (more-so) that the illegal activity does not occur or get furthered.”
Fatmoose I agree with the bulk of your statement as I understand it.
“Of course, prostitution is also legal in most of those countries. I don’t get why it is illegal here. You can give it away for free, but you can’t openly charge for it.” Netbanker, I agree with you primarily because of the money made by the porn industry. Porn actors and actresses can get legally paid for sex but a street corner prostitute gets locked up but billions of dollars are spent by the citizens of America watching folk have sex who aren’t doing it for free. At first I was going to say pornography courses have no intellectual merit but now I say yes they do depending how they are taught. If such courses raise legitimate as to why we have an unfair economic situation going between corporate porn and street corner porn then yes the course is worth it. I just don’t think it’s right to lock up consenting adults for having sex. I just watched a program called the “B Side” on Starz and the young was bragging about what she would and would not do and how much money she was making doing it. The young lady was a college student and she didn’t appear to be under any pressure. I am not an advocate of porn but I am an advocate of doing away with the hypocrisy of locking up people for having sex. Porn can be addictive it is not great thing morally or financially for a person but every person should have the right to sin and pay for it with their own money.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
If no one is going to post,well, I’ll just have to sing!
By Jack
January 18, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
“Well I’ve never been to Spain. But I kinda like the music….”
By The72John
January 18, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
Porn can be addictive it is not great thing morally or financially for a person but every person should have the right to sin and pay for it with their own money
I’ve yet to hear a single answer that rationally explains this line of thought. Why is porn immoral? Why is it a financial drain?
Sure, from a personal, religious standpoint, one might believe that porn is immoral. That’s your right - then the solution is simple, don’t watch!
Financial? Why is it bad financially? Why do you assume that someone who enjoys porn spends anymore on it than, say, your average movie buff would spend on movies?
All these arguments assume that EVERYONE is fanatically obsessed with porn. It’s like assuming that everyone who drinks is a raving alcoholic.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
know how to use it, never gonna lose it, I can’t refuse it. (Three Dog Night)
By The72John
January 18, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Give us a little “Don’t Fear the Reaper” Jack. And remember - more cowbell.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Financial? Why is it bad financially? Why do you assume that someone who enjoys porn spends anymore on it than, say, your average movie buff would spend on movies?
Lemme take a crack at this one, John… as “devil’s advocate.” Porn can be addictive, but the average movie buff is not “addicted” to movies; he just enjoys watching, collecting, and perhaps showing them. With this in mind, I wouldn’t compare a person who enjoys porn to a person who enjoys regular movies. I would say that someone who enjoys porn is more accurately comparable to someone who enjoys gambling. If a person becomes addicted, it can be quite a costly habit.
By Chilao
January 18, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
Blue Oyster Cult? Thought Jack and I were the only curmdudgeons, was it, on here. LOL
Clockwork Organge was the second movie I ever saw at the big-screen cinema. Been warped ever since. LMAO
By Jack
January 18, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
I need a band to do Blue Oyster Cult!
By The72John
January 18, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
Yes JBM, we understand that IF (and that’s a big IF) someone becomes addicted to it can be expensive financially.
However, when one makes blanket statements that something is bad, such as Archie did, saying is bad financially, period, it assumes that everyone who enjoys is addicted.
I think the point here is that most people who enjoy porn aren’t addicted to it and are not in danger of being addicted to it. The moralists attempt to paint anything they don’t like as inherently dangerous and bad, when in the real world, it’s only bad if consumed in excess, pretty much like anything else.
By Archie
January 18, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
The72John, I said porn can be addictive. Can be.. I have no knowledge that would make me say that everyone who views porn will spend too much. I never said everyone is addicted to porn and if you have read my previous posts I have always said a person should have the right to sin or not. There are people who are sex addicts and for those it does drain them financially and morally. A married person viewing pornography may decide to use the services of a prostitute and that is not morally correct. I still think a person should not be locked for having sex and I think FatMoose in an earlier post did a good job in discussing porn. The point is from an intellectual point of view will studying porn help people who become addicted?
By The72John
January 18, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Hey, I’m not old, but that doesn’t mean I don’t like good music.
By Chilao
January 18, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
so now we are ‘old’, gee, thanks.
joking around, just joking around. LOL
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
I know quite a few people who are addicted to porn. It may be more common than you think, John. There are lots of people who can’t get in the mood without popping in a video first, or reading erotica, or flipping through a “dirty” magazine… They may not be addicted to the point that they need to see it every day, but they are addicted in that they can’t perform sexually without using these prompts.
And, Archie didn’t say it was “bad.” He said, “it’s not a great thing…”
Whether or not something is considered “immoral” obviously depends on the person’s individual morals. In Archie’s opinion, porn is immoral. He can explain to you why he considers it immoral, but you’d still disagree because you two are utilizing two different frames of reference in determining your morals.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
Chilao & I are not old. Just slightly aged.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
*A married person viewing porn may have the urge to visit a prostitute…
A person has the right to sin or not…
The point is from an intellectual point of view will studying porn help people who become addicted?*
Well, your perspective is apparent. Do you really think that watching porn will make a married person visit a prostitute? Don’t you think that the married, prostitute-frequenting person had marital problems or basic fidelity problems in the first place? How silly to think that porn made them do it.
And I’m pretty sure that the question is not how studying porn can “help people who are addicted”. That’s you projecting your moral position on the question.
By Chilao
January 18, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
that’s funny about the music, a niece, who was BORN in 1974, told me when she was around 20(she WAS 20, it was in 1994 at a family funeral) that her favorite band was Led Zeppelin. I went HUH? LOL
By The72John
January 18, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
Actually, JBM, he doesn’t say “I think it’s immoral” or “I don’t want to watch it”, he says flatly that it is immoral, and then uses the tired old saw “you can sin if you want to”.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
There may be hope for the younger generation.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
Well, heck John, don’t most of us project our moral positions on the question when asked our opinion on something? Isn’t this forum about stating your opinion based (obviously) on what you believe?
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
The point is from an intellectual point of view will studying porn help people who become addicted?
I might; for one has to understand a situation in order to change it.
More-over; it is not going to increase the number of “addicts” - that is pure fallacy. Just as the notion that sex or drug education will increase those numbers.
Some aspects of studying porn worth studying in a class: - The trends associated between porn and the women’s lib movement (porn has gotten “cleaner” and more varied partly because of women being able to demand different types of porn and being in the industry as a key player)
It similarities/differences in the industry parameters vs other businesses
what the varying trends potentially say (metaphorically) about our society at a given time/decade
the psychological vs physical reactions different people have to porn and those reactions potential meaning or lack of meaning: there are many studies out there that show that what one may think they feel about porn or a sexual situation is contradicted by there physical reaction and vv)
How/why certain cultures/religions feel the way they do about porn
By The72John
January 18, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
People who start telling me about my sinning p** me off.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
John, anyone who says a person should have a right to sin is obviously drawing his opinion from Biblical morals and values. Archie clearly believes that porn “is not a great thing” morally; which isn’t the same as “he says flatly that it’s immoral”, but I won’t split hairs over this.
He’s giving his opinion like everyone else around here does.
By Scalia
January 18, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
What is the difference between a porn addict and an average groupie? How many people are addicted to their favorite band and go to every one of their concerts, follows the band everywhere, and buys everything that they come out with. Or the intense Star Wars fans that camp out in front of the theatre for two years waiting for the movie. They buy every Star Wars movie, dress up like their favorite character at conventions, have Star Wars figurines. There are a lot of people like that.
By Chilao
January 18, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
Scalia - neither of those two ‘addictions’ involved *sexuality. so it is okay to be obsessive about StarWars since there is no sex involved. but since sex is such a sinful thing, in many people’s eyes, anything related to non-reproducing/male-female sex is BAD. started with the Pilgrims. LOL
the sexuality mores are all about control, after all if you can control someone’s sexuality, you control them.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
John, you shouldn’t let stuff like that p** you off unless they are directly addressing you and your specific issue (or non-issue). Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, and if someone thinks something is a sin, and you disagree, so be it. Likewise, there may be something that you think is wrong, that others find completely acceptable. Everyone is entitled…
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
Now, I’ll tell you what’s addictive: internet card games. Can probably be costly, too… and immoral (IMO) if you’re doing it at work…
By Archie
January 18, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
“Archie clearly believes that porn “is not a great thingâ€? morally; which isn’t the same as “he says flatly that it’s immoralâ€?, but I won’t split hairs over this.”
You are correct JBM. I did not flatly say that pornography is immoral. I used the example of what it could do to a married person and I liked your comments JBM in your 12:04 response. Reading and comprehension is very important before a person responds as I did say porn may cause a married person to visit a prostitute. The keyword is may. I am not a moralist but as JBM says I am entitled to my opinion. I have stated that I think prostitution should be legal so I don’t know how I am now being called a moralist. I have stated in previous that economic unfairness in the overall sex business bothers me so once again I don’t know how I am a moralist. Now as a married man I know I cannot justify using the services of a prostitute whether I do so or not and as JBM says I do know people that spend a good chunk of money on pornography via strip clubs,books,movies,and or prostitutes. I am no moralist just a guy with an opinion.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
This blog is addicting. Should colleges offer a course on blogs.
By ben
January 18, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
Here’s a wonderful idea. Since most Christian people who post here are against porn the only way to stop it and satisfy all of our good Christian friends to to outlaw sex from here to the end of time. Oh yeah w/o sex we would not be fruitul and multiply and that would be the end of civilazation as we know it. At least all of our bible thumping christian friends will be happy.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
Well I’ve never been to Heaven, but I’ve been to Oklahoma. They tell I was born there. But I really don’t remember. In Oklahoma, not Arizona, what does it matter?
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
I know quite a few people who are addicted to porn. It may be more common than you think, John. There are lots of people who can’t get in the mood without popping in a video first, or reading erotica, or flipping through a “dirty� magazine…
Just to be square on terms; your above reference is a fetish. The diference between a fetish and adiction is exaclt what you pointed, one is an object needed to perform sexually and the other is needed on a regular basis.
A fetish has roots in ones mental make-up and usually a specific (emotional) event {where-as addicts have a more general make-up, like upbringing in genereal and genetics}.
Psychology has a different approach to fetishes compared to an adiction.
Just Information.
By blablabla
January 18, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
when are we going to tire of american idol? my wife is obsessed with it, which means i spend an inordinate amount of time watching the stuff. some of it is good, but most of it is terrible. and it’s the same 30 songs or so, over and over and over again. why on earth do people who have absolutely awful singing voices stand in line for hours and days to get shot down in 15 seconds by simon, paula and randy? is the only alternative another cheesy game show hosted by howie mandell? what gives?
By Renee
January 18, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
maybe obsessed is the correct word, I thought I was addicted to American Idol, but now after thinking about it, I’m obsessed. I admit it and accept it.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
The moment you start phrasing things in terms of sinning, you become a moralist. If you say “Well you have the right to sin or not” you’re saying “I’m right and you’re wrong, you just don’t know it yet.”
It’s much like when someone asked Bush about his administration’s policies towards gay people. He said - “We’re all sinners.” It’s exactly the same thing.
By SUZAN
January 18, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
Well, from a Christian standpoint porn is flatly immoral, there I said it. Look you can try and sugar coat, excuse justify and accept this anyway you wish, but in truth you all know that this is a true evil in a civilized society and causes more harm than we can even begin to understand. Everyone of you justifying this know this is true.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
This man had a problem getting an erection. His wife and he had not made love in over a year. He finally went to the doctor. The doctor gave him a pill and said,”Take this pill. When you say beep, you will get an erection. When you hear beep,beep,it will go down. Very importatant: this only works three times only.” The man left the office all excited and thought he could try it out since it worked 3 times, that would give him two for the wife. he said, “Beep” and it went up. He waited a moment and then said “Beep,beep” and it went down. He was pleased. On his way home in traffic, a volkswagon tooted his horn at someone and it went “beep” His soldier stood at attention. The car did it again, “Beep,beep” and it went down. Now he was worried. He only had one more. He hurried home and brought his wife into the bedroom for a good session of sex that they had not had for over a year. He said “beep” and his soldier stood out straight and proud. He turned to show his wife and she said,” What’s all this Beep, beep business about?” LOL
By Scalia
January 18, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Thank you, Chilao. I have been wondering about that since I watched a show about a girl following Red Hot Chili Peppers around the world. She actually picked up Flea’s underpants after a show, and squeezed his crotch sweat into her mouth.
Another guy flew to Miami to get a visa just to go to see Jimmy Buffett in Brasil. He had seen Jimmy Buffett five times or more in the states. Now if that isn’t expensive addiction, I don’t know what is.
Plus, nobody is standing in line outside of a porn store waiting for the next Jenna Jameson movie to come out. Or causing a riot when Jenna makes an appearance. Look at the obsessed fans outside of a Backstreet Boy appearance circa 1999 or 1998. Or N*Sync.
Another question that should be brought up in the college course on porn: How would the economy be affected if porn was banned and considered illegal?
By The72John
January 18, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Well, from a rational standpoint religious fundamentalism is flatly immoral, there I said it. Look you can try and sugar coat, excuse justify and accept this anyway you wish, but in truth you all know that this is a true evil in a civilized society and causes more harm than we can even begin to understand. Everyone of you justifying this know this is true.
Look, I fixed it for you Suzan.
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
Everyone of you justifying this know this is true.
No, we do not. What you think is a fact [that porn is a known true evil] has studies to show otherwise; not absolutly mind you, for what one does with a hammer can defines that hammer’s morality, but on an instance basis only.
But you are not looking to discuss, only provide your beliefs and omit all studies and facts, correct?
By Renee
January 18, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
Everyone of you justifying this know this is true.
I can assure you, I do not know this to be true. John, I have to agree with you, I do not like people telling me something I’m doing is a sin. While they are certainly entitled to their opinion, it’s exactly that. Their opinion.
Good one Jack!
By Jack
January 18, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
“since I watched a show about a girl following Red Hot Chili Peppers around the world. She actually picked up Flea’s underpants after a show, and squeezed his crotch sweat into her mouth.”
God am I glad I ate before reading that one!
By kimberly
January 18, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
I WANTED to follow Trent Reznor around Europe last summer, but I have a job, house, kids, and pets, and am therefore not entitled to have ANY fun EVER, but rather, am only entitled to spend my life as a &&^^%%^%$#@ slave to the needs of others, while remembering that once, briefly, long ago, in a galaxy far far away, life was kinda fun for a minute.
By SUZAN
January 18, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
Pornography is just another lower part of society that is just going to be here whether it is good for us or not. in truth though it will always be on low and common. It is sad that people have no desire to rise above base desires.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Yet again, Suzan is here to share TRUTH.
Good job, Suzan - keep it up! Maybe you and Falwell can get together sometime.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this
Kimberly. Sucks growing up doesn’t it?
By Renee
January 18, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this
Suzan, again your opinion. Nobody is trying to force you to watch, browse through, or participate in porn.
By kimberly
January 18, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
Big ones, Jack. There’s no reward for it, either, and nothing to look forward to.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
There is reward. You are raising children who love you and will someday select the nursing home you will be housed in.
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Suzan,
So, lets start from the most benign porn: Do you find it morally inappropriate for a married couple to tape themselves?
How about trading those tapes with another couple?
How about if they are not married?
See, there will be a trend to your answers that starts by voiding someone’s rights and slowly is replaced by YOUR religion’s teachings - which in ALL of history has not been able to deal with sexuality. Especially female sexuality.
If we went purely on casual association to create laws; being religious would be a high crime; not to mention being a catholic priest.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
Suzan, what the devil are you talking about?
Good one, Jack!
Okay, I have to say this about porn… I wouldn’t agree with Suzan that I “know” it is a “known true evil.” I think that’s going a bit far… but, I do have a real problem with the women (and men) who allow strangers to enter their bodies for money. I know these men are tested, I know it’s a lucrative career, I know these are adults making choices about what to do with their own v****, etc… I just find it to be so overwhelmingly sad that IMO, a person doesn’t think more highly of himself/herself than to sell his/her body.
I’m not one of those people who say what I’d “never” do, and I know everyone has a price, but I do know this: porn filmmakers don’t offer enough to buy my body.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
Susan. What do you think of one who drinks alcohol? Jesus drank wine did he not?
By Archie
January 18, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
Renee, you’re not going to always like someone’s opinion and since this is a blog it is redundant to use the words “my opinion” after each post. My use of the word sin may bother some folk but like JBM says it’s my opinion and I stand by the statement that we have a choice to sin or not sin. There is no moralism there,since the dictionary defines a moralist as someone unduly concerned with the morals of others. Another definition is a teacher or student or moral problems and I am definitely don’t fit those definitions. The other definition of a moralist is one who follows a system of moral principles, well that could be applied to everyone on this board because the dictionary does not say whose system you follow and I would guess that everyone has some things that they consider wrong or right. I just imagine that no one on this board considers rape the right thing to do. I don’t recall saying I am right and you’re wrong and frankly I wonder how such a leap could be made.
By Renee
January 18, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
but, I do have a real problem with the women (and men) who allow strangers to enter their bodies for money
So, JBM, do you feel like because you have a problem with it, that it shouldn’t be made available to anyone.
~~wondering how much porn filmmakers pay~~ lol
By Jack
January 18, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
JBM. What if they offered 1 Million dollars? That buys a lot of soap and toothpaste.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
You obviously don’t understand that your choice of the word “Sin” is offensive. By refering to an action as a “sin” you are making a moral judgement about the person who chooses to follow a particular behavior. You aren’t being magnanimous, you’re being judgemental.
By Renee
January 18, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
Ummm…Archie, maybe I missed something, but I didn’t have a problem with you or anything you posted. Did I say I was right and you were wrong????
I did tell John that personally, I don’t like people telling me something that I am doing is a sin or sinful to them. Of course you can post it, say it, or believe it, doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. I think in the religious sector, since everyone is considered to be “with sin”, that if people worried about their own sin more often, instead of engaging in what this person or that person’s sin is, a lot more would be accomplished.
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
JBM,
I can agree with what you say to a degree; but also feel the same way about telemarketers (no way I would sell my soul doing that!). And many people find owning a bar awefull; or being a trash collector…etc.
From the articles I have read and interviews seen; these people love their job; and just like trash collectors, I can appriciate their service without feeling odd that I would not be ok with doing it as my career.
By Chilao
January 18, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
as my lunch hits the screen. SPLAT!
unfortunately I was not yet done with lunch when I read Scalia’s Flea remark.
joking(about the splat)
By Archie
January 18, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
I wish the topic question was why do we arrest street prostitutes but allow porn actors and actresses to make so much money. Both have sex for money. This is really the quesstion I wanted answered or discussed because I read about the porn industry in a business magazine and it was an eye-opening experience. I must defend JBM because she never said porn or prostitution should not be made available to anyone. There are parts of the country where prostitution is legal and this is the kind of thing that could be studied. As Netbanker said in another post I don’t understand why prostitution is not legal all over the USA because if it were it would take away the economic advantage some sex workers have over other sex workers.
By Brian Curtis
January 18, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
Suzan, you seem to make this argument a lot: “You KNOW I’m right, you KNOW what you’re promoting is evil, and there’s NO denying that truth. And no, I don’t have to offer any proof or reasoning to support that statement.�
Which may be a comforting thought to an absolutist, but it leaves me wondering: Why even post here/have a discussion at all? Obviously, SOME people find the topic worth discussing.
You’re pretty much saying that every issue is set in stone, and that any discussion is pointless. You likewise dismiss any reasoning or evidence used to debate the question, instead declaring “It’s definitely evil, it definitely harms our society, and every one of you MUST already know this. It’s just sad if you try to deny it.â€? (Reminds me of Randy and his “You’re trying to hide from the truth, you KNOW Jesus is Lord” junk.)
Given that people engaged in a debate have (by definition) already rejected that attitude from the outset, what do you hope to accomplish by making such flat, inarguable statements? Can you not comprehend that other people may hold geniunely different views from your own—and perhaps without being “in denial,” evil, or stupid?
Suzan… why are you here?
By Renee
January 18, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
I was just asking a question to JBM, she never stated that she didn’t, but I wanted to know her thoughts on it.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this
The government will not legalize drugs or prostitution because they wouldn’t be able to control or tax it the way they want.
By Archie
January 18, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
Renee I apologize. You are right and I do apologize to you Renee. To John I would say look up the dictionary definition of the word sin, there is no judgement on my part and if you are offended by the word sin, that’s tough. Let me help you sin is according to the dictionary: “A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.” I did not mention religion. “Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.” Once again I did not mention religion or God. The last definition of sin is:Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
Well if you are married I would say it’s wrong to use the services of a prostitute assuming that your spouse does not approve. I did use the term as a married man. Now I realize that many choose to set up their, their marriage and make allowances for swinging,use of prostitutes,etc. Well my statement about wrong may not apply to those people because after all it is their life. This is first time and I have used the statement about sinning or not multiple times on this blog that I have read of anyone getting offended by the word sin. There is no judgement on my part if the use of the word sin bothers anyone simply substitute your own word but I will not be controlled on a blog.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this
John, it’s still based on his belief or interpretation of the definition of sin. I was raised to believe that drinking alcohol (and wearing pants, and a whole host of other things) was a sin. To this day, my mother still refers to a lot of actions as sinful. To me, that just means that according to her interpretation of the Bible, drinking is a sin.
According to Archie’s interpretation, porn is sinful. Heck, some people don’t even believe there’s a such thing as “sin.” So, a murderer might find it offensive to be considered a sinner. I can understand that you are offended by his use of the word “sin,” but that doesn’t mean he’s being judgmental. It just means that based on his interpretation, indulging in porn is a sin.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this
Susan is here to offer her opinion just like the rest of us. her opinion is also just as valuable as the rest of ours. She may be addicted to the blog as the rest of us are. Cool your jets.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Archie, if you think there’s no judgement inherent in the word sin, after reading the definitions that you yourself have posted, then you are an idiot.
By kimberly
January 18, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Actually, there is one form of prostitution that IS legal in Georgia. Here’s how it works: Parents put the “fear of God” into their daughter so that she’ll never give up the money maker prematurely. Eventually, the family attracts a suitable prospect — a young man whose long-term earning potential is acceptable. Then they negotiate terms: He must buy her an expensive diamond ring, marry her publicly, and swear in front of everyone that he’ll never ever ever screw another women ever as long as he lives. She has relations with him two or three times. Then he has to take her on a nice vacation, and buy her a house, a car, and whatever else she “needs.” Also, during the next 50 years, he must do whatever she says, or she will exercise her right to withhold affection and put him out of the marital bedroom on to the punitive sofa, or worse. If at any time he does not give her exactly what she asks for, up to and including being nice to mother for months at a time, she can withhold the merchandise and leave him groveling. For this priviledge, she owns every dime he ever makes.
So… WHO are the biggest prostitutes?
By Archie
January 18, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
Jack prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada and there is a show HBO that features the brothel located there. This is where I would agree with John,if he allows it, moralism is what’s keeping prostitution illegal. There is a paper here in Columbia where people advertise for the type of sexual favors that they want and this includes married people and I think the topic question is a good one but many have veered from it. Once again I appreciate the support from Renee and I too have a problem with folk dipping their noses into private business but on an internet I can’t make any judgements about anyone so whatever a person does is whatever that person does. I think FatMoose posted about honesty and I said before it was a good post.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
Darn Kim. Did you read my bio?
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
Renee, I didn’t say I have a problem with “it” meaning porn. I just have a problem with a woman having such a low self-worth that she would allow a stranger, in many cases, to put his p*** inside her v****, anus, mouth, etc.
As for porn itself, I don’t really have an opinion on whether or not it should be available. I don’t really see a reason why it shouldn’t be available… it can certainly be useful in many settings… hehehe
Jack - Nope. A million bucks wouldn’t do it for me. Coincidentally, my partner and I just had that conversation about a month ago. She said there was no way she would let me sleep with another person for $1 mil (under the same circumstances as the Demi Moore movie… can’t think of the name of it, but that’s what we were discussing). I said, half jokingly, that I would do it with or without her support for $500 mil.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
FatMoose also posted another truth. With some things, thinking about it is better than really doing it.
By Chilao
January 18, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
LOL @ Kimberley - yep, been my view for years. why many women like the size of the rock(diamond). the larger the better, puts a larger value on their whoredom. Now I am not calling it that but….
Indecent Proposal was the movie.
By Chilao
January 18, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
Kimberly? LOL
By Archie
January 18, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
Most people make their points without name-calling and I see that 72John is incapable of that. In years of posting the “right to sin or not” not one person,even Brian Curtis,who is quite liberal,and I agree with Brian Curtis a lot, has ever taken offense to the use of word sin. That you could be so easily offended is a reflection upon you,John,because after all this is an internet blog.
By Renee
January 18, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
JBM - depends on how you look at it. You say strangers, I say they are coworkers. lol, lol.
Call me cheap, but a million, I’m doing it! My partner can yell at me on the way to the bank!
By The72John
January 18, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
Actually, Archie, its from years of being persecuted by sanctimonious people talking about “hating the sin but loving the sinner” and constantly being told how sinful my life is. I tend to take it very personally, yes.
But God forbid you be forced to admit that your choice of words is offensive.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
WARNING: Judgmental comment to follow…
In my opinion, anyone who “loves their job” as an active actress or actor in pornographic films probably has a low self-value, and doesn’t really regard their bodies very highly either.
By Scalia
January 18, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
Archie, the name of the brothel is: The Bunny Hand Ranch.
Heidi Fleiss is supposed to open a male equivalent for women. It is supposed to be like a spa with a little extra.
By Renee
January 18, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Maybe they just enjoy sex that much. Could be?? Although I don’t think that is the case all the time.
By kimberly
January 18, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
….yet, the woman who gives herself for the joy of giving and sharing herself and those special feelings, WITHOUT asking for a bunch of stuff in return… these women are the ones that our “good citizens” call unseemly names. These are the women our “good citizens” treat with a lesser degree of kindess and appreciation than those who demand quid pro quo, and suck dry their bank accounts, spirit, and will to live….
WHY? Just curious, that’s all.
By SUZAN
January 18, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Because brian I have a right to my opinion based on my beliefs just like you. You seem to be judge and jury yourself there bud. But take a look at a few of the articals I posted in my last blog if you dare. Could be that pornography is a disgusting way to continue selling women by pimps and using them to get your jollies. Children are trafficed in this industry and often kidnapped never to be seen again I think an industry that can have this cause and effect on a person/society is not a good industry for society. When an industry preys on children and women for the express purpose of satifying a sexual lust or worse, that industry is an evil.
If you wish to justify an industry trying to trample over child protection acts then go for it, says a lot about charactor though, Huh? These people are ruthless, they do not care if children are harmed, they dont care about anything but money. They could care less what the lasting results ae on the women who are in these films.
The fact that many of these girls are often underage and very young does not bother them.
No you can dress it up and paint it and call it what you want. it is now and always will be a sleezy low business that takes advantage of women
By Scalia
January 18, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
JBM, you are right.
Most of the actresses, like Savannah and Jenna Jameson, were raped in their teens or molested growing up. The E! True Hollywood Stories of these women are sad.
As for the men, there are documentaries on Ron Jeremy and John Holmes. Both guys are truly blessed below the belt, but had some tragic stories. John Holmes’ E! True Hollywood Story is terrible. Drug addiction, murder, AIDS, just a ton of mess.
By Brian Curtis
January 18, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
Archie, John:
I really couldn’t care less if someone considers my actions sinful, as long as they don’t insult me or try to control me in the process. Archie has his beliefs, and as long as he doesn’t press them on me, it’s just another voice in the crowd.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
LOL@ strangers vs. coworkers… LOL!
About the sin thing… I happen to think that smoking crack is sinful. I could list all the reasons I hold this belief, but it’s irrelevant. I hate crack, and I hate what it does to people, but I love the human being/person/spirit that is embodied by a crackhead. That means that I hate the sin and love the sinner. Because, in my opinion smoking crack is sinful.
John, for as long as you live, there will be people - some Christian, some not - who believe that homosexuality is sinful. They’re not out to judge you. It’s just what they believe, and a lot of times, people can’t change what they believe. You receive their belief that your lifestyle is one of sin as a judgment, but it isn’t. It’s nothing more than their opinion based on their own frame of reference.
Don’t take it so personally. My saying that porn is sin is nothing more than one woman sharing her belief. If I say that wishing on a star is sinful, and you happen to wish every night, it doesn’t make me sanctimonious, nor does it mean I’m being judgmental, and I’m certainly not grabbing you by your shoulders and looking you in the eyes with hate and pity telling you that you’re going to burn in hell for wishing… It just means that in my own personal opinion - which I’m entitled to - wishing on a star is a sin.
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Odd.
Because I can understand the dislike John has for someone stating that an act is sinful; but also understand that each individual can/should have their own moral code.
I tend to believe that the word sin is used in a manner that is way too one-dimentional. Hence, I like the definition: Anything that detracts yours or anothers self esteem. It covers the outlyers like the person that has no detraction of their self esteem from being in porn, while applying to the girl/boy that is in it as a resort that goes against their normal coices.
The world is more complex than an set of absolute black/white rules that have no give or gradient. And like John, when someone even alludes to an absolute (moral or otherwise), I feel it binds all of our hands to a degree.
But why it cannot be discussed decently seems to be attached to the hypocracy that organized religion has solidified over the centuries: We are all sinners, but we will call out your sins as meaning more than ours; hence stoning you or not allowing you in our church/school (without judging stares at the least).
And this shame inducing practice takes from aonthers self esteem - and a sin in itself.
By Renee
January 18, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Pornography and child pornography are two totally different things. One is legal, one is illegal and that is only skimming one difference off the top.
I must ask you, how is pornography selling women and also how does it take advantage of women? The movies being sold today are women who are doing this gasp at free will. Additionally, all porn does not involve women (gay porn). Under your philosophy wouldn’t these be victimized gay men who have been taken advantage of.
I’m confused by your post, whether you are advocating for the woman (or for children). If it is for children, nobody here has discussed, or equates porn with children.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
Ron Jeremy is a pig.
By Brian Curtis
January 18, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Suzan, now you’re bringing in child abduction and abuse… which, of course, is a bad thing I disapprove of, but by no means is central to the very existence of porn.
I have no love of child pornography; I also have no love of people who use the Bible as a guide to raping and murdering their families. But I don’t propose censoring or banning the Bible as a result.
The connection that porn = child abuse is like so many other hysterical connections being proposed: porn leads to violence against women, porn always involves drug abuse and rape, porn can’t occur without victimization, etc.
It’s an attempt to smear the entire genre with the fringe actions of a few extreme loons… kind of like treating all Christians as if Pat Robertson spoke for them. I assume you’re not on board with that tactic, right?
By far the majority of porn is consensual, voluntary, and has no one under 18 anywhere involved (or even nearby). When crimes occur, naturally they should be rooted out and punished. But trying to create a blanket condemnation of the entire field is unjust, unnecessary, and in fact counterproductive. (I, for one, would like to see prostitution legalized so prostitutes had some legal recourse and protections if they get abused.)
But you’re still winding up with your original assumption: that porn is simply EVIL, and that anyone with a brain MUST agree with this “obvious truth,” no matter how they try to “dress it up” by thinking about it and discussing it. That’s the hallmark of religious zealotry, not reason.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
We hope there is a Hell for those who exploit children. Either doing or looking, they need to burn. I think we all agree on this.
By Archie
January 18, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
72John I am not the enemy. You have to go and deal with those sanctimonious people and it’s good that you explained why you had a problem with the word but once again I don’t know you and you can take my choice of one word as an indictment of you. We may actually agree on some issues but to get hung up on one word is not a good thing. Thanks Scalia, I saw the show on HBO and that’s one of the reasons I think the topic question is a good one. JBM you gave an excellent example of a judgemental comment. Once again,I am sorry 72John that you had to endure those people this is an internet blog and people will use terms or words that they choose.
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
When an industry preys on children and women for the express purpose of satifying a sexual lust or worse, that industry is an evil.
Agreed; and it will occur in ANY unregulated industry: Sweat Shops.
So, instead of making socks illegal; the govmt upped its regulations on humane, fair and legal trade practices to stop child labor. This industry did the things you mentioned; they even removed womens privates bc the peddling associated with sewing caused orgasms and slowed work.
By your absolute logic, the sock industry is immoral and should have been shut down en todo.
The porn industry is one of the MOST reliable self-regulating industries out there - showing that they have the capability that most other industries have yet to find reasonable. They therefore are extreemly sticked in verifying under-age and disease prone (needle using) people as not applicable.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
Gee Suzan, I can say unequivocally that I have never, ever purchased porn that degraded women in any way, shape, form or fashion. Also, I have no idea why you’re rambling on about disappearing children…no one thinks that CHILD pornography is good…we’re talking about a legitimate, regulated industry.
JBM, please don’t take this personally, but I think you are being incredibly naive. You don’t think that when people tell you you’re being sinful (especially where sexuality is concerned) they aren’t really saying “you’re going to hell?”
I’m sorry, but that’s EXACTLY what they’re saying…sometimes it’s actually written on their signs “You’re going to burn in Hell”. You’re a good-hearted individual, but maybe you need a little dash of cynicism.
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
sticked = stricked
By The72John
January 18, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
stricked = strict
By Archie
January 18, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
“really couldn’t care less if someone considers my actions sinful, as long as they don’t insult me or try to control me in the process. Archie has his beliefs, and as long as he doesn’t press them on me, it’s just another voice in the crowd.”
Brian that’s the right attitude to have.
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
Thanks;)
By Archie
January 18, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
“About the sin thing… I happen to think that smoking crack is sinful. I could list all the reasons I hold this belief, but it’s irrelevant. I hate crack, and I hate what it does to people, but I love the human being/person/spirit that is embodied by a crackhead. That means that I hate the sin and love the sinner. Because, in my opinion smoking crack is sinful.”
I agree with the aforementioned statement JBM.
By SUZAN
January 18, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Look this industry may be well regulated on the top side, but Child porn and adult porn are really not that far apart. If people think that one hand does not rub the other they are just fooling themselves. and Yes I do believe that men get victimized in this industry as well.
Not one if these sites connected to ANY RELIGOUS SITE, there are university studies, and news reports about the wonderful world of pornography and the people who veiw it on a regular please skim over a few of the following:
Dr. Ruth Westheimer and the Decline of American Society One of the cleverest generals in the modern war against the decency has been Dr. Ruth Westheimer, the venerable venereal veteran who could be described as a dirty old man in a wealthy old woman’s body. When dirty old men like Hugh Hefner preach the gospel of unrestrained lust or the pursuit of personal pleasure as the primary objective of life, it is easy for many people to smell a little stench in their act. But Dr. Ruth, a short little grandmother with a cheerful cackle, gets past many defenses and disarms her targets with charm. Who could be completely cynical about a kindly old lady telling us to do whatever felt good? She was a recognized expert, so sincere, so warm, so charming—maybe she was right? In 1987, before I knew much about her, I stumbled across one of her TV shows one day while I was ill. I came away more ill than before. She was interviewing a woman director from the porn industry. I hope you don’t know much about the porn industry, but a great deal of documentation was obtained during the Reagan years when enforcement of Federal obscenity laws still meant something to the Justice Department (since then, the Federal Government has almost seemed more interested in funding obscenity than restraining it). The report of the Meese Commission, which I read (a painful and disturbing read—something almost nobody did, especially the media forces who repeatedly denounced it), provided extensive documentation about the ties of the Mafia and other criminal elements to the porn industry. It documented the destruction of human lives that takes place in this revolting industry, where a woman or man is little more than a mass of flesh to be used up and spit out. Who can deny the corruption and filth of that genre? But while interviewing the porn director, Dr. Ruth was oozing with approval, sending the message that pornographic films are healthy and good. Her guest explained her career path, beginning as an “actress” (i.e., prostitute paid by the act) and then advancing to become a director: “At first I was suspicious of the industry,” she began, “but when I saw what a legitimate industry it was, and how everybody worked together like a big family, I was really impressed.”
Dr. Ruth nodded approvingly as her guest continued offered such blatant propaganda. One big happy family? If animals who are sliced up into slabs of flesh are somehow “family” to the butcher, then I guess the porn barons and their “stars” are one big family after all, but the human subjects who are repeatedly degraded and sexually abused can hardly be called happy. They are slabs of flesh who are paid by the sex act, not for their acting.
The industry is utterly illegitimate, dominated by organized crime, filled with violence and disease. They provide misinformation and enticement that threatens the stability and health of our society. They wear down our sense of right and wrong, dulling our ability to see each other as humans and not mere bodies to be consumed for personal pleasure. Their products destroy families, promote child abuse and the degradation of both men and women. And Dr. Ruth could only smile and approve. This was part of her financial base. The sexual degradation of the West made her wealthy, and she wasn’t going to let truth or principle get in the way of cash flow.
The effects of the porn industry, far more pervasive and harmful than second-hand smoke, cannot be escaped by simply changing the channel. Changing the channel does not protect your child from the sex addict around the corner. Changing the channel in your home does not protect your college student from the influence of dozens of others who know no restraint. (Tip: at all costs, keep your family and friends away from Oberlin College in Ohio, where the leaders of that morally sick school openly encourage promiscuous behavior among the students.)
Even those who diligently wish to change the channel and do all they can to avoid filth will inevitable be exposed to shocking and disturbing images during the course of their life that they should not have to face. We are a society that has lost it sense of responsibility. Those without shame have shamed the rest of us into silent submission. It’s time for the silence to end.
Men and women everywhere must speak out against pornography and the flood of indecency. The silence of good people emboldens the vile, and strengthens their ability to get away with their sham of making decent people look like the bad guys.
Real men don’t do porn. Real women don’t do porn. Real men and real women need to speak out and condemn those who want our consciences turned off so they can profit from the decline of America. Shame on those who pull others into the trap of pornography. And Dr. Ruth, shame on you, for your terrible contribution to the decline of America.
http://www.hackwriters.com/compulsion.htm Just a john? Pornography and men’s choices by Robert Jensen
[Talk delivered to the Second Annual Conference on the College Male, Saint John’s University, Collegeville, MN, February 26, 2005. This version reflects changes based on comments of conference participants.]
There has been much talk at this conference about the need for men to love each other and be willing to speak openly about that love. That is important; we need to be able to get beyond the all-too-common male tendency to mute or deform our emotions, a tendency that is destructive not only to ourselves but to those around us. Many this weekend have spoken about our need to nurture each other, and that’s important, too. But it’s also crucial to remember that loving one another means challenging ourselves as well.
That’s what I would like to do today, to challenge us—in harsh language—on men’s use of pornography. In an unjust world, those of us with privilege must be harsh on ourselves, out of love.
This challenge is: Can we be more than just johns?
Let me start with a story that a female student at the University of Texas told me. She was riding from Austin to Dallas for a football game on a bus chartered by a fraternity, on which many of the passengers were women. During the trip, someone put into the bus‚ VCR a sexually explicit video. Uncomfortable with those hardcore sexual images of women being used by men, the female student began a discussion with the people around her about it, and one of the men on the bus agreed that it was inappropriate. He stood up and said to the other men, “You all know me and know I like porno as much as the next guy, but it’s not right for us to play this tape when there are women on the bus.”
No doubt it took some courage for that young man to confront his fraternity brothers on the issue, and we should honor that. But we should recognize that his statement also communicated to his fraternity brothers that he was one of them—“one of the guys”—who, being guys, naturally like pornography. His objection was not to pornography and men’s routine purchase and use of women’s bodies for sexual pleasure but to the viewing of it with women present. He was making it clear that his ultimate loyalty was to men and their right to use women sexually, though that use should conform to some type of code of chivalry about being polite about it in mixed company.
In doing that, he was announcing his own position in regard to sex. He was saying: I’m just a john.Online Porn Industry Fighting Child Protection Law in Utah State law in Utah designed to protect children from receiving pornographic e-mails is facing a legal attack from a group that lobbies for pornographic and “adult businesses.” Distribution Source : ArriveNet
Date : Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Utah — (ArriveNet - Dec 14, 2005) — A state law in Utah designed to protect children from receiving pornographic e-mails is facing a legal attack from a group that lobbies for pornographic and “adult businesses.”In many cases those who have found themselves indulging in self pleasure with the usage of fantasy, porn related viewing, or objectification, have more often than not become affected by these desires which can manifest itself later.
Desensitization is a common and highly ranked symptom of having a sexual compulsive addiction. It takes away your ability to decipher fact from fiction, reality vs fantasy. It also hinders your ability for a normal relationship where you interact with others of the same sex, and opposite sex; limiting your views and values you once had, interchanging them to what now is considered “acceptable� by the porn industry.
Taking what is considered normal by the single life of self-pleasure and intertwine this with a new relationship, your current or new job, and see how it impacts on your ability to concentrate on your work or relationship issues. Some have become affected by their continual need to see, view, indulge in a near perfect environment of what the porn industry has to offer, in a world of plastic surgery, and breast implants, and a wonderful airbrush quality to enhance further perfection. Their values and morals have now been affected by their need or subconcious need to see or experience sexual implications in every aspect of life and interaction they may encounter. They are on their way to becoming dependant on objectifying a person’s body or parts. Increasing the need for more of this to continue onward for more extreme pleasure and increasing yet again, their level of what is now attached to an urge; combined with a desire for the untouchable viewing.
This leaves them with a outstandingly vulnerable state of lack of reality. Engrossing oneself in a world of perfection, which in our world simply does not exist can leaving people with relationship problems stemming from their inability to understand emotions and proper feelings. Judging what is right from wrong becomes problematic. Further hindering oneself from a normal relationship where a normal person can never live up to the perfect images you have placed in your mind. The perfect girl…… The perfect guy. Neither exist, unless one accepts that the perfect spouse is the one who loves you and accepts you without your being perfect and all your faults that come along with your package! That IS the perfect person.
Addiction harms more than just the user, it corrupts their self-image, their accountability as a trusting person in a relationship where hiding secrets from a spouse about addiction is common. It affects their judgment in person to person encounters. And it also harms family, job, spouse and children. Just as the old saying goes “what they don’t know won’t hurt them� this topic is proven to be dead wrong. Those that do not know still suffer the MANY problems and issues that follow from addiction, ven if indirectly by those around you in their performance, emotions, the way they deal with stress and anger.
What you don’t tell us, we already know….. We just did not know the word for it until now.
© Laura A Morgan Jan 2004 laura@themorgansplace.com More Lifestyles and Comment
Home
© Hackwriters 2000-2005 all rights reserved
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
John, I won’t take that personally, as long as you promise not to take it personally when I tell you that you take too much way too personally. :-)
Even if people do think that I’m going to hell because of my “sin,” as Brian Curtis said in his 2:48, they’re just a voice in the crowd. (That was a really good post, btw BC) Why would a person’s opinion of me and my life offend me? We’re not talking about your mother, or your pastor, or your Christian ex-best friend… we’re talking about a fellow blogger, who has the right to express his opinion whether it is the popular one or not - even if it hurts somebody’s feelings. This isn’t someone whose opinion you value highly or hold in high regard. I really doubt he’s out to get you. You speak as though you believe that everyone is against you because you’re gay. I hope this doesn’t cause offense, but often times you bring me to mind of the black people my parents warned me about. The ones who think that everyone is out to get them because of their color… or that they’ll never get ahead without a fight because of their color… It’s almost like you’re looking for a fight.
And, for the record, you’re about the 2,839th person to tell me I’m naive, so that wasn’t a shocker, nor was it offensive! LOL!
By Boscoe
January 18, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Sorry, Renee, but MacDonald’s provides jobs for society, that’s a benefit. Something either provides a benefit or it doesn’t. There is no neutral. Dr Feel Good,There are many couples in this world, straight and gay, that enjoy porn films together, and watch them to enhance their sex lives…NOTE..I said enhance, not replace. And these couples don’t become addicted, or become molesters, or become rapists. Pornography when viewed by intelligent, emotionally stable adults can bring new scenarios and emotions into the bedroom, which can make for a richer sex life for couples. Of course this can only happen for adults that see sex as something to be celebrated and enjoyed (among monogamous couples) and not something that is dirty and only exists for the sake of procreation. I wonder how many of these couples who enjoyed it in moderation as John72 suggested ended up in divorce because porn just didn’t cut it after awhile and there was a need to move to a new level. Why would they need porn anyway if their intellegent, normal healthy people in normal, healthy relationships? FatMoose,Any increase in honesty regarding humans and what we are about benefits us. It also removes the shame and lowered self esteem which is derived from thinking you are odd - something the church does to people regularly. How does a woman getting plugged by three or more men or women in a feature length porn film improve YOUR self esteem? Many of the girls that wind up as strippers and porn stars are there because of low self esteem. What kind of logic is that? The church doesn’t tell you your odd because you like sex you nitwit.
By Chilao
January 18, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
Sounds like a good argument to get rid of the shipping industry, after all it kinda dirty and rough and controlled by the Mafia. Time to boycott and shut down the ports of Newark, LongBeach, etc. No more cheap goods from China, that’s for sure. Goods will be alot more expensive sent air-freight. LOL
plus I think sometimes the longshoremen hire prostitutes. gasp
By Jack
January 18, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
Susan. The guy on the bus did the right thing and you turned it around to make him out as scum. I guess it would have been better for him to leave the tape in and try to get some of the females on the bus to partake in carnal fun? Mercy.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Suzan, you cut-and-pasted a bunch of opinion papers that prove nothing more than that there are other people out there who don’t like porn.
What’s more, you’ve done nothing more than say that child porn HAS to be linked with regular porn, without anything other than your own hysterical assumptions as evidence.
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
The posting of such large amounts of bs; without having anything to say for yourself is really annoying.
You chose not to address any of the posts directed to you; which provided valid counterpoints to your “points.” Which, usually means you have none or cannot express them intelligently.
Too bad; bc no one here is against a healthy intelligent debate; but most of us see the uselessness in jumping in here and posting your absolutes just to regurgitate an article in full - or tons of bible passages.
And your blind association bw porn and child porn is laughable.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Yeah, I’m thinking the guy on the bus did the right thing too…
By Renee
January 18, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
All this makes me want to go home and watch porn LOL
By The72John
January 18, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
It’s called having a chip on one’s shoulder, JBM, as Jack has kindly pointed out more than once. And I’ve got a big one, I’m aware.
By Chilao
January 18, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
The guy on the bus did the right thing because the women did not want to be viewing the porn and they had that right.
30 percent of Puritan brides, late 1600/s, were pregnant at the time of marriage. Wonder what they were using for porn back then?
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
How does a woman getting plugged by three or more men or women in a feature length porn film improve YOUR self esteem?
The point is it does not LOWER my self esteem; and if (and there are many cases here) it does not lower hers - have at it.
Now, if she is in it bc of low self esteem; I agree that she should change industries. But at that point, she is doing it to herself out of HER choices - the same goes for a used car salesman. If seeing someone pay $200 more for a car than the previous guy effects their self esteem; they should change industries - but do not blame the industry.
The church doesn’t tell you your odd because you like sex you nitwit.
Not totally true. They teach that it is only ok in the ways and situation that they describe as appropriate. There are many teachings about what they want to refer as sinful - good old masturbation for instance. Have you seen the devices that they would apply to churchmen to refrain from having an erection? Could go on - but it is useless.
As for name calling; that is just plain 7th grade.
By SUZAN
January 18, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
Oh good grief. I am no youngster for sure, and I have lived a life that is full, rich are quite exciting and been to places that many here will never see I have known many people from a lot of different facets of life. I do have an occasional drink or two or three…. and yes I have seen a lot that I wished I had never seen in my life. My views about life are based on expeireinces that some of you could not even understand. What I thought I knew in my youth just turned out to be very different from the truth. It may take a few years for you to get there, and sone of you will. Others will never see the real world with the good and the bad in clear view. I do know this this society is declining, crime is up, white collar crime is up, murder up, theft up, prstitution up, economy down, Just look at our own congress. If you dont believe that all of this has a direct effect on our society and it’s decline, well your blind. I understand that this is a free society and it comes with all of it’s freedoms and foibles. However, if any of you here care to follow history will will see that like so many other civilizations when we begin to declin in morality as they did we will soon follow in the same path they did, our own destruction. just a thought from a religous nut
By mit
January 18, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
you make sense, just not good arguments.
oh, and what about the garbage collection industry?
now you have to stop watching all tv and movies.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Suzan has moved into Self-Righteousness: Phase Two, a.k.a. “I’m right and your wrong, and I know this because I’m older, and one day you’ll know it, too”.
Yawn.
By SUZAN
January 18, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
jack that was not my quote it came from : Talk delivered to the Second Annual Conference on the College Male, Saint John’s University, Collegeville, MN, February 26, 2005. This version reflects changes based on comments of conference participants.]
By SUZAN
January 18, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
you know john you really take a whole lot of this quie pesonally. Im begging to wonder if you dont have a few self esteem problems yourself. Maybe a little guilt cmplex thrown in along with a good does of self loathing and cynicism
By The72John
January 18, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
For the record, St. John’s University appears to be one half of a segregated undergraduate pair of schools - one all female, and the other all male. Both are conservative, Benedictine, Catholic colleges. Hardly a non-religious source.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
Suzan, I just hate people like you, who think they can tell everyone else what is absolutely right and absolutely wrong. You are representative of what is most wrong with this world.
By mit
January 18, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
suzan, what civilizations are you talking about?
I know of no civilization that was wiped off the map because of decline in values (or whatever word you want to use). Civilizations disappear based on bad decisions made by those in power(economy), war, or weather(economy too). I am sure there are other causes but none of which invovle what peoples of a society do at home, or on the bus.
By Brian Curtis
January 18, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
Suzan, now you’re cutting and pasting articles as if they contained facts, rather than simply collected opinions. The column on Dr. Ruth is a good example; it starts out with the assumption that OF COURSE anything connected to porn is sick and wrong, and then relates a meaningless anecdote to come to that same conclusion: that OF COURSE porn is sick and wrong.
That may or may not be a valid position, but the article does nothing to support it… it only takes a number of cheap shots that reveal the biased, hateful attitude of the writer (“the war against decency,� comparing the film industry to a butcher shop, “blatant propaganda,� etc.).
It makes claims that are patently untrue—dominated by organized crime, filled with violence and disease, and so on. In other words, it does what you’ve been doing: take a few extreme crimes by loons to condemn the entirety of sane, healthy people (porn has one of the most careful health records of any industry).
It says the Meese Report documented porn’s “destruction of human lives�—except it failed to do that, and only made its (broad, sweeping, and unsupported) conclusions by ignoring its own findings. This was a partisan effort with a foregone conclusion: the exact OPPOSITE of reasoned research and logical conclusions.
The St. John’s University lecture is similarly full of personal anecdotes and personal opinion-—which, interesting though they are, don’t actually prove anything. And the lengthy description of the “harm porn does to your mind� is simply a connected series of assumptions, again without any research or evidence to back up the claims. Anybody can string sentences together; that’s what makes philosophy so much more fun than legitimate work. But it doesn’t prove anything, or convince anybody, without external evidence to support it.
I can see that you’re impatient with having to actually support your claims, but I’m afraid just showing up and saying, “It’s EVIL and everybody KNOWS it� isn’t a very convincing argument. Neither is quoting other people who say essentially the same thing, and who can’t be bothered with providing any basis to support what they say.
(Everybody: Sorry I’ve been so long-winded lately; I’ll try to cut back.)
By The72John
January 18, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
I’m sure she thinks that God causes the weather and other bad things to happen BECAUSE of the “immorality” of the people.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
Susan. it is quite obvious that society is on the decline. My grandparents said it, my parents said it and I say it to my children. We just need to live and let live. We will all see what God has in store for us.
By SUZAN
January 18, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this
john pleasssse look in the mirror, you believe your opinion is the only one thats real.. Mit you need to study a little more. take a look at Rome, Take a look at Sparta, take look at Athens. When these civilizations began to lose the moral base they were built on bad decision began to be made. goverments became corupt and ultimately fell.
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
Suzan,
Can you understand, given you have had a rich life of many experiences, that spreading shame - even if you are right in a case - serves no positive purpose?
Example: The husband/mother/etc that calls another fat-a$$ or even just sneers bc of a weight problem adds to the persons problems. Even if the problem is totally the persons responsibility, and created out of low-esteem/OCD/depression and threatens their life; applying shame only compounds the issue.
So, because there is no healthier choice, one should refrain from spreading shame - otherwise, right or wrong in their view - they are hurting another further by lowering that persons esteem.
You seem to have no bones about operating with those hurtful tactics in place.
This is the root of all evil IMO. For then the person feels that their is no one to talk to or confide in; leaving them alone to find their way - which THAT often times leads us to bad decisions, seeing as we do not know everything.
Too bad you have not learned that in all your years.
By Archie
January 18, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this
I would like the bloggers to answer this question. Should a man or woman be locked up and put on tv,etc for participating in prostitution? Any opinion is okay. I repeat any opinion is okay. I am just the guy asking question. Another question is this — would making all porn where you know someone gets paid illegal do away with hypocrisy? I can’t stay on to see the answers but I will check on this tommorrow.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
Actually, Suzan, while I may argue loudly on this ‘blog, I believe that everyone has the right to live his or her life as they see fit. You, on the other hand, are unable to do anything, on any topic, but make simple declarative sentences on the absolute rightness of your position. Whether it be abortion or sexual behavior, it’s your way or the highway.
By mit
January 18, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
yeah, i figured she would ramble off the cities of sodom and that other one i can’t spell right (gamore). Two cities do not make a civilization though. she will have to do better than that.
b curtis, philosophy is cool that way. use as many sentences as you want (infinite) but they are useless without support.
if the sky is blue, then grass is red. true or false?
By lozen
January 18, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
I just have to share this thing I read in Christifidelis, a catholic blog for the “christian faithful.” If Europeans don’t have enough children (which they aren’t), and Americans don’t have enough children (definitely getting there), then who is going to immigrate? More than likely the Muslims, who don’t believe in contraception. Wouldn’t it be ironic if they ended up conquering us by immigration because we believed in contraception. It’s not hard to see the contraception is a recipe for racial suicide. The race that contracepts will always lose out in the long run against the race that is fertile. As they say, survival of the fittest. You’d think these brainy intellectual Darwinists would figure that out. And all this time I didn’t realize Muslims were a different race than Europeans and Americans!
By Jack
January 18, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Remember Lott’s wife. Please pass the salt.
By John
January 18, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
With regard to the question of whether or not pornography should be taught in the classroom, I’m curious to know what kind of homework is assigned in these classes. Furthermore, how are the quizzes and exams administered? And the piece to resistance - How does a student receive “extra-credit” in a pornography course?
I’m especially interested in finding out if these courses actually have “field-trips” to various studios (or hotel rooms) where porn is filmed. Not to mention - Are students assigned partners for special projects during the semester?
Not to be overly punny but, this is, obviously a “touchy” subject. And it most certainly will get a “rise” out of alot of people.
By SUZAN
January 18, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
I don not believe that I can tell anyone what to do. I just hav my opinions. and you have yours. I believe as you do that my are correct. Each and everyone of you here who pint a finger at me and say I am one sided are yourself indeed one sided. Yes I have very strong beliefs, based on my life experience and I do believe that perhaps we have lost a little too much shame and that is why there is so much crime, etc… The things I have seen and will continue to see will not suprise me or shock me they just are. But I hope in your near sited way(hhm Im gonna get it on this one) that perhaps you can see you are no different from me in you obvious obstance ( of which I am also guilty). One thing I do see is that you throw rocks and stones and try and make it out that you are just so accepting of other peoples opinions. That is so far from the truth, John, Mit, Brian, Fats, did I miss anyone. I will tell you this, my opinions are just that and they are just as valued by some as yours. At least I have the courage to speak my mind and not let people try and beat me down and shut me up.
By mit
January 18, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
rome, athens, sparta? you need to study.
None of these cities had a “moral base” because there was no such thing. “moral base”; how do you define that? And what do you think Rome’s “moral base” was?
These places met their end through war with each other and outlying peoples (goths, etc) and by decisions made by those in power. not because of what the people did or didn’t do in their lives or homes.
take a critical thinking class while your at it with history classes. maybe then you will be able to make a good argument.
By lozen
January 18, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
Also the simplistic thinking of religious zealots who just believe what some preacher told them, “Rome fell because the morals of the people declined.” Suzan, it’s a lot more complicated than that.
By Jack
January 18, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
We love you Susan. We want your opinion, just don’t like those that cut and paste.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
That was funny, John from Alpharetta.
Suzan I don’t think anyone was trying to beat you down. I think they were simply asking you to explain and justify some of your assertions. You made quite a few unfounded claims, but seemed to ignore the questions asking you to back them up.
An easy example is when you said that “everyone knows” that porn is evil…
By SUZAN
January 18, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
Futher more I would love to see what studies(one sided im sure) ya’ll can produce to justify that porn is just a simple little past time and has no long term effects on people or society
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Each and everyone of you here who pint a finger at me and say I am one sided are yourself indeed one sided.
No, many of us have multi-layered beliefs. For example, see my working definition of sin and how it is NOT black/white.
Some, I agree, are as one-sided as you - but not all of us. And there are many that see the “holes” in our current system and come her to kick them around to find better solutions.
My main objective in this world is not to solidify my beliefs into perminent moral structures; but to find truth. And in order to do that I MUST set aside what I would like to believe as fact. Religion does not allow that to occur - hence the dislike towards your tactics.
I, at least, am not like you - I have dynamic system that I know can only be as accurate as I am HONEST, But honesty is not the purpose of religion.
By mit
January 18, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
suzan, no one is trying to beat you down with their opinions but you state your opinions as fact without the support therefore you have a bad argument.
just like the rome thing. you state rome fell because the people of rome lacked morals and therefore america will fall. this is can not be true because the first part is not true, therefore the second part can’t be true. the only time I will be accepting of someone else’s opinion is if it can be backed up with support/evidence. yours can not so i will shoot them down.
By SUZAN
January 18, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
Okay, I ask you Just, tell me what is good sbout porn, tell me what benifit porn serves, tell me no one is hurt by porn, show me the error of my ways. If porn is such a great benifit then tell me what is really good about it. How can it help and add to a society. Is it good for marriages, show me. Is it good for children ,why or why not. Does it give the person in the film a sense of purpose and real success. Is it acceptable in all levels of society. Does it produce good moral character. Just what does it do that makes it something not loathsome
By mit
January 18, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
suzan, no studies exist in what you request because all choices, basically everything, effects people and society, good ways and bad ways.
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this
Suzan, This is a repost of my answer to the same question yesterday:
Perhaps you could explain exactly what good porn provides for society.
Any increase in honesty regarding humans and what we are about benefits us. It also removes the shame and lowered self esteem which is derived from thinking you are odd - something the church does to people regularly. It also takes porn/sex out of the dark ally; and into a regulated venue - ensuring (more-so) that the illegal activity does not occur or get furthered.
How DOES porn benifit society exactly?
One is more confident in themself and having a relationship based on who they are without having the need of secrets.
Also; When one finds his son or daughter playing with themselves (or playing doctor…etc); they are more apt to act and not react out of shame. One can honestly explain that everyone likes sex and those feelings in a manner that is open and honest without worry that their child would say something “inappropriate� in public and adopt a shamefull feeling associated with their sexuality. It would not be a “dirty secret� that everyone knows; but is still insanely hidden - thereby indicating to a child that they cannot use mom/dad as a resource for questions.
But until ADULTS can confront their sexuality, there is little hope of them confronting their childs (or their own) emerging sexuality in ANY healthy way - therefore continuing the cycle of guilt and denial of the simple fact that we ARE sexual beings.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
Suzan, you made the comment. You have the burden of proof, not us.
By SUZAN
January 18, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
exactly what I expected, nothing but your opinions.
By Randy
January 18, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
I don’t know how women view porn, but when men view it, they see women as objects. I don’t see how that is beneficial to society. Do you women want to be see as sexual objects only???
By FatMoose
January 18, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
Susan,
If it is YOU that is seeking the truth on this topic; why dont you look up some studies?
Or pick up the book “Women on top.”
If nothing else; to make sure you do have your pointy finger in the right direction. Cause if it is not; there are better uses for it…some prefer two though; grin.
By Just Being Me
January 18, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
Suzan, are you kidding me? You make a point (which you claim to be fact, not opinion). You’re asked to back that point up. As a response to that request, you pose a series of questions, which when answered you assert were opinion-based????????
You gotta be kidding me.
By SUZAN
January 18, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
Just, Im asking a question of everyone here who seems to know! that I am wrong, okay show me how I am wrong is it that you now cant answer that question. I still stand by my opinions right or wrong but I can produce studies by universities and leading psychatrist that would back me up in my opinions, hey and they wont be religious Im just asking the same. it seem that some here think I have no merrit in what I believe. Well, my opinion is also the opinion of many people in many areas of society. So I ask again can you show me that porn is not and evil
By Randy
January 18, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
See how evil natured humans beings are, without the influence of Jesus, our nature is to go toward the dark. Like in Sodom and Gomorrah, raping, let us know your daughters(sexually) etc. Everyone should be able to see this tenancy and realize it’s not good, or Rome in the time of Caligula would have excelled, instead of imploding.
By The72John
January 18, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
You’re so right, Randy. Jesus could have prevented the fall of the Roman Empire.
Brilliant.
By Whiley
January 18, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
Porn is whack material. Period. Those who defend it are defending their right to whack to whatever strange image they want to, no matter who it hurts. What’s important to them is whack, not how it clearly negatively affects the females on this planet. Studying whack is not college material. If you are going to teach it, at least charge $3.99 per minute.
By Nikita
January 19, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this
A class could be built from the many aspects of porn, easily. Like, say, how is porn made? How does the industry affect other industries, and the people who are employed by it? What does porn say about our society, and other societies? Seems if it can be done, and the questions being raised are valid academic questions, then why not?
Suzan et el., I personally find porn distasteful. But I don’t really care if other people find it gratifying. No doubt it fulfills a variety of needs, positive or negative, in a large portion of the population. And despite all the grandstanding, I have yet to see any evidence that porn actually causes anything which is negative. Some people have demonstrated that porn obsession can be a trait of certain mental defects, but that’s the opposite of causing those defects. And if it occupies them, mitigating the external symptoms of their diseases (say, attacking children and women), then it’s a good thing.
By ben
January 19, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this
I’m going to keep buying and watching porn and there is nothing anyone here or anywhere else can do about it! HA HA.
By Randy
January 19, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this
Now you have heard from the 5 year old Ben.
By NamelessWoman
January 19, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
America has an attitude that Sex Is Bad; Violence Is Good as long as criminals get caught in 20 minutes.
Why is murder so acceptable and attractive in America? Last night the American TV cop shows had grizzly flashbacks depicting scenes of a woman in bondage and the criminal terrorizing victim as pretense to murdering her, the victim stayed clothed but there was detailed views of her captivity, her debasing, her struggle plus some blood and knife play to show sadism. Why is this OK? Acceptable American TV for broadcast?
My real question is why sex is so prevalent in American TV shows, music, advertising and culture but pornography and its enjoyment of sex is deemed as negative? Porn involves sex but in general XXX movies are not half as lurid or as woman-as-victim debasing and demoralizing as shown on television. Killing, torture and all the pretense to murder is ok after 9pm on tv but .7 seconds of a womans nipple calls for a constitutional amendment change… Ask anyone to compare Hollywood and Bollywood and you will find morality standards in other countries decry most of Americas movies as pornography.
A multi-cultural and historical study of what is pornography and why it has endured would be a fascinating course. Humans have had pornography since the stone age so think of how many deities there have been between then and now and guess which remains most consistent: porn. Did you know that the Crusaders on their marches to free Jerusalem from the Infidels had pornography and prostitutes with them? Some of the captured booty were sex manuscripts. One of the major causes of death in the American Civil War was syphilis from sex workers who followed the troops paid for (on both sides) to keep soldiers from abandoning? Pillow Books in Japan were deemed: Advice for the Young; Comfort for the Lonely….or use of tantric sex is considered a path to enlightenment? The course could be fascinating!
As for the negative portrayal of women in porn more often than not she is not victim but chooses her enjoyment in sex even if involved in darker BDSM fantasy. In America laws on prostitution makes women victims more than women in porn. When a john gets slapped with a $20 misdemeanor fine but a woman goes to prison it shows an unequal interpretation of same law, thus women are more victimized by pimps and johns in America than in countries where prostitutes pay taxes and have health standards. This is real victimization of women.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
That’s a good excuse for porn, “if it occupies them, mitigating the external symptoms of their diseases (say, attacking children and women), ” That’s just like validating prostitution by saying “it’s the oldest profession”. No it’s not, it’s the oldest form of SEXUAL ABUSE.”
By Renee
January 19, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
good comment nikita
By Barbara
January 19, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
Good comment Whiley!
By ben
January 19, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this
No Randy FYI I am a grown man over that age of 21. I was trying to prove a point that no matter what is said, done or felt by you bible thumpers here porn will always be enjoyed by consenting adults and I was also clowing some of the people here with there I am always right and you are always wrong my way or the highway attitude. 99.9999 percent of normal health adults enjoy sex. Believe it or not Randy your mother and father at one time had sex. Like it or not people sex will always be here in one form or another and if you think that outlawing porn will make it go away, think again. Outlawing porn will not end any types of rape and sexual abuse it will only make people go to the bootleggers who sell illegal movies or have people go to sites like Kazaa for downloads. Stay out of my bedroom and I will stay out of yours.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
NamelessWoman is exactly right. The practice of creating explicit, erotic imagery is as old as humanity. I don’t see how anyone can rationally suggest that it is not academicaly valid to study something that is so obviously basic to the human condition.
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
I would like to hear how the anti-porn folks on here would implement a ban:
Would that include couples that made videos for thier own entertainment?
Could these people then trade with others that had tapes?
Would this ban also include movies like Clockwork Orange/Angel Heart/Taxi?
If “valid movies” are not included, who decides this?
Can you fanatics see that you would be creating a dictatorship/theocracy that practices censorship? That would definitely make things worse.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this
Fanatics believe that censorship and theocracy is a good thing. I’m sure Randy would love to have everything that doesn’t gel with fundamentalist Christianity banned, and any practice with which he disagrees made illegal.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this
How on earth could porn be considered “sexual abuse” if it’s done by two (or three or four… lol) willing adult participants?
By Renee
January 19, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
Four??? wow, lol.
Actually, I think she was speaking of prostitution (which also consists of 2 or more willing participants).
By The72John
January 19, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Whiley believes that all women are happless victims of an evil male conspiracy set out to bully, abuse and subjugate them. Therefore, there can be no such thing as a willing female participant in either porn or prostitution - obviously all women who participate in such activities do so because they have been forced into it by an evil man.
By Jack
January 19, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
Like alcohol that the govt tried to make illegal, pornography is here to stay. Too many people enjoy it and IF it were made illegal, it would be impossible to enforce. Recreational drugs are illegal, look how many people are using. Add to the jail poulation those who use porn and we would have a big percentage of the country in jail. Go Team.
By Renee
January 19, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
or an evil woman lol
By The72John
January 19, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Nope - all women are victims, therefore they can’t be evil. It’s always a man’s fault.
By Jack
January 19, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
I think that if my child wanted to take this course in college, they would pay for it. Not I.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
Yeah, you’re right, Renee. I just re-read it… my question still applies, though. Like you said, prostitution still consists of # willing participants.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
I’m not even going to try to defend why prostitution & pornography is the oldest form of sexual abuse. I shouldn’t have to. All you people know it is & why, stop defending it like it’s so fantastic & wonderful. All you care about is your freedom to whack to whatever you want.
And all of you KNOW there is a HUGE difference between erotica porn & downright nasty shocking porn. You know it, I know it & everyone else knows it. And do not tell me the young women in porn like it. Do not try to convince me they come from good backgrounds, free from abuse, neglect, poverty & drug abuse. Do not try to convince me a young woman of 18 enjoys getting gang raped by 4 ugly balding men on camera. I won’t go into details what is nasty porn & what is acceptable. You already know the difference don’t act like you don’t. Anyway I won’t go into details because some of you freaks will get too aroused.
Porn classes in college are a bad idea. It doesn’t take a whole semester of it to learn there are a lot of sexual disgusting people out there that get excited whacking to disturbing degrading images of young girls.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this
Of course Whiley - why try to defend your position when you can just make blanket statements like “You know it, and I know it”.
Are you and Suzan related?
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
Whiley,
Psychosis has arrived to entertain;)
The pills! Do not forget to take the pills!!!
See, everyone has the same tastes! We all have the same reactions to the same things as whiley/suzan/zack/randy. They are what we should measure all of society by!
You know that IS what you are avocating, right guys/girls? That everyone else feels the same about a subject as you do; and that we all deny that we think/feel just as you do!
Can you even partially recognise that your basis for arguement is extreemly offesive: I know you better than you.
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this
Whiley believes that all women are happless victims of an evil male conspiracy set out to bully, abuse and subjugate them. Therefore, there can be no such thing as a willing female participant in either porn or prostitution - obviously all women who participate in such activities do so because they have been forced into it by an evil man.
why limit it to whiley? that description probably works on almost half the women on the blog, unfortunately, and actually describes a few brainwashed men. sigh.
By Renee
January 19, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
what about a woman on tape having sex with 4 other women, or a man on tape having sex with 4 other men, or a man on tape having sex with 4 other women. I’m not an afficianado on porn, but I’ve never seen a rape scene, and I wouldn’t find a taped rape scene to be porn. It would be a rape scene on tape, and should be submitted to the authorities. While I’m sure there are women in this professsion that have been abused etc…, this holds true for any profession. And just like any profession there are women and men that like it (I can guarantee more like it than not). Contrary to popular belief there’s not some seedy man riding up and down the street in a limo, grabbing women at gunpoint forcing them to these sexual acts on tape, while shoving needles in their arms and blowing crack smoke in their face. These are adults who choose a profession, something that they are good at. Using their talents the only way they know how.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
Well said, Renee.
By SUZAN
January 19, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
I dont really care what you watch or why. I just dont want any of my tax dollars going to fund andything connected to porn
By Chilao
January 19, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Feds after google search data for porn-related searches:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/13657303.htm
By Jack
January 19, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Whiley should not be lumped in with Susan, Randy or Zack. Their arguements are religious, her’s is not.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
And I don’t want my tax dollars going to build newer and better nuclear missles, but they are. I don’t want my tax dollars going to pay for church ministries that preach anti-gay rhetoric, but they are now. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and deal.
And frankly, you ought to realize that PRIVATE colleges and universities aren’t using “your” tax dollars.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
Suzan, you’re being very ugly, and your debating skills suck.
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
suzan, i don’t want my tax dollars paying for your retirement, or your medical prescriptions. oh, wait…
and aren’t most of the schools that have these classes, private? they aren’t even using your tax dollars.
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
I dont really care what you watch or why.
You also do not see to give a $hit about being honest regarding the true nature of humans. We are sexual beings - whether anyone likes it or not. And you should be even more concerned with the truth of humans if you feel we should change or evolve from where we are: No change comes from denying where one is. For movement takes two coordinates, where one is and where one wants to be.
So, even to further your dream of what you feel a human should be; you would have to first recognize where we are - which you adamantly refuse.
I just dont want any of my tax dollars going to fund andything connected to porn
And another moot point to boot. I may not want my dollars to fund all sorts of classes; but I know my opinion is not the end-all be-all.
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
i guess i should have just waited a minute and copied john’s post.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
LOL Blabla
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
Jack,
I know you have some bond with whiley; but Their arguements are religious, her’s is not is incorrect. Hers is just as black/white as a religious arguement and fueled by the same ignorance and reactions.
Although whileys beliefs do not fall under a known heading of “baptist” or such; it follows the exact same schema and IS actually the same.
Why do you find her appealing given the obvious insanity she posesses?
I do not get it: You hush others when they are being outlandish and offensive; but whiley has some odd special place in your heart. Bless you for your charity;)
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
Renee, BlaBla & Fatmoose are terrified one day there won’t be hard core porn to whack to. Hey, if you like seeing young girls being urinated on while given a shower of sperm by a group of men old enough to be her grandfather, that’s your sick deal. I’m absolutely sure our founding fathers were thinking of “bad schoolgirl gang bang 2005” when they wrote the constitution.
And yes I do think a lot of women are forced or coerced into that garbage by men. I’m sorry if you still want to deny that. I also believe women get into the sex industry because they are unable to support themselves and/or their drug habits. Yet, a sickning amount of men don’t care, all they want is sick sexual satisfaction. How nice. (oh my I’m male bashing again ! I forgot the don’t ask don’t tell policy)
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
we didn’t really take the hint from shaunti & diane that we should switch topics over to american idol, did we?
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
Just Being Me, my debating skills also suck lol. And since when have I ever said anything about being religious? Since when is hating hard core disturbing porn a religious thing?
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
yup, whiley, you described my position precisely. go ahead, keep blaming everything in the world on men.
By Stan
January 19, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
As someone who used to watch this stuff I can say that you do get driven into harder and harder stuff. it does affect how you view women and your thoughts. people can be addicted to sex just like drugs.
By Renee
January 19, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
Well, first of all I don’t “whack”. I am yet to see a movie of young girls being urinated on while given a shower of sperm by a group of old men (that’s really a lot going on). You said two things in your statement “I think” and “I believe”. Just because you think, and you believe doesn’t make it so. So do you believe that the men who get into the industry are drug using, supporting their habit victims. If you are against porn, ok that’s one thing, but you seem to be against the fact that women are in porn. Men are in porn too (oh I forgot, they are forcing the women). So the gay men??? Are they queens forced by the limo driving pimp also??? What about the lesbian porn (maybe there is an old limo driving woman picking these women up at gunpoint).
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
my debating skills also suck
As do your conversation skills in general, and your reading comprehension skills, and your ability to be honest skills, and your critical thinking skills…
By Archie
January 19, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
“people can be addicted to sex just like drugs.”
This is a true statement Stan and just like any addiction it can be aggravating. Gospel singer Kirk Franklin recently revealed he was addicted to porn for 20 years. He said would feel bad after viewing it but go right back and do it again. Sex addiction is nothing to play with and I think that’s a study course on porn from an intellectual point of view maybe worthwhile. I think like Renee that some women want to do what they do in the porn industry and I don’t think consenting adults should go to jail for having sex even if money is involved. I would like to get a viewpoint on that.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
“As do your conversation skills in general, and your reading comprehension skills, and your ability to be honest skills, and your critical thinking skills…”
Oh go whack yourself. You know I’m right & that p** you off.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
BlaBla I don’t blame men for all the evils in the world, just 90% of it.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
I think it’s so sweet Renee acts like nasty hard core porn isn’t common. What does that say about the men who enjoy watching it? What does that say about the women who participate? There is a tiny percentage of women in this world who participate, but billions of men who pay for it. That is disturbing & one of the reasons I only trust gay men. lol
By Jack
January 19, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
” know you have some bond with whiley; but Their arguements are religious, her’s is not is incorrect. Hers is just as black/white as a religious arguement and fueled by the same ignorance and reactions.”
I happen to like Whiley. I like Kimberly too. Her arguement is NOT religious. You are incorrect. Just because something is black and white doesn’t make it religious now does it?
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Oh go whack yourself. You know I’m right & that p* you off.*
I really doubt you are over 16yo after all the 7th grade comments we have heard from you. That would explain a lot about your lack of any evident skills {is that some mans fault too?}. And as for skills - the only ones you have ever mentioned are: still looking hot at 65yo or so; and having big hair…
By Renee
January 19, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
I wouldn’t know how common “nasty, hardcore porn” is. Only someone who divulges in, or is in that life would know (you seem to have a lot of knowledge, including graphic movie scenes and information on the watching audience). But you haven’t answered my question, what about the men, including the gay men (who you have a lot of trust in), who are into porn?? Do you think gay porn is a small percentage of what the “billions of men” pay for. Either you have a lot of first hand knowledge of the porn industry, or you make a lot of assumptions based upon what you believe to be true.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Just Being Me, my debating skills also suck lol. And since when have I ever said anything about being religious? Since when is hating hard core disturbing porn a religious thing?
Whiley, what in the world are you talking about? I was talking to Suzan, and I didn’t say anything about religion… (or at least, I don’t think I did… lol).
By The72John
January 19, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
Sorry Whiley, but we don’t “know” anything of the sort. All we DO know is that you are extremely bitter towards men because of something or somethings that have happened in your life. Obviously, you think that your experience is not only typical, but endemic. You believe that all men are horrible, terrible creatures who manipulate women into doing things they don’t want to do, or who just flat-out abuse them.
Well, Whiley, I’m sorry that you’ve had a bad life. There are other women out there who’ve had bad experiences with men, too, and they didn’t turn into bitter, hateful, angry women who have decided to turn women into some kind of weak, flailing victims incapable of making their own decisions. Women in your world are not responsible for ANYTHING that happens to them - it’s all the fault of men.
Frankly, the “whacking” or “non-whacking” of other people is none of your business. None. The sexual habits of other people, in general, are none of your business. The kind of porn you describe as being the norm is not. Your assumption that any female participating in porn is being forced into it is incorrect.
I hate to break this to you, Whiley, and I don’t mean to hurt your feelings, but not all women are emotionally scared or sexually repressed. Some women, so I hear, REALLY like to screw. Some of them even actually ENJOY doing it on camera. Some of them make good money doing so, and certainly don’t feel victimized, degraded, or in any way diminished by their participation in these activities.
Oh, and there is an enormous segment of the industry that doesn’t involve women at all, so your rant against the entire industry as promoting the degredation of women is invalid. Surprise.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
Thank you Jack ! :) I swear what kind of world is it when you can’t even criticize someone for wanting to view a young girl getting anal sex at the same time by two men while being tied up? I’m sorry but why are there so many sick F@!#@s that want to defend this stuff?
By Jack
January 19, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
Doesn’t whack mean the same as a hit. As in killing someone?
By John
January 19, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
Hey Wiley,
It’s fine if you want to blame men for 90% of the evil in the world, as long as you credit them with 90% of the good also…
It is men who have made most of the medical and technological innovations that you enjoy. It is men that have fought most of the wars so you enjoy some degree of relative freedom. It is men who risked their lives expanding the country, building the infrastructure (some giving their lives to do so), It is mostly men who have taken the financial risk to start successfull businesses that now provide women with lucrative careers, and it is mostly men that are responsible for women’s fashion. Shall I go on…
By Eduardo
January 19, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
Evidently, Shaunti doesn’t realize that the right wing rose to power on the backs of this industry starting back into the 70’s (at least). Heck even Bush endorses its widespread use in the military as a conditioning tool — reward/brutality for the soldiers. if 18 year olds are old enough to marry and die …
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Just because something is black and white doesn’t make it religious now does it?
If it walks like a dog, barks like a dog, and smells like a dog; for all intents and purposes, it might as well be called a dog.
She adheres to the same justifiaction of ridgid principles that are based on black/white and reactionary thinking. And feels justified in putting anyone down who does not adhere to those same principles.
Look, her postitions match the last definition quite well:
RELIGION n.
1Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1a: A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
1b: The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
2 A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
3 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
That is disturbing & one of the reasons I only trust gay men. lol
Gay men consume more porn that straight men. What does that say for your reasoning skills, hmm?
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
I’m going to say this again, I don’t hate all men. I dislike a lot, which is not the same. I have good reasons to. I’m just telling the truth, I’m sorry if it bothers a lot of you.
Porn fuels dysfunctional & dangerous sexual habits of a lot of men in this world, one of the behaviors I do hate. I’m sorry if that bothers you, what should bother you instead are so many dysfunctional sexual deviants & the nasty hard core porn a lot of people try to defend as a freedom. Instead you attack me for acknowledging & criticizing it.
By John
January 19, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
Also, I’m not an authority on porn, but the little I have seen is of the type where a sexy vixen seduces the naive pool boy…
By Jackie
January 19, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
Unfortunately we live in a society where anything goes-especially when it comes to sex. Strip clubs all over town, XXX spam sent to our emails, bare breasts all over the internet-be careful when doing a search/you will get sick stuff you never intended, etc…
When a 8 year old girl can have Britney Spears as a role model and kids having sex and getting abortions without the parents being notified….
Look at what’s on tv these days-the violence and the sex….
This society has the technology to bring all the XXX porn into anyones home whenever they want. It degrades women and does not belong in a civilized society.
Taking sex and making it into something dirty and vile.
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
I feel like whiley is a chicken dipped in oil that everyone if trying to catch;)
Whats the point - you only end up feeling as sickend by the effort as she does about herself and her life.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
Gay porn has attractive men in them. Regular porn always has ugly men in them. I’ve been told viewers don’t want to see attractive men that could possibly turn them on or make them feel inferior. I don’t have any problem with tasteful porn. I have a problem with the hard core stuff, which is the norm now. And NO I don’t think a women tied up in a shower while having some guy S@#$ in her mouth is a good thing nor do I think she’s enjoying it.
Some of you just keep telling yourself all the women enjoy it & come from healthy happy situations & they absolutely love having sex with all those strangers on camera. You are contributing directly to the further abuse of women & children. Denial & excuse after excuse. And hey, why not make it even more mainstream & acceptable? Lets offer it as a college course!
By Holly
January 19, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
Just curious-do you guys not WORK for a living or do you just blog on a computer all day every day??? Are you all independently wealthy or does your boss not care that you spend so much time blogging???
Seems like every time I check this board (which is about once every 2 weeks)the same folks are on here each time.
How do you get away with it?
By The72John
January 19, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
Whiley, you are hopeless. I’m sorry that your life has been so sad that you are as scared and damaged as you obviously are. There’s no reason to debate this with you. I only hope that you get the help you so obviously need.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
*Just curious-do you guys not WORK for a living or do you just blog on a computer all day every day??? Are you all independently wealthy or does your boss not care that you spend so much time blogging???
Seems like every time I check this board (which is about once every 2 weeks)the same folks are on here each time.
How do you get away with it?*
And our blogging habits are your business…because?
By Renee
January 19, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
My apologies Whiley. These scenes you describe, a woman tied up in the shower while man $hits in her mouth is quite disgusting. If these are the only movies you have been exposed to, no wonder you feel the way you feel about porn. Possibly try buying or renting the movies from a reputable store, and not a back alley.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Well, gosh John, I suppose we should just let all the pedophiles rapist & murderers out of jail now shouldn’t we. I have digital cable,car, computer, & there are shopping malls on every corner. I have no reason to criticize any man, after all, a man invented the phone so I could giggle to my girlfriends.
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
Your black/white premise of either all I think is correct or all of you are advocating “further abuse of women & children” is bs.
Simple as that.
Until you have a better position; do not expect much more of a responce than that.
By Holly
January 19, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Sorry….I was trying to lighten things up. :P
By Jack
January 19, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
Holly. We are all independently wealthy and have nothing to do all day but post on this blog. It doesn’t help that this blog is addicting.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
One more thing John, women would have made more technological innovations if we had been allowed to have the same education available to us, not just doomed to a life of childbirth & house cleaning. Women have always fought in wars even though we weren’t technically allowed to. (and we don’t start them remember). Women would have been more involved in starting businesses & industry years ago if we were allowed to. Women would have been more apart of the building of this country if we’d had been allowed to hold any office of power. And excuse me, men are not responsible for women’s fashion, GAY MEN ARE. (that’s why we look so good)
By Jack
January 19, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
Be nice everyone. (and you know who I’m referring to)
By The72John
January 19, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
I know a lot of women, and not a single one of them is the weak, victimized, wilting flower that you would believe women are if you read Whiley’s posts.
Strange, that.
By Renee
January 19, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
Is a gay man not a man??? Haven’t we covered this before?
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
Renee those types of disgusting porn are all over the Internet. It’s so disgusting! I’ve just learned how to avoid so many pop ups & spam emails. But some have the photos right on the window! At times links you think go somewhere actually go somewhere else. I’m getting better at avoiding it, although I still seem to see a lot. It’s so annoying! lol It would help if I were more computer smart. All of it is so sad to me, most of the time I don’t see anything stimulating, just sad. Which is one of the main reasons I’m angry at anyone who tries to defend this kind of trash. Now, seduce the pool guy fun porn? Nothing wrong with that. S@#$# on the pool guy? That’s discusting & disturbing.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
Gay men, apparently, are non-threatening because they are not sexually aggressive towards women.
Personally, as a man I find Whiley’s stereotyping of men insulting, and as a gay man I find her stereotyping of gay men equally offensive.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
72 John, what about me is weak & victimized???? All I do is bring up the obvious! I talk about it ! Why is that being a whiny victim? lol Why does one have to be the victim of sexual abuse to talk about the serious problem of sexual abuse in this world? lol
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
“and as a gay man I find her stereotyping of gay men equally offensive.”
What about it is offensive? Gay men dress & look a lot better than straight guys, women do not fear rape from gay men, gay men’s porn movies & magazines clearly have better looking men & don’t victimize women. What’s the problem with that???
Holy cow ya try to say it like it is & ya just get bashed for it lol.
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
what about me is weak & victimized????
Umm - everthing you have ever posted as described exactly that.
I would bet you are just pi$$ed bc you were one of those girls that sold themselves short for an easy ride (got yourself a surgar daddy or such); then, when it was too late, noticed that women everywhere are creating their life on their own terms without selling themselves short.
Now you have to blame someone for the decisions you have made bc you destest them and yourself for making them.
By Viewer
January 19, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
On that logic, we would have to say that viewers of gay p@rn are out crapping on little twinks in the shower.
Have had a theory for years: That many women do not like p@rn because it gives men options. In other words, they can wack off without having to go out and buy her a Cadillac. Someone yesterday commented on legal prostitution, big diamond/wedding and all that.
By lozen
January 19, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
NamelessWoman, you made some really good points. FatMoose I agree with you on this on some of your points about the psychology of it. It’s another private matter of which religious zealots don’t understand the logistics. Just because they may think it’s bad, that doesn’t give them the right to decide for me or anyone else whether it should be available or not. Our puritanical heritage in this country has had such an effect on all of us. I have mixed feelings about porn. I don’t necessarily think it’s good for people. But I know it’s been around forever and when it’s banned, it just goes underground. Anybody ever read “Fanny” written in Victorian times when chair legs were covered because they were considered titillating? It’s an excellent subject for a college class; questions such as why is it so ubiquitous throughout history and in every culture are certainly worth exploring. I think some women are coerced into doing porn; surely we all remember Linda Lovelace? But I don’t believe all women are coerced. I personally think prostitution should be legal as it is in some countries and in one state here in the US. I’m kind of excited about Heidi Fleiss’ new undertaking and hope she manages to overcome all her opposition! Remember back in the 60’s when everybody thought prostitution was finished because sex was so free?
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
GOOD one FatMoose, anyone who brings up obvious bad behavior should be bashed quickly before other people speak out too !
“Have had a theory for years: That many women do not like p@rn because it gives men options.” lol ! That’s hilarious! No woman has ever thought that lololol. What options are you talking about? A different way to whack themselves? lolol
By The72John
January 19, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
I’m just telling you how you characterize women.
And frankly, your extreme overblowing of the issue weakens any legitimate argument you have. Are there problems with sexual abuse in the world? Yes. Are all, or even most men sexual abusers? No. Are some women sexual abusers as well? Yes.
But if you read YOUR posts, you act as if there are thousands upon thousands of women just here in the US being murdered and abducted every hour, and that is just NOT FACTUAL. There is NO EVIDENCE to support your outlandish claims.
If you dealt with the reality of the situation rather than creating a fantasy world where women are being constantly abused by caricaturishly, melodramatically evil men, you might have more credibility.
It’s just like your reaction to this whole porn debate. The only person who has brought up extreme sex acts is you, yet you act as if everyone has been waving signs that say “Up with scatalogical sex! Go Water Sports!” No one has said ANYTHING about the kind of porn you are talking about, yet YOU act as if that’s ALL we’ve been talking about.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
“Someone yesterday commented on legal prostitution, big diamond/wedding and all that.”
Actually, marriage was invented because men didn’t want to cook, clean, or raise their kids.
By SUZAN
January 19, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
Hey Jack my arguments are both religous and not. I asked yesterday could anyone here show me anything about porn that benefits society I mean hard data because I can find hard data showing it is bad for people and I dont mean religous and all I got was opinions not hard data. There has always been porn but it still remains base crude and common. It does not benifit society or people in any real frashion other than personal lust. So I ask again, can you and the others so very gungho for porn show me in real data how this is good for people and not harmful
By SUZAN
January 19, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
hey fats thanks so much you opinion of my debating skills means so verrrrry much to me,
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
~just shaking my head~
A chip is a chip. Whiley is just another person with a debilitating chip on her shoulders.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
OK I’ll calm down a bit. Hard core porn is what I think of anytime porn is brought up because the billions that are spent on just these online sites are for hard-core stuff. Yes, I know that for a fact. I was in a profession for 23 years that dealt with every scum you can imagine. Also worked side by side with the best tell-it-like-it-is group of people you’ve ever seen. Despite what I’ve witnessed all that time, I live a happy cozy life. I even knit now, but don’t tell anybody, that would kill my hardarse reputation lol.
By lozen
January 19, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
FYI, Just some figures on violence and how it is so often seen as unimportant even by the justice system: “Women are eight times more likely than men to be assaulted by an intimate partner ( Greenfield et al., 1998 ). Independent estimates of the percentage of women who report domestic assaults to police range from 7% to 14% ( Kantor & Straus, 1990 ), compared with official U.S. Department of Justice figures of approximately half of White women and two thirds of Black women ( Greenfield et al., 1998 ). Among the fraction of incidents known to police, almost half (48%) of the women were judged to have insufficient evidence for filing or acceptance of charges ( McFarlane, Willson, Lemmey, & Malecha, 2000 ). There were no differences in the levels of violence contained within charges that were accepted and those rejected. However, women who were turned away had significantly elevated danger scores three months later.”
By Jack
January 19, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
Susan. I never said I was gungho about porn. I have watched it on occasion and see no problem with an adult looking at it. I don’t think it should be a college course. If this is being gungho, so be it.
By SUZAN
January 19, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
sorry Jack an over reaction to you. Yesterday I got just slammed by my fan club here. by buddie john72,fats, and a couple of other really got pretty petty. but thats just okay cause I love em anyway. Hey boys where’s that data……
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
Deranged.
By lozen
January 19, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
Uh Suzan, I must have missed it. When did you present your data to show that porn is so bad for us?
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Suzan,
It is YOU that must present data backing up your notions that it is known as a true evil; or that it even has a negative effect.
By Brian Curtis
January 19, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
“I’m just telling the truth…�
Whiley: No, you’re stating your opinion and CLAIMING it’s truth… which is why John had you confused with a reglious nut. Their arguments operate the same way.
You don’t like porn; we get that. You also see ALL porn as exactly the same as fetishistic, illegal, sick bondage rape and scatology… I’m sorry you have that disorder. But just because you say it, doesn’t make it reality.
I’m sorry if that bothers you, but you’re not “acknowledging reality� any more than any other person spouting unsupported opinions on here. No less, but certainly no more.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
Where’s YOUR data, Suzan? Oh right - you have none. Only OPINION papers written by people with the same kind of slant as yourself.
Your basic question is flawed, by the way, surprise, surprise.
1) Something that is not necessarily beneficial is not also necessarily detrimental. Neutrality is an option. 2) Something need not be beneficial to be legal. Human beings engage in societally neutral activities every day.
It’s really very simple - porn is entertainment. It doesn’t necessarily enrich society, but then neither does Professional Wrestling, and there’s a whole heck of a lot of that going on.
The real question is why do you feel the need to try to tell other people how to live their lives?
By Scalia
January 19, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
According to some lesbian and gay journal I was reading the other day, most domestic violence comes from same sex relationships. A professor of mine told me the same thing in college. She worked at a battered women’s shelter in Florida, and said that most of the battered women came from same-sex relationships. I don’t know if it is true, but it is something that I read.
By Nikita
January 19, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
Oh, good lord, people. Seriously, your personal feelings are fine — but your belittling others while expressing them gets old fast. Particularly when you state the equivalent of “it’s true because I said so” and then badger anyone who says it’s not true.
Porn exists. It will always exist. Academic analysis allows us to understand it, which may allow us to improve it or recognize themes and currents in it.
While I appreciate your feelings on porn as an academic subject, I disagree. Porn is a legitimate thing to study, as is any other widely existent cultural item — such as theater, rock & roll, film, etc. I’ve taken classes on all of the above and for years UGA taught a class in abnormal sexual psychology, which was both popular and academic. I think they’re all valid if taught properly and participation is voluntary. So, please, either tell me why this is not the case or stop using my argument as a departure for your own comments on porn as something that exists and you’re not fond of. Because, ya know, that’s not the question we’re being asked.
By Nikita
January 19, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
Scalia, not true, though still sad. Domestic violence appears to be as or more prevalent in same-sex relationships than in opposite-sex relationships. But “most” implies a significant gap — which doesn’t exist — and also that same-sex relationships that are violent are numerically significant enough to constitute a significant portion of the whole.
By Jack
January 19, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
If you wack it too much, you will go blind. Then porn will be nothing more than hearing old people sucking on their hands. LOL
By SUZAN
January 19, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
Opps sorry “just being me” did I leave you out. ooou a wittle sweetie too! lol
Look bottom line for me is….
Porn is more harmful to a society than not. I do not believe that it shoudl be taught in any type of school. just my humble opinion. I do not want my taxes paying for this in any of this states colleges.
I dont care what kind of trash you fill your mind with.
I have a family member who’s marriage is just about gone now due to sexual addiction to porn. The problems that arise for this trash are many, the benifits zippp
it does not matter what gender or gender preferance is represented, it is trash and people that participate in the making of this garbage are either trash themselves or victims. this is just mho.
If you want to support an orginization that creats so much misery for so many thats your deal not mine. I will fight any attempt of this junk being taught in any piblic or state school where my taxes are being utilized.
I have even gone through my stock portfolio and dbl checked all companies to make sure that porn, and tabacco are not a part of my portfolio.
This is my right just as it’s you right to watch or even participate in in porn
I do not believe in the repression of anyones right to express thier ideas and/or speach, that is against ones constitutional rights. I do have a right though not to be a party to something I see as harmful and dangerous to this society and it is my right to protest against my dollars being spent for this trash.
What happens in your home is your business, What happens in private schools is the school’s business. If, however I have to foot the bill through taxes for the mess this crap creates in a society, then it becomes my business and my right to protest the harm and cost associated with this type of industry
By The72John
January 19, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this
Actually, the porn industry is a tremendous source of tax revenue. How’s that for a benefit, chiquita.
By SUZAN
January 19, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
here I go once agin with my cut and paste: CIVIL RIGHTS ANTI-PORNOGRAPHY LEGISLATION: ADDRESSING THE HARM TO WOMEN
Copyright © 1992 by Steven Hill and Nina Silver. All Rights Reserved.
Originally published in Transforming a Rape Culture Published by Milkweed Editions.
In February 1992, the movement to stop violence and discrimination against women won a remarkable victory when Canada’s Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that obscenity is to be defined by the harm it does to women and not by what offends our values. “Mate rials portraying woman as a class of objects for sexual exploitation and abuse have a negative impact on the individual’s sense of self-worth and acceptance,” read the court’s landmark opinion, the first time a court has established the precedent that a t hreat to the equality and safety of women “is a substantial concern which justifies restricting the otherwise full exercise of the freedom of expression.”
“In the United States, the obscenity laws are all about not liking to see naked bodies, or homosexual activity, in public,” commented University of Michigan law professor Catharine MacKinnon, who helped write the law brief and along with author An drea Dworkin has pioneered the “harm to women” approach to antipornography legislation. “Our laws in the United States don’t consider the harm to women. But in Canada it will now be materials that subordinate, degrade or dehumanize women that are obscene.”
The Canadian Supreme Court’s decision is the latest attempt in North America to enact civil rights antipornography legislation based on the “harm to women” approach. Previously several attempts had been made in the U.S. to pass such measures, the most recent attempt being a Congressional bill called the Pornography Victims Compensation Act which focuses on the harm done to women both in the production and the use of pornography. In 1983 and 1984, the Minneapolis city council passed the first civ il rights antipornography ordinance written by MacKinnon and Dworkin, only to have it vetoed by the mayor both times. Then in Indianapolis the city council passed and the mayor signed the first version of the Dworkin-MacKinnon Ordinance to become law. I n 1985 the law was struck down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as being unconstitutional, a ruling later affirmed without comment by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1988, a version of the Dworkin-MacKinnon Ordinance was adopted i n Bellingham, Washington by voter initiative, garnering over 62 percent of the vote. It met a similar fate as the Indianapolis ordinance when it was struck down by Federal District Court Judge Carolyn Dimmick. In each case where the U.S. courts vetoed or revoked the civil rights antipornography ordinance, pornographers, free speech fundamentalists, and civil libertarians (including some feminists) hailed the defeat as a great triumph for First Amendment rights, decrying the censorship and “chilling effects” they were certain would result had the Ordinance been passed. Some critics also claimed that pornography, rather than being harmful, actually provides a cathartic outlet for anti-social attitudes wh ich otherwise might escalate into harmful behavior if the consumer did not have access to the pornographic materials. Are their claims true? And does the Ordinance really equal censorship? Or are the claims of the Ordinance proponents true, that pornographic images contribute toward violence and discrimination against women, and the Ordinance is an even-handed way to rectify such social, class-based harm? Unfortunately, the debate has become a tangled mess of accusations, errors, and outright lies, seemingly polarized to a point of no return. After nine years of activism by Ordinance proponents in the United States that has yielded mixed results—followed by the triumphant emergence of a “harm to women” antipornography obscenity law in Canada—perhaps now is the time for us to calmly re-assess the true meaning of such civil rights antipornography legislat ion. Two doubts seem crucial to resolve, if any headway is to be made. The first: is there in fact a need for this or similar kinds of legislation—or, put another way, is any real harm caused by pornography that needs to be addressed? And two: if it is decided that yes, there is harm and yes, we need some legal redress, then is civil rights antipornography legislation the desired course, or will it lead to the censorship dreaded by its opponents?
Pornography: Harmless or Harmful?
In pornographic images and text, (usually) women are presented as continually available to (usually) men on a sexual basis for the purpose of pleasing the male viewer. The dehumanization of women occurs because the pornographic female images are not regarded as persons with feelings, opinions, or needs of their own. This is what defines the women as commodities: they exist solely for the purpose of their consumers. The climate is sexual, but the setting is the marketplace. In hardcore porn, no t only are women presented as experiencing sexual pleasure in being raped—they are tied up, cut, mutilated, bruised, caused physical pain, and portrayed as enjoying this pain. They are also penetrated not only by men, but by objects and animals. Opponents of the Ordinance inevitably claim that there is no scientific evidence of the connection between “unreal” pornography and violence against women in the “real” world, but this claim is untrue. There have been hundreds of such studies, an d the results of some of the most comprehensive of these studies have been published in books like Pornography and Sexual Aggression edited by Dr. Neil Malamuth and Dr. Edward Donnerstein (New York: Academic Press, 1984); Connections Between Sex and Aggre ssion by Dolf Zillman (Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1984); and in the work of sociologist Dr. Diana Russell (see “Pornography and Rape: a Causal Model” by Russell in Political Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1988). Here are some of the findings:
After exposure to pornography in a laboratory situation where women were depicted as enjoying rape, male college students (“average Joes” pre-screened to select out “hostile” personalities) were more prone to accept commonly held conceptions lik e “a woman really wants to be raped,” and “yes means no.” These men also denied the credibility of actual rape victims by viewing them as feeling less pain than they actually experienced, and by holding them responsible for their own rapes.
Fifty-seven percent of these males indicated some likelihood that they would commit a rape if guaranteed that they would not be caught. They also claimed that 30 percent of the women they know would enjoy being aggressively forced into sexual i ntercourse.
With a repeated exposure period of only two weeks, the subjects found violent pornography to be less and less violent, and they were increasingly less offended by the material. Most important, contrary to the cathartic benefits which some Ordin ance opponents mention, these men’s sexual arousal did not decrease but in some cases increased.
Finally, the researchers found that themes of violence and domination in pornography had very strong effects on adolescent boys who are beginning to form stereotypes about human sexuality, rape and violence. Other social science research of the media not limited to pornography found a direct link between people’s attitudes toward sex and violence and what they see in the media. These studies confirmed that repetition played a significant factor in de sensitizing men to women’s experiences of being shamed, attacked and punished. The more sensory input men received that promulgated sexual stereotypes about women, the less guilty and accountable they felt about replicating the behaviors they read about in books and viewed in images. Violence, humiliation, and eroticism became enmeshed in the same socially-sanctioned matrix, causing sex to be regarded as a situation of domination and power-over rather than reciprocity and love.
The scientific foundation of the “cathartic effect” has in recent years been refuted, yet anti-Ordinance/pro-pornography proponents continue to promote this perspective as if mere repetition will wipe out the scientific record. The catharsis theo ry, which impressed the 1970 U.S. Presidential Commission on Pornography, is mostly based on research by Berl Kutchinsky. Kutchinsky had discovered that the relaxation of porn laws in Denmark and Sweden coincided with a decrease in reported sex crimes. But subsequent inspection of his study revealed that his correlation was poor since he failed to account for other social factors, such as an abnormally high rape rate after the German occupation during World War II, which would have made any subsequent d ecrease of sex crimes seem statistically supportive of his original premise. Interestingly, Kutchinsky himself has since recanted his initial conclusions, noting that the rape rates of Denmark and Sweden have increased since he conducted his study. It s hould also be noted that Norway, which has a culture similar to Denmark and Sweden and far stricter laws against pornography, has had even greater success in combatting sex crimes (34 percent decrease from 1970 to 1981, compared to a 14.2 percent decrease for Denmark). In 1984, Dr. John Court examined changes in rape rates in several countries that had periods of greater or lesser legal control of pornography. He concluded that greater legal control of porn appears to hold down rape rates. Similarly, Baron and Straus (1984, 1985) have shown a highly significant statistical correlation between state by state circulation rates for seven porn magazines (Playboy, Oui, Hustler, Genesis, Gallery, Chic and Club) and state by state reported rape rates. Their study re vealed that proliferation of pornographic magazines and the level of urbanization explained variance in rape rates more than did unemployment, economic inequality, sexual inequality, and social disorganization. In Mary Koss’s 1986 national survey of over 6000 college students, she found that college men who reported behavior that meets the legal definition of rape were significantly more likely than men who did not report such behavior to be frequent readers of at least one of the following magazines: Pl ayboy, Penthouse, Chic, Club, Forum, Gallery, Genesis, Oui, and Hustler. Finally, the National Coalition on Television Violence has found over 750 scientific studies and reports which show that TV and film violence are linked to increases in real life violence and aggression in normal children and adult viewers. They have located only 18 studies (some of which were funded by the entertainment industry) that show screen violence as having a cathartic effect on viewers. A spokesperson for the American Psychological Association testified before Congress that “the relati onship between televised violence and aggression is real, long lasting, and of practical as well as statistical significance.” According to the NCTV, one out of eight Hollywood movies depicts a rape theme. By age 18, the average U.S. citizen will have s een 250,000 acts of violence and 40,000 attempted murders on television.
Summing up the scientific evidence, Dr. Edward Donnerstein from the University of Wisconsin has testified:
[I]f you take a look at the research and really talk about hundreds and hundreds of studies….there is an incredible amount of consensus across populations and measures and studies. We are not talking about correlations where we get into chicken/egg problems of which came first, we are talking about causality.
Dr. Donnerstein affirmed the ability of his research to take certain types of pornographic images, expose people to those images, and make highly accurate predictions of potential aggressive behavior independent of the viewers’ backgrounds, their past vie wing habits, or their initial hostility. The scientific evidence, Donnerstein concluded, strongly advised that there are obvious relationships between pornographic material and subsequent assault. In fact, good colleagues of mine would argue that the relationship between particularly sexually violent images in the media and subsequent aggression and changes in callous attitudes toward women, is much stronger statistically than the r elationship between smoking and cancer, mainly because most of that research is correlational. This is not. But these are laboratory statistics, one might claim. What about real life? In one study conducted by Dr. Diana Russell, it was found that 14 percent of the 930 women interviewed reported that they had been asked to pose for pornographic picture s, and 10 percent reported that they had been upset by someone trying to get them to enact what had been seen in pornographic pictures, movies or books. This study also established that only 7.8 percent of these women had not been sexually assaulted or h arassed at some point in their lives. Additionally, the testimonies of law enforcement officials and sexual abuse counselors confirm that pornography plays an active role in the fantasies of both sexual offenders and mass murderers and in the acting out of their violence on their victims. Piles of pornography have been found in the homes of virtually every mass killer. In some cases, pornography has been used as an actual textbook that illustrated how to rape. Undoubtedly the causes of of rape are multi-etiological. Violent and sexist images, all by themselves, are not causing this epidemic of rape in our society. But why should social policy advocates—civil libertarian or otherwise—ignore such a well-documented body of scientific and anecdotal evidence about the contribution of these images toward violence against women and children?
Porn Industry Performers: Stars or Scars?
We now come to the issue of choice for a woman who takes part in the production of pornography. Is a performer in a pornographic film or photo a willing participant just because she has a smile on her face? At public hearings in 1983 before the Minneapolis City Council, when that council was considering the Dworkin-Mackinnon Ordinance, woman after woman came forward and attested to the harm that pornography had personally caused her. Wives, women friends and prostitutes testified about having b een intimidated and physically coerced into performing in pornography by their husbands, partners and pimps. The testimony at the Minneapolis hearings was historic, because it revealed to the world for the first time that pornography was not simply about “speech”; in fact, it was a practice, often a business practice with a profitable bottom line, in whi ch real things—dreadful things—happened to real people in its production. In subsequent years, runaway children have told their sad stories about running from sexually abusive parents and their ensuing lives on the streets, in which they were intimidated and coerced into performing in pornography by their “daddies” and pimps who had promised to protect them from danger. Rape victims of all ages, euphemistically called “models,” have t estified about being forced to perform sexual acts on film under threat of their very lives, with the guns and knives off-camera. Women—coerced into having sex with animals or submitting to mass rapes by men (euphemistically called “gangbangs”) on fil m—have related grotesque tales of being ordered to act as though they were enjoying themselves, despite the fact that they got cut from the ropes binding their genitals and the broken bottles and knives inserted into their v**** in order to create th e photographic images. This tendency toward the ugliest forms of exploitation and domination culminated in the appearance of “snuff films,” in which women are actually raped and murdered and the atrocities filmed and then distributed as movies for a view ing audience. The most famous case of coercion into pornography is that of Linda Marchiano (a.k.a. Linda Lovelace), the “star” of Deep Throat, the largest grossing porn film of all time. Marchiano has publicly stated and written in her book Ordeal how she was battered and terrorized during the making of that film. During the course of her life with her pimp/boyfriend Chuck Traynor, she was beaten repeatedly; her family was threatened with murder by Traynor if she tried to leave him; and on those occasions whe n she did try to escape, he brutally bludgeoned her within an inch of her life. Once, when she refused to make a film in which she was told to fornicate with a dog, a gun was pulled and she knew that if she did not comply she would be murdered. She made the film. So when movie-goers view Deep Throat for their own “sexual liberation,” what they are actually viewing is the cinematic recording of the rape and dehumanization of Linda Marchiano. It is true that some women (and men) who act in pornographic films do so out of choice. However, gender-linked economic conditions often induce women to make that “choice.” And an alarmingly high percentage of participants in the pornography ind ustry have already been sexually abused at home and elsewhere before they ever make their “decision,” thereby rendering them vulnerable to continuing the abusive cycle. With such a mounting body of evidence, including reams of scientific studies, the testimony of law enforcement and mental health officials, and the actual experiences of real, live women, the civil rights antipornography activists began to ask: Wh ose freedom, and whose speech, is being protected? When the American Civil Liberties Union defends the “freedom of speech” of the pornographers, an equally compelling argument can be made that they are denying the “freedom of speech” of all women. In Fl orida, when the ACLU filed an amicus brief defending the right of men to hang pornography in the workplace as a legitimate expression of their free speech, a counter argument was made that the ACLU was contributing toward the continued discrimination and harassment of working women. Andrea Dworkin and Catharine A. MacKinnon in Pornography & Civil Rights (Minnesota: Organizing Against Pornography, 1988), pp. 62-63, commented on the “free speech” controversy:
Women screaming in pain in a pornography film is “speech.” Women screaming in the audiences to express their pain and dissent is breach of the peace and interferes with “speech.” “Snuff” is “speech.” Demonstrators who use strong languag e to protest “Snuff” are arrested for obscenity. When Penthouse hangs Asian women from trees, it is “speech.” When antipornography activist Nikki Craft leaflets with the same photographs in protest, she is threatened with arrest for public lewdness. When B. Dalton sells pornography in a shopping mall displayed at a child’s eye level, that is “speech.” When Nikki Craft holds up the same pornography in the same shopping mall in protest, she is detained in a back room of B. Dalton’s by the police for con tributing to the delinquency of minors.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
I absolutely care about what you are doing in the privacy of your own home, especially when you are abusing someone, have child porn, adopt a child overseas so you may sell kiddie porn (did anyone see that story on Oprah?), or when your peeping tom porno loving boyfriend is scouring the neighborhood for open blinds, or your porno addicted husband is gawking & trying to talk to teenagers at our bus stop. Or what about your porn addicted son who’s still living at home who just got caught in the women’s restroom at a restaurant? (a few good examples there)
I love it when the kiddie porn pervs get caught & their face is splattered on national TV.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Like I said, deranged… and let me add: ignorant.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
Um, Whiley, again - why the hell are you so fixated on child porn? I’m pretty sure…wait, let me scan BACK THROUGH THE BLOG AGAIN…YES…POSITIVE NOW…that no…one…has…said…a…word…in…support…of…child…porn.
Sorry, but - you’re just being an idiot.
By Nikita
January 19, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Whiley, all those things are illegal and involving non-consenting participants. Can you come up with a crime that occurs when you are sitting home alone with your video collection? Who are you hurting there other than perhaps yourself?
Also, snuff films don’t exist. see snopes.com
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
when your peeping tom porno loving boyfriend is scouring the neighborhood for open blinds, or your porno addicted husband is gawking & trying to talk to teenagers at our bus stop. Or what about your porn addicted son who’s still living at home who just got caught in the women’s restroom at a restaurant
whiley, thanks for splattering your face with your blatant sexism all over the blog.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
Yeah, seriously - I’m sure my copy of Hot Fireman has damaged women irrepariably.
By Renee
January 19, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this
Whiley, I was going to let this go but I have to ask. You mentioned earlier that these scenes (like the woman tied up in the shower with the man deficating in her mouth) comes up on your computer in pop up ads??? It seems like you would have to visit a really strange site to get that as a pop up ad. I mean I have seen some questionable pop up ads, but that seems like a lot going on in a pop up ad but okkkkkk.
And porn again does not equal child porn.
Suzan - we can all cut and paste articles, it proves nothing. For every article against porn, I can probably find one for porn. It’s not a multimillion dollar industry for nothing. Additionally if porn breeds all this criminal behavior, and millions of people were watching it, wouldn’t crime statistics be incredibly higher.
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this
I absolutely care about what you are doing in the privacy of your own home
please, whiley, come into my privacy of my home and tell me all the things i’m doing wrong in my relationship with my wife. i’m sure i speak for most of the people on the blog when i say that i would just love to have someone with your impeccable personal credentials snooping around my private life.
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
the left-leaning members of the blog will undoubtedly get a big kick out of this website. enjoy.
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2006/011406.asp
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
I’m an idiot? Pardon me, but if you search you’ll find that a lot of porn is very young & young looking girls. I won’t list the endless titles describing what they are doing, but it’s easy to find. In my humble opinion, even if a young girl is 18 and of legal age, it’s just a technicality. It’s child porn. And a lot of those websites may be using legal aged young girls, but the images & words they use along with it clearly screams child porn. Sexualizing young girls, even if they are barely 18 (as a lot of sites love to say), is just plain wrong. It says a lot about someone’s character that goes out of their way to defend this crap. Or to state that billions are spent on Playboy type images & films. Yea right.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
bla bla you need to re read my post. I’m not out to spy on people, just that what people do in their own homes DOES affect everyone.
By SUZAN
January 19, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
See ya’ll are asinine, You gripe about data and facts I present you with just one study and hmmm I get flackand opinions, wheres your data??????????
Cant stand the truth can you
Well??????
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
The nature of my old job caused a lot of this ongoing garbage with the nasty pop ups. I thought I had made that clear. And the fact I still use an old computer maybe.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
I wish that I could bend reality like you, Whiley. It must be nice to float in a fictional, constructed bubble of innacurracy that serves no purpose but to enable my warped, damaged, flawed psyche to persist it its damaged-goods, victim-mentality fantasy.
By Jack
January 19, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Snuff films do exist. Was exposed to one overseas. Couldn’t sleep for days. Sick, sick, sick. Producers of those type films should be burned alive. For sure!
By Renee
January 19, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
If the girl is over 18 and young looking, what’s the problem. Porn is about fantasy to an extent. Nobody (well I won’t say nobody because to each it’s own)wants to see a 50 year old woman. I would venture to say that most people prefer to see younger women and/or men. THIS IS BY NO MEANS ADVOCATING CHILD PORN!!!!!!!!!!! But if 18 is the legal age, and people view it, then this too is child porn. Just damn!
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
whiley i read and understood your post. people make personal decisions in the privacy of their own homes all the time that impact themselves and others, and there is nothing illegal about the vast majority of those decisions.
i’m no huge fan of porn, but i don’t want someone like you telling me i can’t watch it just bc some people get addicted to it or behave in inappropriate ways after consuming it.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
So anyone that speaks out against bad things & bad people is just damaged goods living in a fantasy? lol You are a funny, funny person.
72John, your problem is, you don’t want to hear the truth.
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
I wish that I could bend reality like you, Whiley. It must be nice to float in a fictional, constructed bubble of innacurracy that serves no purpose but to enable my warped, damaged, flawed psyche to persist it its damaged-goods, victim-mentality fantasy.
amen. it must be nice to always have that victimhood status to always fall back on.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Suzan, try putting your “data” and “facts” into your own words. I don’t know if there’s a single person here that’s going to read through all of that clutter you pasted.
By Scalia
January 19, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Hey 72John,can I borrow Hot Fireman?
Maybe I shouldn’t. It may cause me to view all firemen as hot objects to be used sexually. I might not consider their feelings and think about love. I might become obsessed with their firehoses.
The New York Fireman calendar is hot. Wow, where do they find those fellows?
By The72John
January 19, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Whatever you say, Whiley. Whatever you say.
By lozen
January 19, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Wow! I thought in the beginning this was a very boring subject but it’s gotten hot now. As I said, I have mixed feelings about it so I’m open to the opinions of youse guys on both sides. I think Suzan just provided some interesting information about porn that may be true. Fifty-seven percent of these males indicated some likelihood that they would commit a rape if guaranteed that they would not be caught. I have heard this before (in another study that was not connected to porn viewing but just about attitudes of college boys) and it blew me away. That’s a whole different topic. Some people thought Georgia O’Keeffe’s paintings of flowers were blatantly sexual and should be banned! Maplethorpe’s photography - same thing. Some things I find erotically beautiful and artistic, someone else would think was pornography. The problem is, where do we draw the line and who gets to draw the line if we censor books, art, porn, movies, tv programs, etc?
By The72John
January 19, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Sorry Scalia, but the Hot Firemen are only interested in the other Hot Firemen.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
You’re right bla bla, you should have the right to watch & pay for porn that depicts young girls in bondage, being slapped, spit on, S@#$@# on, anal & v**** raped at the same time, urinated on humiliated. After all, they all like it right? Young girls having sex with balding old men, how nice for you to enjoy. If you are going to defend it, why don’t you describe exactly what you want to defend? I’ll be you won’t you coward.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this
You’re right bla bla, you should have the right to watch & pay for porn that depicts young girls in bondage, being slapped, spit on, S@#$@# on, anal & v* raped at the same time, urinated on humiliated. After all, they all like it right? Young girls having sex with balding old men, how nice for you to enjoy. If you are going to defend it, why don’t you describe exactly what you want to defend? I’ll be you won’t you coward.*
I don’t know how many times we have to say this to get it through your thick skull, Whiley.
YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON WHO IS TALKING ABOUT THESE EXTREME TYPES OF PORN. WE’RE SORRY THAT YOU WERE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BUT QUIT TAKING IT OUT ON EVERYONE ELSE. SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP. GET A GRIP
By SUZAN
January 19, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
just if I did that you guys would tell me that just my opinion
By Scalia
January 19, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
There is some porn that is outrageous. Pregnant women in porn. There is the Grandma porn. And stuff along those lines. It’s too much. But I do know some guys that are into older women and some guys that like to sleep with pregnant women. There seems to be market for everyone.
As for the rape scenario, it is appalling.
72John, the hot fireman wouldn’t want to put my fire out? Firemen and cops are the best.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
And I say again, THAT’S THE KIND OF PORN THAT IS THE NORM NOW. When you talk about porn, NOBODY thinks of nice sweet playbody images. Now, please explain exactly what you are trying to protect so strongly? I’ll say it once & I’ll say it again, I’ve never been taken advantage of. Get over yourself. Face facts, & lets hear the details of the type of porn you want to protect.
By Renee
January 19, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
I’m defending any and all types of legal porn.
By For Suzanne
January 19, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Suzanne, per you request, here is a link to a scientific study also done in 1992 that shows that pornography can have some beneficial effects…
[For you Suzanne] (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/14/kutchinsky.pdf)
By For Suzanne
January 19, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this
errr, try once more…
For you Suzanne
By Viewer
January 19, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
Australia? Dang underneaths! I have heard of alot of aussie mature-women(over 30) p@rn sites. Seems those aussies have nothing better to do but expose themselves on the internet. Wait, think I remember alot of American sites as well.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
OK then, on a normal looking website with silly fun PG pics, there was this. Took me what, a minute to find? Congratulations on you people that are so happy to defend this garbage. This is what you think is so sacred & not at all harmful to women & young girls. THIS is what mainstream porn is:
/Young girls fall prey to this old man/ /This is an extreme fetish site. Involves animalism. Not for people with weak stomach. You’ve been warned!/ / Hardcore abusing two little sluts in Rio/ /15 pics of this nasty young b*** gagging on herself and letting xxx hardcore p** in her mouth. / /15 pics of a skanky little hoe getting wrecked physically and mentally. / /15 pics of throat-f***, fisting, and urinating on another stupid hoe./
This is what you are defending. Thank you for helping to seriously F@#$#@ up this country.
By SUZAN
January 19, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
just I cant get to it. it like a pdf for me I need the html address thanks
By The72John
January 19, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
It’s very telling that you think that if it isn’t (I’m assuming you meant Playboy) “playbodies” its automatically super-hardcore Bondage and Domination/S&M fare. This, more than anything else, highlights your innability to think in anything other than black and white.
And frankly, Whiley, I could care less about women in porn. Haven’t you been paying attention? However, I agree with Renee. Any legal form of porn should be defended, if only from a freedom perspective. Whether you approve of scatalogical activities or not, it’s none of your business what adults do.
By For Suzanne
January 19, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Try this Suzanne
The link to the study is in the middle of the page….under Kaminsky, 1992.
By Renee
January 19, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Here it is in black and white.
If the woman is tied up in the shower and allowing the man to defecate in her mouth (willingly) that is porn, that someone (I don’t know who, but someone) wants to see, if it is done against her will, then it is a crime. Two totally different things.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
Suzan, you obviously don’t know the difference between fact and opinion.
Here are a couple of simplified examples:
FACT: My middle name is XYZ. SOURCE OF PROOF: My birth certificate.
FACT: The Dow Industrial Average is currently up 0.4%. SOURCE OF PROOF: Yahoo/Finance/01.19.06
OPINION: Deer Park is the best tasting bottled water on the market. SOURCE OF PROOF: There isn’t one, since it’s just an opinion. Or, I can just say the proof is “because everybody knows it’s true.”
FACT: The first president of the United States was George Washington. SOURCE OF PROOF: Whitehouse.gov/history/presidents.
Are you starting to understand how this works???
By Jack
January 19, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
What’s all this beep, beep business about?
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
How very noble of you. OK 72John, which one do you want to protect the most, the urinating on another stupid hoe? or Young girls fall prey to this old man? Which one do you like the best?
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
whiley, if those women want to get paid for selling their bodies in that manner, that’s their choice. if it’s legal and they do it, it’s their choice to make, NOT YOURS. you talk loud and clear about women should have the choice to do whatever they want with their bodies. i seem to recall you saying you believed a 15 year old should have the right to get an abortion if she wanted, but now you don’t think an 18 year old woman should have the right to have sex however she sees fit. you are absurdly hypocritical.
truth be told, whiley, you don’t really care about women’s choices, you care about them making the choices that you deem are appropriate. that’s ridiculous.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
Bla pretty much summed it up, Whiley. If someone is coercing those hoes to get peed on, I have a problem. Otherwise, it’s just women doing something that you disapprove of. I defend anyone’s right to do with their bodies what they will without the outside interference of shrill harpies with self-esteem and persecution issues.
Personally, I’m going to stick to my firemen.
By Renee
January 19, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
OPINION: Deer Park is the best tasting bottled water on the market. SOURCE OF PROOF: There isn’t one, since it’s just an opinion. Or, I can just say the proof is “because everybody knows it’s true.�
Too funny!!!! Actually everyone knows the best tasting water is Evian.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
LOL Jack!
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
Hey BlaBlah & 72John, is this more what you were talking about that needs defending?
/old men lure young girls with cash! /Check out this young cutie tease and please. Only 18 but sure nasty as hell!!/ /15 pics of a nasty young nympho letting a whole bunch of guys cum in her mouth and all over her pretty face. / /20 pictures of this teen slut having wild crazy sex for money. /12 pictures of this teen hooker getting two c@#$ at once. /These guys are on the mission of going around the country and taking upskirt shots of unpecting girls and women./16 pictures of a home spy on dressing girl /
Yes what a good idea, teach young men HOW to become sexual offenders & peeping toms, heck, start your own website & make money at the same time !
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Renee, everybody knows it? Well, that’s all the proof I need. Who needs an encyclopedia when you’ve got “Everybody Knows…” I guess I was wrong all along… lol
By The72John
January 19, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Whiley, you obviously aren’t reading anything that anyone else is posting. You’ve reached the frothing at the mouth stage. I can understand that - I’ve gotten there myself in the past. I also understand that it’s pointless to say anything more to you until you’ve calmed down and actually read what other people have posted.
Apparently you’re having too much fun looking at porn sites to do much reading.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
truth be told, whiley, you don’t really care about women’s choices, you care about them making the choices that you deem are appropriate. that’s ridiculous.
Speaking of things that “everybody knows….”
By Renee
January 19, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
Exactly JBM!
By SUZAN
January 19, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
DEAREST JUST
By SUZAN
January 19, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
DEAREST JUST THANK SSOOOO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR KIND ILLUMINATION OF FACTS V OPINION
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
you lost me, jbm. what are you saying in the cut and paste of my post? i didn’t get it. sorry.
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
jbm, you lost me. what are you trying to say in the cut and paste of my post to whiley? i didn’t understand. sorry.
By Viewer
January 19, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
A woman is not entitled do let a man(or men) c*m on your face until she is 25-30 or so. Before that it is just abuse, after that it is something she, a sexual human being, enjoys. Or did I just misunderstand a previous girlfriend?
By The72John
January 19, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
JBM, I think you lost bla
By Netbanker
January 19, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! I’ve overwhelmed at work so this will be my only contribution.
suzan…”I just dont want any of my tax dollars going to fund andything connected to porn.”
So does that include the use of tax dollars to fund police stings of adult stores, too?
Ahhh…the Victorian Era…very odd times those. Table legs covered, but look at the clevage on some of those formal gowns or the backs of some of those dresses. Hypocrisy meets high fashion of the times.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
72John and MY POINT was to show you exactly what you are defending. Do you think “teen slut having wild crazy sex for money 101” class should be an elective course on mandatory for graduation?
By Viewer
January 19, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
Some of these abused young ladies make $1000 for that hour of abuse.
By Randy
January 19, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
The key in all rape cases, serial killers, etc, is that they stop seeing the victims as people and start seeing them as objects. The question I would pose is, does porn help men see women more as people with feelings, families etc. or does porn cause men to see women as objects?? If I were a woman, I would be careful in promoting porn, as some women on this site have done. Maybe some people need to work on their moral compass(which seems to be out-of-wack)with quite a few of you. Do most women really want men only to see them as objects, not people???
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
Blablabla… it was a joking reference to Suzan’s assertion that if “everyone knows it” it must be true. Renee commented (jokingly) that everyone knows Evian is the best water. So, I responded that I must have been wrong to think that Deer Park is the best, since everyone knows Evian is best…
So, when I said “speaking of things that everyone knows…” I was implying that what you said about Whiley is a fact, because everyone knows it… lol.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
Suzan, you’re welcome. Now you try it. Go ahead, you can do it. Show us some sources to prove what you claim as “facts.”
That’s how you prove your case. Not by saying, “because everybody knows it…” and cutting and pasting a bunch of opinion-based articles…
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
“Some of these abused young ladies make $1000 for that hour of abuse.”
OH WELL then it’s ok. I’ve heard some men pay thousands of dollars to have sex with children under the age of 10. Heck, their getting paid right?
By Renee
January 19, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Actually I was serious about Evian being the best water lol. You know it’s true, you can pretend it’s not true, but when all is said and done, you know in your heart ITS TRUE!!!!
By The72John
January 19, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
No, Whiley - your POINT was to present a very narrow and specific segment of the porn industry as being representative of the industry as a whole, to fit your own distorted view.
Randy, you can take your suggestions for other’s moral compasses and…well…all this discussion of porn, I think I’ll leave it up to you to imagine what you can do with it, you fundy trash.
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
thank you, jbm. you’ve shown me the light.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
Whiley, thorazine is your friend, along with psychiatric care.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
Renee, well, in that case, you’re wayyyyyyy wrong. :-)
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
Bla, if I’m going to have a crush on you, you’re going to have to pay closer attention to me. ;-)
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
OH WELL then it’s ok. I’ve heard some men pay thousands of dollars to have sex with children under the age of 10. Heck, their getting paid right?
no, whiley, that’s not ok. if it’s legal, that’s one thing. if it’s illegal, that’s something else. why can’t you see the difference?
By SUZAN
January 19, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
thank you so much :just being a jerk” had you read that last artical you may have come to understand that it was not an opinion based artical. can I cut and oaste that for you in smaller paragraphs? Is it too much for you to take in all at one time? just let me know I woudl ove to be just as kind and giving as you.
By Viewer
January 19, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Some parents make their underage children have abortions so as to not ruin the child’s life. Therefore, per the logic stated above, ALL abortions should be ILLEGAL.
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
you’re right, as usual, jbm. what was i thinking. the one person on the blog who truly appreciates me, and here i am neglecting her. forgive me, it won’t happen again. ;-)
By John
January 19, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Just checked back here.
Wiley,
You obviously have more issues with men then the average “men are from mars, women are from venus” type.
You are free to criticize men that deserve it but you criticize men in general…I could do the same concerning women.
By the way, my brother is a gay designer and a good one. I agree with 72John also…your comments are condescending and insulting.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
Suzan, I tend not to debate with people who call me names like “jerk”…
I’m through with you. Wallow in your ignorance, dear. No one here can help you. You’re way smarter, sharper, wiser, and more knowledgeable than all of us put together. Except maybe Whiley.
Oh, and by the way, yes that was too much for me to take in at one time. As I’ve said before, I have ADD, and suffer extreme difficulty reading long passages that are not specifically interesting to me.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
“thorazine is your friend, along with psychiatric care.”
ME needing drugs & psychiatric care???? I’m not the one defending “15 pics of a nasty young nympho letting a whole bunch of guys c* in her mouth and all over her pretty face.” How sweet, now, what does that say about YOU, ya loon. lol
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
I do know for a fact that woman owned personal porn sites outnumber men’s sites 10 to 1 (look it up).
They are doing this because they choose to - some choose straight sex and some choose multiple partners; some are college girls with cams throughout the dorm and you can subscribe.
No-one is coercing these girls into these choices.
And now whiley believes an 18yo girls is a child. Heck, lets change all the definitions to fit with your warped mind! Red can now be blue!
Suzan, The problem is that there is no way to have a study to show that one factor of a society directly effects another in many cases, including this one. So, the best study that can be done is quite general. If you look at the statistics reported regarding countries that allow prostitution and porn - they regularly have fewer sex related violence crimes than those that are anti-porn/prostitution.
“Studies have shown that the customers of prostitutes fit no particular profile psychologically or socially. The only common characteristic is that most appear to have a high sex drive.”
“The commission report issued during the Lyndon Johnson administration concluded that there was little evidence of a relationship between pornography and sexual criminal behavior and that in fact there was evidence that it might lead to a reduction in such behaviors. The commission’s report recommended sex education, funding of research into the effects of pornography, restriction of children’s access to pornography, and recommended against any restrictions for adults. The report was widely criticized and rejected by Congress.
In 1985, President Ronald Reagan appointed another commission to study pornography issues. It was headed by Attorney General Edwin Meese. The commission’s report, released in 1986, found that pornography is harmful and can lead to violent acts. The scholarship of this report has been widely criticized.”
The last one has follow-up studies that proved the assumption that it was skewed - I am trying to find those studies…
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
blabla, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION there’s very little difference between a guy who gets sexual excitement out of outlandish hard core porn & regularly pays for it, & some perv who pays xtra to have sex with children. Which by the way Americans traveling overseas are the biggest clients.
So I’m sorry if my opinion of men as a group is not very high.
By SUZAN
January 19, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
Just I could not be more pleased you are far more condenscending that your wish to see and quite insulting as well. You hide behind some thaought that you are beng very witty and quite the master of intellegence when what you do is insult people in a round about matter. I would rather have the in yiur face comments from john 72 at least he does not try to hide behind the misconception of supposed politness and now you want to act insulted ohh pleasssse
By Nikita
January 19, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
Suzan et al, the issue I have with some of your data and most of your arguments is that they assert that porn is the cause of the ills you mention. When in fact it’s probably a symptom. The study of college-aged males is the closest thing that I have seen to proof that porn itself has negative impact, as opposed to being consumed by people with other common negative traits. And it’s not, unfortunately, definitive.
Randy, your point about image is a good one. However, I don’t get to control how the world at large views me, or other women, or people of other races, or whatever. If I had my way we’d all view each other with respect and affection. But I can’t control every factor that negatively impacts the image of a particular type of person and furthermore it wouldn’t be appropriate to.
By Jack
January 19, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
Whiley there is a big difference between seeing and doing.
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
“Surveys in western cultures show that a high percentage of violent criminals and sexual murderers grew up in a sexually repressive environment.”
Do a search on that….
See, whiley, its your opinions that give rise to environments that have a controling mother that supresses a mans normal sexual drive, thereby creating these serial killers and rapists.
It is all your fault you see;) More thorazine for the freak; and a little dose of morphine for me please, just to tolorate the sickness in here today;)
By Randy
January 19, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
The key here is what is healthy for everybody and safe. Women and children need protection. How anyone could have anything to do with child porn is beyond me(that is sick as it can be). I think pedifiles should be tried and executed immediately, taking advantage of women who can’t fend for themselves is just about as bad. Stop taking advantage of others!!
By Jack
January 19, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Wow. Randy and I agree on something…I think.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
As usual, Randy has missed the boat, the point, reason, sanity, and everything else.
Since no one is talking about pedophelia or child pornography, or taking advantage of anyone, your post, as usual, is pointless and innane.
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
You can search for the whole article:
Abramson and Hayashi (1984) studied the incidence of violent pornography and sex crime in Japan. According to these investigators, “the juxtaposition of sexuality and aggression is evident in almost all forms of Japanese sexual material… . If there is a direct connection between the prevalence of rape imagery and rape behavior, Japan should have an overwhelming occurrence of rape” (p. 181). Despite the very high prevalence of rape theme pornography in Japan, however, this nation has an extraordinary low incidence of reported rape (2.4 per 100,000, compared to 34.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.).”
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
I’m far from insulted, Suzan, and you definitely have some comprehension problems.
You asked a question, and I answered it. I also notified you that I don’t usually debate with people who call me names. It’s just that simple.
Oh, and I’ve not been known to “hide” behind anything. I don’t call people names, but I do express my opinion clearly and openly.
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
don’t worry, whiley, my opinion of you isn’t very high either. you constantly blame men for nearly all the ills in the world and see yourself and other women as nothing other than hapless victims. in my humble opinion, that is a pathetic way to go through life. women and much stronger and capable than you give them credit. i pity you for your inability, or perhaps your unwillingness to rise above any inequities that have been put before you to achieve your goals and desires in life. it’s far easier to blame men for what you don’t have than it is to go out and realize your potential. your greatest abilities, it would appear are in throwing blame and pointing fingers. that is a shame.
there’s a gigantic difference between watching hard core porn and travelling five thousand miles to pay for it for kiddie sex. perhaps your feeble mind can’t grasp that difference, but for those of us residing in the real world, it is a distinct, real and significant difference. but you are entitled to your opinions, no matter how out of the mainstream and ludicrous they make you look.
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this
Lets not forget that Whiley loves her romance novels and finds them totally acceptable…
By blablabla
January 19, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
correction: women are much stronger, not women and much stronger.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
lol I’ve never read a romance novel, I only buy them for the cover.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
lol I’ve never read a romance novel, I only buy them for the cover.
OMG you’re objectifying men and making them into cheap sexual objects.
By Holly
January 19, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Yeah, me too! Now before you slam us for looking at the good looking guys-be aware that their dingaling is not on the cover! Good clean arousal-without hurting anyone.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
I’m sorry, I find it impossible to take anyone seriously who says “dingaling”.
By Holly
January 19, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Anything else would have been censored probably….sorry.
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
I’m sorry, I find it impossible to take anyone seriously who says “dingaling�.
Yeah - have not had one of those since gradeschool…
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
Fatmoose, am I to understand that we can elimate sexual abuse & rape by giving boys & men porn? So the reason there are so many sex offenders is because there isn’t free sex available to men so they can vent? If males could only view all the porn they want everything would be just fine? lol And of course there is a difference between paying for sex with children & enjoying hard core porn. My point was I personally think they are the same. Meaning, I have about the same amount of respect of both.
I don’t see women as helpless victims, I see a them as survivors. You can do the numbers all day long & only see numbers. I see each number as a young girl, a college student, a woman, a single mother & a wife. These are real people not numbers, you obviously don’t care how high the numbers are. All most of you guys care about is defending your right to sexual satisfaction. It got old with me a long time ago. It’s time to get your S@#$ together & stop causing so much grief.
By Holly
January 19, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
Sorry-should have said “weenie”.haha LOL
By The72John
January 19, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Schlong Whang Pecker Dong Rod Manhood
Hmm…were any filtered?
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
Sexual suppresion has been directly linked with serial killers, rapists, etc…
Why would that not be any type of warning to you people?
By The72John
January 19, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
It’s time to get your S@#$ together & stop causing so much grief.
Thanks Whiley, but neither I nor any guy I know is causing anyone any grief.
See, this is the part where you degenerate into blaming men for everything. Get over it.
By Jack
January 19, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
How bout peter, weter, tee-tee? What is wrong with dingaling? As long as it works it really doesn’t matter what it’s called. LOL
By The72John
January 19, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
dingaling just sounds so…girly.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
All those terms may be allowed, but the correct term, p— e— n— i— s, is not. Thus, the need for a “dingaling” reference… lol.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
“Thanks Whiley, but neither I nor any guy I know is causing anyone any grief.”
Yes you are by defending anyway possible your stupid porn. By not demanding from your govt that sex offenders, pedifiles, rapist & those guilty of domestic violence be taken off the streets. So sitting by & doing nothing because it doesn’t affect you does cause grief.
lol HOLLY !
“OMG you’re objectifying men and making them into cheap sexual objects.”
Here’s the difference, I don’t need to see 4 old & fat women ramming things into the male model on the romance book cover to get excited.
By Jack
January 19, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
But it goes along with dingleberries!
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
And of course there is a difference between paying for sex with children & enjoying hard core porn. My point was I personally think they are the same. Meaning, I have about the same amount of respect of both.
No, it means you transfer what ever meaning you want to things already have a definition. Meaning, you have no respect for actual reality; and only fantasys that fulfill your warped view of the world.
Fatmoose, am I to understand that we can elimate sexual abuse & rape by giving boys & men porn? So the reason there are so many sex offenders is because there isn’t free sex available to men so they can vent? If males could only view all the porn they want everything would be just fine?
The closest you get to what I said and any form of reality is: we can elimate sexual abuse & rape by giving boys & men porn? and should read: we can reduce sexual abuse & rape by allowing porn and prostitution.
But as usual, you will either change what I wrote with your warped brain; spout off about another topic like child porn (which you seem obsessed with - really sic); or deny a reply.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
Yes you are by defending anyway possible your stupid porn. By not demanding from your govt that sex offenders, pedifiles, rapist & those guilty of domestic violence be taken off the streets. So sitting by & doing nothing because it doesn’t affect you does cause grief.
As usual Whiley, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Why do you think I don’t want pedophiles, rapists, sex offenders and domestic abusers thrown off the street?
By Jack
January 19, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this
Whiley. You know that everyone on this blog would love to see sexual predators & pervs taken off the streets and flogged. I mean, really. And why did you wait until today to join? It was pretty boring before that!
Gotta go! Everyone have a good one.
By Just Being Me
January 19, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
Whiley. You know that everyone on this blog would love to see sexual predators & pervs taken off the streets and flogged. I mean, really. And why did you wait until today to join? It was pretty boring before that!
That’s just it, Jack. I don’t think Whiley really realizes that…
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
“we can eliminate sexual abuse & rape by giving boys & men porn? and should read: we can reduce sexual abuse & rape by allowing porn and prostitution.”
OH WELL NOW that’s much better. What sort of teen hookers shall we provide our high school boys then? That should take care of date rape for sure. That’s such a pitiful disgusting argument to try to get legalized sexual abuse (prostitution) legalized.
“Why do you think I don’t want pedophiles, rapists, sex offenders and domestic abusers thrown off the street?”
Because all you’re passionate about is making sure you’ll always have “15 pics of throat-f*, fisting, and urinating on another stupid hoe. ” video available when you are feeling lonely.
By Whiley
January 19, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Hey, I was really busy target shooting at peeping toms this morning. Got a couple of em, i’ll get those other bastards later. Goodness I did miss a lot ! Looks like I accidentally skipped over a lot of posts. Sorry about that.
By The72John
January 19, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
Because all you’re passionate about is making sure you’ll always have “15 pics of throat-f, fisting, and urinating on another stupid hoe. � video available when you are feeling lonely.*
You have gone off the deep end, dear. Either you are stupid beyond belief or you have lost it.
By FatMoose
January 19, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
A woman chooses to sell sex.
A man pays her for sex.
The man leaves.
Where is the abuse Whiley? Unless you are one of the feminists that claim a woman cannot make that decision on her own and that we need to treat women like children, providing them with special care…Which leads to furthering a patriartical system.
Your own logic is an insult not only men, people in general, and especially women.
Good show for the day - you were not as crack-addict odd as usual; but did satisfy my daily dose of insanity.
By ben
January 20, 2006 07:34 AM | Link to this
Good morning people. Did everyone enjoy their porn from last night? My woman and I sure enjoyed ours. Yes believe it or not there are plenty of women out there who enjoy porn. So what should we do with all of them?
By Brian Curtis
January 20, 2006 07:51 AM | Link to this
Obviously, they need therapy to awaken them from their patriarchy-brainwashed stupor and realize how thoroughly victimized and helpless they are in the face of male abuse and degradation and violence.
Like, y’know, Maxim.
And it’s vitally important that college courses, even those on popular culture and media, NEVER discuss or study this issue. At all. Because that would legitimize it, you see.
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this
Okay, where are all the joke-tellers?
By Brian Curtis
January 20, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
Good point; it IS Friday, after all. Let the jokes begin!
At a Las Vegas casino late one night, a veteran player was having a discussion with the dealer about whether tipping was appropriate for casino workers.
“I look at it this way,� he said before glancing at his cards. “If I get a bad hand, it’s not your fault. So if I get a good one, it’s not because of you either.�
“True,� the dealer replied, “But when you’re at the restaurant you tip the waiter. I’m doing the same thing… serving you cards instead of food.�
Impressed with this reasoning, the player nodded. “Good point. But the waiter brings me what I ask for… so I’ll take a seven right now.�
By Renee
January 20, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this
good one brian! Hey JBM!
By Viewer
January 20, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this
I spent all evening loading thumbnail pages, from sublime, richards-realm, marks-bookmarks, wild-cherries, al4a, and the huns-yellowpages.
For research purposes only of course, in fact never wacked at all, but then I never do for on-line p@rn.
In all of those pages, did not find anything Whiley was talking about yesterday. Sure, ran into some 3/4-some stuff, and some of them were mature women over 30, some golden shower stuff(and some of that was the girl going on the guy).
What a waste of research time. LOL
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this
lol… cute one BC!
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this
Viewer, good work. B- for you.
Heyyyyy Renee!
By Renee
January 20, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
Three men were standing in line to get into heaven one day. Apparently it had been a pretty busy day, though, so Peter had to tell the first one, “Heaven’s getting pretty close to full today, and I’ve been asked to admit only people who have had particularly horrible deaths. So what’s your story?”
So the first man replies: “Well, for a while I’ve suspected my wife has been cheating on me, so today I came home early to try to catch her red-handed. As I came into my 25th floor apartment, I could tell something was wrong, but all my searching around didn’t reveal where this other guy could have been hiding. Finally, I went out to the balcony, and sure enough, there was this man hanging off the railing, 25 floors above ground! By now I was really mad, so I started beating on him and kicking him, but wouldn’t you know it, he wouldn’t fall off. So finally I went back into my apartment and got a hammer and starting hammering on his fingers. Of course, he couldn’t stand that for long, so he let go and fell — but even after 25 stories, he fell into the bushes, stunned but okay. I couldn’t stand it anymore, so I ran into the kitchen, grabbed the fridge and threw it over the edge where it landed on him, killing him instantly. But all the stress and anger got to me, and I had a heart attack and died there on the balcony.”
“That sounds like a pretty bad day to me,” said Peter, and let the man in.
The second man comes up and Peter explains to him about heaven being full, and again asks for his story.
“It’s been a very strange day. You see, I live on the 26th floor of my apartment building, and every morning I do my exercises out on my balcony. Well, this morning I must have slipped or something, because I fell over the edge. But I got lucky, and caught the railing of the balcony on the floor below me. I knew I couldn’t hang on for very long, when suddenly this man burst out onto the balcony. I thought for sure I was saved, when he started beating on me and kicking me. I held on the best I could until he ran into the apartment and grabbed a hammer and started pounding on my hands. Finally I just let go, but again I got lucky and fell into the bushes below, stunned but all right. Just when I was thinking I was going to be okay, this refrigerator comes falling out of the sky and crushes me instantly, and now I’m here.”
Once again, Peter had to concede that that sounded like a pretty horrible death.
The third man came to the front of the line, and again Peter explained that heaven was full and asked for his story.
“Picture this,” says the third man, “I’m hiding inside a refrigerator…”
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this
LOL!! Good one, Renee!
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Ummm… okay, what do y’all think you can just tell one joke and then sit back for the rest of the day???
By Renee
January 20, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
Lol, my work is done!
By Renee
January 20, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Reaching the end of a job interview, the Human Resources Person asked the young MBA fresh out of MIT, “And what starting salary were you looking for?”
The candidate said, “In the neighborhood of $125,000 a year, depending on the benefits package.”
The HR Person said, “Well, what would you say to a package of 5-weeks vacation, 14 paid holidays, full medical and dental, company matching retirement fund to 50% of salary, and a company car leased every 2 years - say, a red Corvette?”
The Engineer sat up straight and said, “Wow!!! Are you kidding?”
And the HR Person said, “Certainly, …but you started it.”
By blablabla
January 20, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
how do people on the blog feel about the mayors moratorium on intown teardown construction?
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
LOL Renee! That was a good one.
Blabla, I saw the headline but didn’t read the article. Lemme go read it and get back to you.
By Lyrazel
January 20, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
Wow! Look at how heated the debate is—and now do you see the importance of teaching a course about pornography?
Whiley, you are very correct about the increase of snuff/bdsm based pornography. NamelessWoman I have seen a general increase in lurid half-pornographic visual violence against women and children on television too in the name of cop shows, and feel there is significant problems with the portrayal of victimization becoming routine.
Allow me some levity please, it is Friday! I am an aging lady who has/can enjoy pornography, erotica and sexual fantasy in visual as well as written form. As someone who has surfed the internet and laughed at all the photographs of over-perky over-inflated women dressed painfully tacky and routinely in Victoria Secret and stilettos while their men (still wearing their watch and grey socks) give them what is termed: horseplay in some ladys basement (as evidenced by the collapsed baby stroller in said corners of photos) of amateur internet porn. I confess it was how I learned to surf the internet (what to avoid, btw)—and I have also learned—by visiting such sites I get hit with unsolicited emails—especially male enhancement and viagra ads, Naughty Teen phone ads are common—all are ripe and ready for me…but I can laugh.
I know an extremely obese woman, who is a sex-chat operator—a kindly gal, who has had serious health problems and needed money to pay her dental bills. She says, she is typical…I asked…(sees massive deflation of potential 1-800 callers) of workers who answer phone bank calls. Women trying to make ends meet who dont have resources or the ability to get and maintain jobs that pay as much as she can make. Sure, the industry that employs her, like pharmaceutical companies deceitfully hooks suckers in with free samples, and keeps Mr Lonely on the phone for an hour—at his expense. Now, dont get me wrong, pornography has its fundamental criminal side, like gambling it can become an addiction. Mr Lonely is evidence of that—but Mr Lonely is an adult, and HE made the call, bought the mag, viewed the photos…she never contacts THEM…ever.
Ok, so what about child pornography and children having access to smut on-line? We all know the problem is unsupervised computer use access—like where are these concerned parents who DONT monitor what sites are being accessed? Why is it parents who own computers hooked to internet routinely accept their children will have strangers contacting them—or dont know? To be blunt, rude and knowing I will catch flack: Its NOT MY PROBLEM!—its the damn PARENTS PROBLEM and parents should not be so lax with their rugrats and anklebiters KNOWING what adults KNOW about what is available on line!!!!
Phew! Almost done—here—Erotica and pornography are often confused and as morality changes in culture what was erotic can become pornographic. A course study of different cultures does reveal how erotica influences war, poverty, law, music, dance and writing. Why erotica endures is because we are sexual beings—and sometimes—we like to enjoy the shape of a p*** or a breast or the titillation of words expressed in passion in the solitude of our homes, with loved ones or in clubs.
I can see this potential university class as having value and merit—and if it covers the degree of passions, frustrations and concerns about pornography this blog shows, clearly I was mistaken about it being no more important than Ceramics 101.
By The72John
January 20, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Well, I was trying to post an article about legislation currently being passed in the house criminalizing any speech on the internet that was written with the purpose to “annoy”, but for some reason the AJC finds this link to be objectionable content.
By blablabla
January 20, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
jbm, i’ll be curious for your thoughts. as i live in one of the affected areas and am actually planning to put my house on the market in the next few months, the timing of this moratorium has me less than thrilled. realistically a builder wasn’t likely to buy my house for a teardown anyway given its particular characteristics, but i hate to eliminate potential options.
as usual with the local atlanta gov’t, i think that inaction and looking the other way on this issue for far too long has led to a knee-jerk reaction. it’s not like the tear-down, new-build is a new phenomenon, it’s been going on for the last several years as real estate in town has continued to skyrocket. why do we need a moratorium NOW?
and it ticks me off that they’re so concerned with residential mcmansions but fail to do ANYTHING about all the insane overbuilding going on in buckhead and midtown. if you drive through buckhead during lunch or rush hour, there’s a cop on nearly every street corner directing traffic. they stand in front of various office buildings and stop traffic to let cars out of the office building parking lots. clearly whoever built the office building had to show somebody that the existing infrastructure could handle the additional traffic flow, but apparently that entire process is a joke.
although homeowners in the highlands and morningside complain about all the construction activity going on next door, does nobody seem to notice all the construction going on in the area by the city to handle the new sewer system?
anybody want to buy my 3/2 in morningside? over 2,000 sqft (meaning it’s one of the bigger bungalows out there), the entire second floor is the master suite, hardwoods throughout, professionally done master walk-in closets, refinished kitchen w modern appliances…easy walking distance to smith’s ole bar and cowtippers, as well as easy access to ansley mall shopping center…1.5 mile drive to the center of the highlands…quick walk to piedmont park.
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Annoying someone online can be criminal?? Huh?
Bla, I’m not really thrilled with the idea of the moratorium, but I do like the way Shirley handled the perceived problem. I also have a concern about affordable housing, and I think that if we continue toward this trend of building million-dollar homes, we’re going to leave out a lot of the “little” people… and undo much of the work that was done to get minorities and lower-class and lower-middle class people into home ownership.
By Renee
January 20, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
The nun teaching Sunday School was speaking to her class one morning and she asked the question, “When you die and go to Heaven… which part of your body goes first?”
Suzy raised her hand and said, “I think it’s your hands.”
Why do you think it’s your hands, Suzy?”
Suzy replied, “Because when you pray, you hold your hands together in front of you and God just takes your hands first.”
“What a wonderful answer!” the nun said.
Little Johnny raised his hand and said, “Sister, I think it’s your legs.”
The nun looked at him with the strangest look on her face.
“Now, Little Johnny, why do you think it would be your legs?”
Little Johnny said, “Well, I walked into Mommy and Daddy’s bedroom the other night. Mommy had her legs straight up in the air and she was saying, “Oh God,I’m coming!”
If Dad hadn’t pinned her down, we’d have lost her.”
The nun fainted
By Renee
January 20, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
blah I have to agree with your thoughts on that.
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
Sounds like an awesome house, Bla… I can only imagine the upgrade I assume you’re moving into.
I agree with you about our local gov’t taking way too long to react, but at the same time, I also think they’re better late than never. And, I completely agree about the absurdity of the over-building that’s going on in Midtown and Buckhead. It’s just ridiculous. Actually, I’d say that there’s an overall trend of over-building throughout Atlanta, and the size of these properties isn’t the only problem. You can’t drive 2 miles anywhere in Atlanta without seeing construction of new subdivisions (mostly pricey homes), townhomes, condos… it’s just ridiculous.
The midtown/uptown area is slowly becoming a smaller version of Manhattan, which isn’t necessarily a good thing.
I’m most curious to see how they’re going to work out the sewer and traffic issues, which will only worsen with all this new construction.
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
HILARIOUS, Renee!!!! I’m cracking up…
By Renee
January 20, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
Sitting on the side of the highway waiting to catch speeding drivers, a State Police Officer see’s a car puttering along at 22 MPH.
He thinks to himself, “This driver is just as dangerous as a speeder!”So he turns on his lights and pulls the driver over.
Approaching the car, he notices that there are five old ladies, two in the front seat and three in the back, wide eyed and white as ghosts.
The driver, obviously confused, says to him, “Officer, I don’t understand, I was doing exactly the speed limit! What seems to be the problem?”
“Ma’am,” the officer replies, “You weren’t speeding, but you should know that driving slower than the speed limit can also be a danger to other drivers.”
“Slower than the speed limit? No sir, I was doing the speed limit exactly twenty-two miles an hour!” the old woman says a bit proudly.
The State Police officer, trying to contain a chuckle explains to her that “22” was the route number, not the speed limit.
A bit embarrassed, the woman grinned and thanked the officer for pointing out her error.
“But before I let you go, Ma’am, I have to ask… Is everyone in this car OK? These women seem awfully shaken and they haven’t muttered a single peep this whole time,” the officer asks.
“Oh, they’ll be all right in a minute officer. We just got off Route 142.”
By The72John
January 20, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
JBM, I normally don’t like to cut-and-paste, but I can’t post the link…here’s the article from C-Net News.com.
It’s no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
In other words, it’s OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
“The use of the word ‘annoy’ is particularly problematic,” says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “What’s annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else.”
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called “Preventing Cyberstalking.” It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet “without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy.”
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section’s other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.
The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
There’s an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an “interactive computer service” to cause someone “substantial emotional harm.”
That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
In each of those three cases, someone’s probably going to be annoyed. That’s enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won’t file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.
“Who decides what’s annoying? That’s the ultimate question,” Fein said. He added: “If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?”
Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material “with intent to annoy.” But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn’t have to worry.
“I’m certainly not going to close the site down,” Fein said on Friday. “I would fight it on First Amendment grounds.”
He’s right. Our esteemed politicians can’t seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.
It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.
If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he’d realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.
And then he’d repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.
Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans’ personal freedoms. Now we’ll see if the president rises to the occasion.
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
I can’t help but to laugh at that, John. What a colossal waste of time.
By blablabla
January 20, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
jbm, i agree that it’s probably better late than never. it’s just a little frustrating that they waited until right before i was going to list to do this, but of course, that’s murphy’s law for you.
and i agree that some maintenance of the original theme of the neighborhood is important, as well as the need to keep intown housing at least somewhat affordable for as long as possible. one of the things that i find nice about atl is that this isn’t a city of renters, it’s mostly a city of homeowners, even in-town.
i’m glad you like my house. the funny thing is that we’ll probably spend about the same or slightly less on the next house in comparison to the sale price of our existing house, since we’re planning to move a little bit out of town where we can get more land and more house for the money. you can’t really raise a family in a 3/2 bungalow with such little space. the houses you can get right at the perimeter in dunwoody or in decatur/oakhurst are just insane when compared to the prices in the highlands and morningside.
By blablabla
January 20, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
JOHN - your cut and paste annoys me. what is your real name so i can report you to the justice department, you evil bastard! just kidding. lol.
these things would be great jokes if they weren’t true.
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
Blabla, I know, isn’t it just ridiculous?!!! I too, choose to live intown (but downtown), and I’m in one of those “revitalization project” neighborhoods where they’ve torn down all the housing projects and built up condos, townhomes, and single-family dwellings.
Even with the incentives to purchase in this once-crime-ridden, litter-decorated neighborhood, the housing is still outrageous compared to what we could get if we moved to North Decatur, Ellenwood, Riverdale, or Dunwoody. And, don’t get me to talking about what we could get if we moved even further out… my friend has a 7/4 house in Peachtree City that cost her the same as my 3/3 in downtown Atl. Another friend has a ridiculously large house in Ellenwood, I think it’s a 6/3 or 6/4… cost just a tiny bit more than my house. And, his is at least twice the sq. footage of my house.
It’s just ridiculous, and it’s starting to remind me too much of NY.
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Renee, that last one was funny too!
By blablabla
January 20, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this
jbm, i know. it’s just crazy. there are 3/3s on my street being listed at nearly three-quarter million. god bless em if they can get it, but it’s absurd. in dunwoody, my wife finds these 6/4s with a pool going for half million on 2/3 acre. again, it’s just crazy and i can’t wait to move to dunwoody or decatur since those areas will be the next highlands or buckhead, and we’ll have the house and land we want.
By Jack
January 20, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
Exactly why traffic is horrible in this city.
By blablabla
January 20, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
personally, i think the reason the traffic is so bad is bc the planning and zoning folks for fulton county are insane. a bunch of monkeys could do a better job than the folks we got doing it now. they care more about tax revenue to feed the beast instead of zoning/planning with the goal of creating thought out communities in areas that make sense. you can stuff an office building or a condo anywhere you want in buckhead if you can get the footprint.
By Renee
January 20, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
Response to a request for a day off work:
So you want a day off. Let’s take a look at what you are asking for. There are 365 days per year available for work. There are 52 weeks per year in which you already have 2 days off per week, leaving 261 days available for work. Since you spend 16 hours each day away fron work, you have used up 170 days, leaving only 91 days available. You spend 30 minutes each day on coffee break which counts for 23 days each year, leaving only 68 days available. With a 1 hour lunch each day, you used up another 46 days, leaving only 22 days available for work. You normally spend 2 days per year on sick leave. This leaves you only 20 days per year available for work. We are off 5 holidays per year, so your available working time is down to 15 days. We generously give 14 days vacation per year which leaves only 1 day available for work and I’ll be darned if you are going to take that day off!
By Renee
January 20, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
A group of psychiatrists were attending a convention. Four of them decided to leave, and walked out together. One said to the other three, “People are always coming to us with their guilt and fears, but we have no one that we can go to when we have problems.” The others agreed.
Then one said, “Since we are all professionals, why don’t we take some time right now to hear each other out?”
The other three agreed.
The first then confessed, “I have an uncontrollable desire to kill my patients.”
The second psychiatrist said, “I love expensive things and so I find ways to cheat my patients out of their money whenever I can so I can buy the things I want.”
The third followed with, “I’m involved with selling drugs and often get my patients to sell them for me.”
The fourth psychiatrist then confessed, “I know I’m not supposed to, but no matter how hard I try, I can’t keep a secret…”
By Renee
January 20, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
I’m having too much fun!
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
Wow, Bla, I want to live on your street! lol
I think traffic sucks because (1) our lights on major streets aren’t synchronized, (2) our major highways don’t have access roads, (3) our mass transit system sucks hard, and (4) the aforementioned over-construction of the city.
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
LOL Renee! Talk about sticking your foot in your mouth…
By kimberly
January 20, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
(5) Two million yankees moved here. (6) Clearly, people are not sufficiently utilizing birth control.
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
Having just moved into his new office, a pompous, new colonel was sitting at his desk when an airman knocked on the door. Conscious of his new position, the colonel quickly picked up the phone, told the airman to enter, then said into the phone, “Yes, General, I’ll be seeing him this afternoon and I’ll pass along your message. In the meantime, thank you for your good wishes, sir.”
“Feeling as though he had sufficiently impressed the young enlisted man, he asked, “What do you want?”
“Nothing important, sir,” the airman replied, … “I’m just here to hook up your telephone.”
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, the yankees from the tri-state area would be happy to take mass transit if it were worth two cents.
By Jack
January 20, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
The population of Atlanta increases during working hours by 60+ percent. They designed MARTA’s rail in a “T” instead of a circle going around the city with stations along like the spokes on a bike. They had their heads up their arses and their wallets padded by special interests. They push Atlantic Station as if the adverage person can afford to live there.
By kimberly
January 20, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this
JBM, I’d be right there with you! {:->
By kimberly
January 20, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
For those of you who didn’t get enough of last week’s abortion “discussion,” another one has started up over on Opinion Talk. Unfortunately, it’s one of those time-delayed boards, so you can’t get the immediate gratification of screaming “SHUT UP AND MIND YER OWN BEEZWAX, YOU FASCIST P——!”
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
Speaking of traffic and Atlantic Station… try getting into Ikea on a Saturday… if you have the patience of a NYer, you’ll end up at ikea.com instead.
By Jack
January 20, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
We missed you yesterday Kimberly. :)
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
That’s funny Kimberly. Just yesterday, I learned that friends of mine, pregnant with their 5th child, are faced with the decision to terminate a high-risk pregnancy that could (and probably will) leave her with a crippling illness, and unable to care for their other 4 children.
I was going to mention it yesterday, but didn’t want to raise the issue again.
By kimberly
January 20, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Hi Jack. Speaking of IKEA, does anyone else suspect some narcotic ingredient in those cinnamon rolls? I mean, you get there early to avoid the crowd, have a coffee and one of those HUMONGOUS gooey things, for like a dollar, and the next thing you know you’re gliding around the showroom in a happy trance. “Wow…. I love this place….” I know it’s not just me; I saw the other happy-trance faces.
By kimberly
January 20, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
JBM, how heartbreaking for your friends! I’m sorry for their situation. I hope they are well-served by their doctors and insurance, and that everyone else lets them BE.
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, thanks. With the support of their family and friends (like me), they’re doing just fine. She told me that she’s very grateful for her 4 beautiful children, and that she couldn’t even consider doing anything that would take her away from them, and leave her husband to try to raise them alone… Although she hasn’t officially made her decision yet, it’s not hard to figure out what she’ll end up doing.
By Scalia
January 20, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
I agree about the people who designed MARTA having their pockets lined by people with special interests. I would love to take mass transit. I love taking it in New York. I can drink at a club as much as I want without having to worry about getting pulled over.
If you remember Jack, somebody said a few weeks ago that people didn’t want marta going to the OTP areas because people would rob and kill them.
By blablabla
January 20, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
jbm, i hope your friend makes the right decision for herself and her family and i wish her my best in what sounds like a difficult and heart-wrenching situation.
and you are more than welcome to come live on my street anytime. it’s hardly exclusive if i live there. lol. i’d much prefer you to one of the neighbors i have, who i absolutely, positively detest more than just about anyone i’ve ever met.
By blablabla
January 20, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
jack,
what is the average price for a 3/2 or a 4/3 in atlantic station? i’ve been over there to ikea and to fox bar and grill a few times, but i’ve never nosed around for prices. do they only have townhomes or do they have some areas that are single, stand-alone houses?
and marta is awful, as you correctly point out. it’s so sad that a city/metropolitan area of 5mm or more people can’t get a realistic transit system. in that respect, the city and the counties can’t ever agree on how to do it and how to pay for it, so we all suffer the traffic as a result.
By Viewer
January 20, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
JBM - all that effort for a measley B- ? You mean I would have had to actually find some to get the A? that’s okay, B- works fine for me. LMAO
By Randy
January 20, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
That woman may remain with her four children, but she’ll burn in hell for murder. Why doesn’t she pray and turn it over to God? She could be saved and the poor innocent baby she is planning on murdering could be saved too. She may be okay with risking her eternal life with our Lord and Saviour but I wouldn’t be.
By Jack
January 20, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
Not Sure Bla. Townhomes are 400-1mil. Those folks still have to drive to work too.
By blablabla
January 20, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
i can’t bring myself to pay 7 figures for a townhouse. just can’t do it. land is what goes up in value, much less so the building sitting on it.
faced with the choice of 400 for a townhouse in atlantic station and 550 for a house in morningside/highlands or 450 for a 5/4 in dunwoody, i’d look outside atlantic station.
By Jack
January 20, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
There are many lofts in town. Like JBM said. I saw some new ones off Marrietta St.
By Nikita
January 20, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Ah, Randy — such strong words you use to describe a woman who’s making a prudent and very private decision. I don’t know what the implications are for her soul, and neither do you. So, I wish her the best and I wish you some enlightenment.
By Motivated APS Parent
January 20, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
Randy, although you have no place for forgiveness in your heart, God does. So, I doubt she’d be “risking her eternal life” as long as she repents… if she’s actually committing “murder” in the first place.
And, by the way Randy, you don’t burn in hell for murder. You burn in hell for unforgiven sins.
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
Oh, and that was from me under my Education Blog name…
By Brian Curtis
January 20, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
Jesus and Moses are out golfing one weekend when they approach a water hazard on the fourteenth hole. As Jesus lines up his shot, Moses warns him, “You’re going to need a wood for this one; otherwise it’ll go short and fall in the pond.�
Jesus just shrugs. “I’m the child of God, and I’ve seen Tiger Woods make shots like this with a five-iron. If he can do it, so can I.� He winds up, swings… and sure enough, it plops right into the pond.
Moses sighs, parts the water, and retrieves Jesus’ ball for him.
On the sixteenth hole, the same thing happens. Moses warns Jesus to switch to a wood, Jesus just shrugs and says, “If Tiger Woods can make this shot with a five-iron, so can I.� And again… plop, right into the water.
This time, Moses gets annoyed. “OH no, not this time,� he snaps. “Get your own ball, fella.�
Jesus just smiles, walks out onto the water, and sticks his club down into the lake to line up his shot.
A passing golfer sees this and gasps, “Whoa… Who does that guy think he is, Jesus Christ?�
A long-suffering Moses sighs gloomily, “He IS Jesus Christ… but he THINKS he’s Tiger Woods.�
By Renee
January 20, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Sounded like you JBM! I already knew.
By Renee
January 20, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
Good one Brian
By The72John
January 20, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis, you’re going to burn in hell for telling a religious joke.
Randy, what a sad little man you are, and what a petty little deity you worship.
By Viewer
January 20, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
A young woman who had been married for several years was growing more and more frustrated at her husband’s lack of interest in sex. She wondered about ways to add some pizzazz to their sexual relationship, and finally decided to purchase some crotch-less panties she had seen while shopping.
One evening when she was feeling particularly desirous and he was, as usual, watching television. She took a shower, freshened up, and donned her crotch-less panties and a slinky negligee.
She then strolled between her husband and the television and suggestively tossed one leg up on his chair arm.
“Want some of this?” she purred.
“Are you kidding?” he replied, “Look what it did to your underwear.”
By Renee
January 20, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
lol viewer!!
By lozen
January 20, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
The jokes have been very good this afternoon and I’ve enjoyed them. However, I’ve been surfing a blog on the Santa Fe New Mexican and I have to say again the topics picked for this Woman to Woman blog are the pits. Out there today they’ve been discussing the intrusion into our privacy again by the Bush administration collecting info from internet providers and being rebuffed by Google who’s standing up to them and saying “NO!” This group of people running our gov’t scares me to death. I believe some of you have read “1984” and the idea that keeping war going all the time (even if it doesn’t really exist) keeps the citizens frightened and willing to give up their liberties and their rights and play into the hands of a totalitarian gov’t. Sound like real life to anyone else? Bush is supposed to have said, A dictatorship doesn’t sound that bad as long as I’m the dictator.” Wow! Perhaps that’s why bin laden has not been caught. How hard can it be to catch a seven foot tall man carting a dialysis machine around with him everywhere he goes? Keep up the good jokes and then have a great weekend.
By Just Being Me
January 20, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this
Renee, you know me well! ;-)
Viewer, that was hilarious!
By Viewer
January 20, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
Still laughing over that one myself.
Google - interestingly the local FOX channel lead into that story last night, as they went to the FoxAroundAmerica segment. lead-in was “Google against government’s efforts to fight child p@rn”. Only on FOX.
huh, come again? Think there is a much more serious issue with that request, fulfilled quickly by yahoo and most likely Microsft, although they had ‘no comment’.
Kinda like cordoning off a few city blocks, just to do random sampling, and doing a full-search to find out it anyone has child-p@rn.
Surprised the Bush administration did not just invoke the Patriot Act and say it(request to google) was in the need to fight terrorism.
By The72John
January 20, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
The exact quote:
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other. But that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.
This was in reference to the congressional leaders and his basic belief that they should all shut up and do what he says. Delivered in his traditional “Aw, shucks” manner. It would be funny were it not for the fact that his apparent desire for absolute power has grown exponentially since he was merely the President-Elect.
By Viewer
January 20, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
s/b: iF anyone has child-p@rn.
By Whiley
January 20, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this
The fact is, porn depicts women as objects. Not a person, just a sexual object, a piece of meat that can be purchased on an as needed basis. This does a huge disservice to men, & even bigger one to women. The women who bought into the idea that it’s just sex, money makes it all OK. And to the men, since it’s legal & the women appear to like it, it’s OK.
Reducing women to objects hurts everybody. So the next time you or someone you know is using porn, try to remember the girl involved. That smile on her face is not real, neither are the images you’ve paid for.
A college course about today’s mainstream porn could be a positive thing, if it taught the truth about the industry & how it destroys lives & affects the current treatment of women & children.
Eventually we’re going to have to do something.
By fioricet online pharmacy
January 22, 2006 06:31 AM | Link to this
yes.this is my site http://hochubumer.allsoch.ru/fioricet/info_fioricet.html Thanks.
By internet gambling prohibition act
January 22, 2006 06:41 AM | Link to this
yes.this is my site http://hochubumer.allsoch.ru/internetgambling/gamblinginternet_money.html Thanks.
By car insurance companies in canada
January 22, 2006 06:55 AM | Link to this
yes.this is my site http://hochubumer.allsoch.ru/carinsurance/progressivecarinsurancequote.html Thanks.
By lotto keno odds
January 22, 2006 07:10 AM | Link to this
yes.this is my site http://hochubumer.allsoch.ru/keno/kenoplayforfunno_registration.html Thanks.
By ben
January 23, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this
Censorship is un-American!