Internet Porn

quote:

---

Yes. You use broad language which pretends knowledge that abuse can be anywhere.

---

More words in my mouth. I didn;t say it CAN be anywhere, although that is increasingly likely as sundry misogyny and racism are steadily defended. I said the PUNTER cannot be certain.

quote:

---

This is PATENTLY FALSE. No mechanism anywhere? I tell you what. Start a porn business (even an independent internet one) and run it LEGALLY.

---

What on eartjh is the relevance of this? It only serves to demoinstrate that your etnire argument, by your admission, has been a "joke"; I have already identified your belaboured attempt to switch the topic from internet porn to 'safe legal porn'. Please STAY ON TOPIC, or create a new thread.

quote:

---

If a person is ever in doubt and wants to make sure, absolutely 100%, that there is no coercion, all you have to do is look at 1) it's a US registered business, and 2) it has a nice little 2257 compliance notice at the bottom.

---

Great. So thats dealt with responsible consumers of legal porn. What does that have to do with this thread, though?

quote:

---

Thus YOUR UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS are FEARMONGERING.

---

Holmes continues with his distortion above; not only does attack me for sticking to the topic, he then draws conclusions from it and attributes motive!

quote:

---

Vague, idiot, vague. Its part of a guilt by association argument, which you do just dandy. Bob and weave, duck and cover, and shift them goal posts. No one can touch ya... then zoom out with a nice juicy "but you NEVER CAN KNOW."

---

I'm glad you finally and grudgingly acknowledge the point I raise. Can you be bothered to address it yet?

quote:

---

Huh? And huh? I like how you tell me not to talk about the content of porn stores, yet are able to bring in sex workers and childporn because they are relevant to internet porn?

---

Well, the thread topic is INTERNET PORN; not 'regulated american porn' That means we are dealing with MANY origins, not merely yuour local legal arrangements.

quote:

---

Anyhow, I am trying to figure out how anyone mistakes buying childporn online, with buying adult porn from a legitimate business (indy or not).

---

Whats that got to do with anything at all? I've never suggested anyone was making a mistake.

quote:

---

Funny thing is, and maybe you should check it out, in the West it already is legal and is regulated. Overregulated in fact.

---

Cpongratulations, Sherlock, I'm well aware of this. I merely don;t make the error of synechdoche and assume that this is representative of all INTERNET PORN; you know, the topic.

quote:

---

No childrape pornographer said I think I'll keep up this site and round up more girls and boys because so many people are seeing my popup page.

---

Correct; they appear to operate by invitation only, and by donations of collections to an archive. Which demsontarets again that they are actively soliciting and producing this material, and real human beings suffer in its production.

quote:

---

That's why when you go to get that black market shit you keep talking about, you know when you crossed the line.

---

quote:

---

See what I'm saying. Conflation and vaguery and indictment of PORN. Porn sells women. Wrong. Porn sells sexual entertainment.

---

Correct. Or indeed, exactly. And especially interesting in the light of the long history of male control over female sexuality. It is the reduction of humans to sexual objects that it sells.

quote:

---

Mainstream is the majority of porn, including internet porn. Thus it has relevance... much more so than sex workers and child slave rings.

---

Really? What? I mean, clearly harsh working conditions in textile factories in 'free trade zones' are totally irrleevant to the problem of poor working conditions; becuase of course in the west we have unions and labour law. So clearly, there cannot be a problem anywhere... Holmes, your desperation to get yourself out of the hephalump trap you dug for yourself is dirving you to the miost absurd rationalisations.

quote:

---

And that's the key. You say there is a reason to be concerned and that there are NO MECHANISMS for one to know whether any image is coerced or not. Well that is patently untrue. There is a great amount... mainstream porn... for which there ARE MECHANISMS, and so free of this CONCERN of yours.

---

OK. Lets hypethsize I have bfroe me a porniographic image downloaded from the net. Where in that image is the manufacturer specified and their licence given? come on, holmes, I want you to show me the MECHANISM by which I can be SURE that there is no coercion. Go to it, step by step please.

quote:

---

People should not be concerned about the porn they consume, until they start deviating from the mainstream.

---

Oh I see Only perverts are a problem. But as you know, we for example differ over some content I say is racist; thus our perception of where the line is crossed differs. Therefore, appealing to your personal view of what is or isn;t mainstream is valueless to the question. Theres not even a reason to think that mainstream porn has anything to do with the actual topic, which I remind you again, is INTERNET PORN.

quote:

---

Again, a person getting a slave sex worker can't be too shocked.

---

No shit. I am sure they are getting exactly what they paid for.

quote:

---

And that's ASSUMING all trafficked people go into sex work which is also patently untrue.

---

I assumed no such thing. Please try to address the argument I am making instead of this endless succession of straw men.

quote:

---

Now remember I was talking about porn stores in this case,

---

... yes, becuase of your complete inability to advance a case related to the actual thread topic.

quote:

---

They better all have labels and those labels better all have 2257 notices and inside the tapes

---

WHAT TAPES??????????? The topic is INTERNET PORN!

quote:

---

There is no REASONABLE CONCERN for the white market, certainly not at this point in time.

---

But holmes, the topic, as I have pointed out to you many times, is internet porn, not 'white market regulated american porn'. As I identified a long time ago, your entire argument depends on distorting the topic your favoured ground.And thus your ranting is exposed again. You have criticised me an others for being concerned about porn in general, when by your own admission you can only be confident about a small subset of all porn. You did the same thing to feminists; you are distorting the argument, and then attributing malice to your opponent based on this distortion. Its difficult to imagine a less honest argmentative technique.

quote:

---

Fourth. How can a hacker fool you into believing their business registration and 2257 compliance material?

---

With photoshop. Duh.

quote:

---

You can certainly bump into it accidentally through free content, but then I pose the question to you how that leads to a market in human trafficking? Seeing something for free never put money in anyone's pocket.

---

Actually thats not true, to the extent I understand how hit counters work. But it presumes an ideal isolated transaction unsullied by the real world. Once the purchase has been made, there is nothing to prevent it being re-distributed to like minded fellows; there is nothing to prevent it from being redistributed for free. So once again, your entire defence rests on the assumption of ideal conditions.

quote:

---

You mean grey and black market ends of porn generally serves as a venue for gray and black market activity in general?

---

No. But that the grey and black markets are by definition unregulated, and so the extent of misogyny that appears in porn, the degradation of women, which you deny in mainstream porn, is here uncontrollable; and thus your complacency about porn in general is demonstrated as bogus rationalisation.You;ve already conceded your anti-feminists rants were "a joke"; and seeing as your entire argument rested on the claim that these feminsists were creating alarm where there is nothing to be worried about is totally discredited. Firstly becuase you have admitted that your description of feminists was innacurate, secondly because you grudgingly concede that in fact a grey and black market exists and is not regulated to the extent that the legal market is (duh), and third you have demonstrated the very tolerabce for, for example, racist imagery that constitutes one of the concerns.Case closed; you have been soundly whipped, kid. Go play in the shallow end.

quote:

---

What you just outlined is the real myth and you ought to be very very ashamed for stating it again. You carted this out once before and I tore it to shreds. I hope this is the last time I am going to see this from you.

---

Yeesh this is like attending a remedial social studies class.Lets start here:

quote:

---

Geishas and courtesans and brothels and mistresses have been with us FOREVER.

---

In the first instance, 'forever' is hyperbolic on a number of levels. More substantively however, note that all of these are FEMALE roles. So can restate the claim thus: women providing sexual services to men has been with us 'forever', or at least, quite some way looking back. But seeing as these coincide with women being the lesser partner, or a dependant, or reliant on (unsurprisingly) patronage, it is indicative not of free human expression but the sexual commification and objectification of human beings.So the case that this is demonstrably natural has NOT been demonstrated, becuase misogynistic coercion would also produce this phenomenon.

quote:

---

And once again, the myth you have created is steeped in ethnocentrism.

---

And the myth you propagate is steeped in androcentrism, not least because authentic female perspectives of most historical periods are hard to come by. Its unsurprising that by and large we get a quite naturally self-serving analysis by men and for men.Now; please note that I am not asserting anywhere that monogamy is in any sense natural, or the the legislators of our morals have any serious argument. I can easily cite 'promiscuous' practices in many societies. But this has little to do with the allegation that the advent of the pill allowed a large degree of social and psychological pressure to be placed on women to conform to this new order, and indeed a language of 'frigidity' appeared to explain (and criticise) those women who declined to open their legs for anyone who asked.Observing that monogomy is a social construct does not mean that no such pressure was applied.This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-07-2004 07:39 AM

Define the difference between it can be anywhere and a punter cannot be certain if any specific image is or not, especially with the "increasingly likely tag" you placed on it. Read the topic of this thread which is contained in the first post. While the title is internet porn, the TOPIC is certainly not limited to that two word phrase. Indeed, you are the one who has moved on to details about how it is created, rather than its effects on the viewers.As it is I am sick of your wandering around to different topics in order to claim relevance if it makes a negative statement, and irrelevance if it does not.Especially if the topic is internet porn, mainstream porn markets (including those that make stuff for your local store) equal if not more pertinent to discussion than the lives of sex workers where prostitution is illegal and the connection of human traffickers to prostitution.If you are BUYING porn online, then you have ways of making sure that the content is legit and noncoercive and not connected to human trafficking. If you cannot figure out how this is done then you are an idiot.I love that line about photoshop being able to fake business registration and 2257 documentation. Again, showing you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.me: you: Well that pretty much says it all doesn't it? I have a pair of pants that I bought. Tell me how I know whether there was any coercion in its manufacture.Well? Can't you figure out where to start? Or rather before you go and get materials (because we are talking about an industry and purchasers supporting one) how you can figure out whether coercion was involved?Since we are talking about stopping an industry the latter question is more appropriate, right?Your hypothetical question fails as it not only does not address the question at hand, nor can an unknown indict anything (that would be an argument from ignorance), but it is clearly too hypothetical. Perhaps you can forward the picture to the police department. They'll be able to tell you in pretty short order.But FYI, some companies do embed 2257 notices on their images, supposedly even in the script of the file (it is a picture FILE after all). If common sense can't help you out, I suppose you can resort to checking for these.And before you pretend like people can't do such a thing, it is the same technique producers use to track digital images for copyright issues. Once again, I have but to show your own argument for my own defence. My claim was only that one cannot blame PORN IN GENERAL, as it is wide and made up of many different things. I am not arguing for complacency, I am arguing that there is no one thing which can be defined as "porn" and so talking about what we have to worry about or address in "porn" is a meaningless (or impractical) statement.To deal with problems which happen to be in the making of some porn, we can move into more concrete definitions or foci. And we should rid ourselves of impractical artifacts such as saying we have no mechanism to know whether any image was made via coercion. In addition to being impractical, in theoretical terms those artifacts are also fallacies: arguments from ignorance and guilt by association. Well I didn't concede anything was a joke.As for your second statement... I also never claimed that there was NOTHING to be worried about. What I did try to argue is that moving from specific claims of harm to criticize "porn in general" was fallacious, especially using material antiporn feminists had used. They certainly do indict ALL PORN, and are not saying hey guys let's clean up the grey and black markets. Indeed they do use the argument from ignorance and guilt by association fallacies you have been toting out.Thus we DO NOT need to be WORRIED on THAT SCALE. It is not ANY PORN, it is SPECIFIC PORN, or more accurately SPECIFIC BEHAVIOR some of which ends up in specific grey or black markets of porn.In fact, I think I will begin calling your argument (combining the two fallacies into one greater fallacy) the "evil of the gaps" fallacy. You are creating the illusion that where there is a gap in hypothetical knowledge one should fill it and treat it with the possibility of evil. 1) I didn't.2) Grudging? I didn't.3) You and willowtree ought to get together and form a club. I suppose if I found ten thousand studies by ten thousand researchers proving you wrong, then they must be racists too. Oh yeah, you already said that as well. Well if that's all you got it is cased closed, and I haven't been whipped at all. You have yet to present any counterarguments nor evidence to support your completely unsupported claims. And as far as I can tell you keep setting up strawmen of my position in order to have something to add in each post.I would suggest that it is not me that must get out of the shallow end, but you that must get out of the wading pool and join the adults for a real swim.If you want to address any topic with some real evidence, I'll be ready. Otherwise I'll leave you to play with Willowtree and the other kids.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Really? When we are specifically looking at human behavior I am uncertain how "forever" in relation to that is hyperbolic on any level.If you wish me to change my statement to "...have been with us since the very beginning of all written history" then I'll do that, but to me that's as good as forever as far as human "nature" is concerned. This is MORE substantive? Okey doke. While I mentioned only females since the FUCKING TOPIC WAS THE EFFECT OF THE PILL, I could very well have mentioned male prostitution and male companions.Would you like me to go into them? Or are you really going to pretend that only females were sexual partners (paid or other) outside of marriage, and throughout history? Oh I see you will, and add to it that they must have been lesser people. Nevermind that Geishas and mistresses were held in very high regard and could have much power, and among some earlier civilizations prostitutes held sacred positions in society.I wonder if you have had anything but remedial history. Oh wait, you probably had herstory, right? Because history is sexist?Anyhow, its not all commodification as "mistress" should have denoted, but then you even ducked the fact that I was also talking about orgies and fertility sexual rites, to make your point. Actually it would, only it would add (if your interpretation were true) that misogyny was also "natural".Given all cultures and throughout history (and involving both males and females), I'd say that's about as concrete as evidence you can get that it is "natural" to humans.You got some definition of "natural" we can work with.I mean I could show that people have been paying for food since people could write, that don't make food "unnatural". Huh? She said the myth was that people wanting to have sex with lots of people had existed before the pill, which took away reallife impediments to such activity.I said that was a myth and pointed to the very real "promiscuous" sexuality humans have shown throughout history. It is amazing that you are now going to try and say that all of history was just made up by men? I guess to suit their fantasies?I mean at BEST this says that schraf was right about women. That women never wanted to have sex with lots of guys until the pill came along. Clearly your argument would support a position that for men it had been natural.I would then REPEAT the fact that we have women authors speaking on the subject of more open sexualities, including before the creation of the pill. Uhhhhhh, Freud started this well before the pill. He even went so far as to say that girls who wanted clitoral stimulation rather than vaginal stimulation, were frigid.I am uncertain where you are seeing that men said, okay now there's the pill so you should have sex with whoever. Or how you came to believe that was part of the "sexual revolution"... which is what schraf was refering to.What's amazing is that a part of that revolution was increased acceptance and discussion of homosexuality... what does that have to do with the pill?And of course since we can never really KNOW, I suppose we'll have to assume that Sappho was really a man. The sexual revolution definitely made sex more of a subject of conversation for OUR culture, and it may have raised the awareness and desire for more promiscuous lifestyles.Heck, going to war in Europe had the same effect (because THEIR culture was already promiscuous) and why the FBI got its start (to try and combat such cultural contamination in troops).This indicates nothing of the PILL's contribution to the sexual revolution, particularly for making it more natural to conceive of promiscuity such that we came to believe people were more promiscuous in the past.You are really scratching to try and knock my argument of schraf's post. Indeed you appear to have constructed an entirely new argument which I wasn't even addressing.If you want to start a new topic, don't do it using my post to someone else and act like I am discussing what you are.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I thought the name Trojan for condoms was pretty
funny .... let's you get inside without anyone
noticing all them little soldiers

If you read the bible you'd also notice that
god didn't want them to think that nudity was
a problem...Added by edit::Apologies for the replies to such old messages ...
I bin busy This message has been edited by Peter, 08-03-2004 03:45 AM

A seemingly ridiculous study linking tv viewing to sexual acitvity has been announced at this link.
{Fixed link. You had "url="http..." where it should be "url=http...". - Adminnemooseus}There were so many problems with this study, at least from how it was being reported, that I'm almost at a loss on where to start.1) Self-reporting is a kind of notoriously innaccurate way to gauge causational relationships of any kind.2) The desire to have sex might promote BOTH tv watching with sexual content and actual attempts at sex... duh. That would account for every statistic they reported.3) It did not appear to take into account differences between other cultures, where there might be a totally different correlation.4) It did not appear to try and measure a norm for sexual behavior, other than to assume that watching and acting out sexually was a DEVIATION from what children normally do.5) It did not appear to try and find out why tv would have a different correlation to activity, than say magazines or books.6) Since it is admitted there was no quanitifying of tv watching in the study's report, one wonders if it was part of the study at all. It certainly doesn't seem much of a study of CAUSATION when the amount and connection to activity is not under study.7) Since many parents try to keep kids away from sexual material, could increased viewing be related to more free time anyway and so more chances to have initiate sex?8) There appeared to be a tone of anti-sexuality, as if this study could be used to help parents find ways to regulate their children's sexual appetites, with no reason to suggest that this is appropriate. Did those that engaged in sex without watching engage in more risky behaviors when they did act? Hmmmm.9) This did not seem to probe masturbatory activities, or it kept them separate from activity with others, which would have been important if it was looking at sexual behavior.10) It did not appear to take into account the effects of other media IN ADDITION to tv, rather than just regardless of tv which I mentioned earlier.Internet porn used to be the big monster, but I guess since Janet showed her nipple and the conservatives want to use this to stomp on sexuality in broadcast media, it was important to focus on TV as the monster that devours our children.This is yet another sad day for social research everywhere. People should not be allowed to do a study until they fully understand the difference between causation and correlation, and the immense amount of information one needs to collect for any study to imply causation.I'll bet if they did a study on drinking cola and sexual activity, or dressing in trendy styles and sexual activity, you'll find a positive correlation.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-15-2004 12:43 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I couldn't follow that link.I tend to think that there is an unusual fear of sexuality
and sexual behaviour in western governments ... and I cannot
for the life of me figure out why. Is that diet or regular ?

Cherry, max, and twist.And here's the link to the article:
Page Not Found | Reuters.comThis message has been edited by holmes, 09-15-2004 01:58 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

A few points brought up by Holmes:
"And as far as your question about 'healthy attitudes about women', I am a bit curious how you would go about measuring this as an OBJECTIVE characteristic beyond not wanting to harm them."Well you could start with the development of steriotypes towards women, which is plausable because enough time seeing women having sex would certainly change the perspective of someone who hadn't previously been exposed to Internet Porn, such as a child. If your looking for a study to prove every point that is brought up, there isn't always going to be one. Reguardless of whether an up-to-date study is available this doesnt pose a threat to the thought patterns and morals of the reasonable person, particularly parents. Take steroids for example. There was a time when the side effects of steroids were not known, but does that mean that everyone jumped on the testosterone boat just to get bigger guns? Of course not, all it took was a reasonable person to realize that there was a very proabable risk of serious side effects. Another example is smoking tabacco.
Along with the example of steriotypes towards women the expectations of women would most definately change as many of these children who veiw Internet Porn may be uncertain of what happens in real life. The point of this being that porn isn't even as much about sexual intercourse as it is acting...its been referred to as art in fact. Take the average Bang Bus video and compare it to a close intimate couple making love and the result just isn't the same.Holmes- "The closest any study has come to finding any possible causative link between porn and behavior is increased apathy (perhaps just in attitude) towards victimization of women.... but there's a caveat! That is when the "porn" under discussion is hardcore violent porn, and researchers believe the desensitization comes from the violence and NOT the sex."I'm not sure if researchers beleive this based on some tangible evidence...nevertheless I think this point brings up nothing valid in your favor, other than a lack of studies in this field.Holmes- "To my mind the Bible holds not only 0 healthy attitudes about women, but the most violent anti-women statements you can find anywhere."Well I'd like to know what part of the bible you were reading. There ar numerous examples that cite that a husband show deep love for his wife. In fact the verse says to love your wife as you do yourself. Sounds like men and women are on the same playing grounds when it comes to love and respect. Perhaps you could site the verse that is so "anti-women."Holmes- "One passage extolls the virtue of God as he sends armies to rape and kill two girls. On the flip side many believe that feminism delivers unhealthy attitudes towards women."I'm sure you searched the Good Book real hard to find that one. Strangely enough im not familiar with this biblical story. You might want to consider context when using these examples...it might not be quite as "anti-woman" as you think it is, it's probably more along the lines of "anti-sinner."Holmes- "1) what about attitudes towards men, they are in porn too?"Absolutely. In fact thats an excellent question that you bring up. It's somewhat ironic in my opinion that we discuss the "views towards women" all this time when men are being just as degraded in Internet Porn.Holmes- "2) what about gay porn?"What about it? ....am I missing something?Holmes- "3) why would you think viewing people having sex (the most natural act which people are born to do) would have an adverse affect, especially when kids get to think about it anyway? Just because they don't have an image does not mean the fantasies go away... if anything they have the ability to become more perverse and fetishized."Once again this is a great question. It is important to be educated. Somehow though, I doubt cockcravers.com has the right answers as to how 2 people should come together in harmony. one point I'd like to bring up is that alot of these themes in pornography are supposed to be done with complete strangers..and often are. This teaches children that its ok to sleep with whomever..reguardless if they have a breakout of coldsores and some strange rash down there. Condoms really arent used all that much either....Not exactly the best educational tool, which is I think the point that you were bringing up.You seem to know alot about porn control on the internet, which seems somewhat...ironic..for lack of a better term, given your perceived stand on Internet Porn.Holmes- "And in that way I can equally filter out religious sites for my kids so they don't have to read filth like women getting raped and chopped into pieces, and murdered because some God does not know human anatomy and hates women... not to mention hates them as well and they have to feel guilty just for being born."Once again you have yet to site a Biblical reference.
Please respond with such evidence and I will show the greatest appreciation for such statements.

Remember the question was about objectively unhealthy characteristics a person might develop from watching porn.You state that people... children in particular... would develop "stereotypes" regarding women once viewed having sex. I am curious what stereotypes that would be, especially given the diverse nature of internet porn. That women like sex? That women like a diverse number of sexual practices?Even body types are more diverse online than in mainstream publications which are more restricted by production and distribution cost considerations.As it stands, I have already listed studies in this thread which refute the idea that negative images of women are inherent results of watching porn. There is an objective and massive qualitative difference between injesting a chemical, and it having an effect on one's body, and there being an effect on one's social behavior and beliefs after having viewed something. You are tying two completely incompatible things together in order to make your position sound more credible. I believe this is the fallacy from analogy.If such arguments were acceptable, one could just as easily say porn would have great effects and then point to chemicals proven to do wonders when taken.That said, a reasonable person can make an argument that anything can have an effect, positive or negative. What separates pure assertion from a reasonable position, is having a logical connection and data to support that connection.Unfortunately for you, studies have been done regarding such a connection and they suggest the relationship is not similar to the injestion of carcinogens. At that point repeating the above assertion as if it may still be true stops being reasonable. What examples? What stereotypes? You have asserted there would be some but never described them.I do agree that if children believe fantasy material is representative of reality, it won't be helpful. I'm just not sure sexual fantasy can be worse than anything else. Why would it do more "damage" than anything else they view which is fiction. And if they are looking at nonfictional porn (amateur pix of real sexual activity) how would that differ from watching people engaged in any other activity? Would it be okay if the only porn allowed was nonfictional depictions of people actually having sex? And how does just nudity (which is also considered porn) fit into this scenario of yours? Don't you understand that you are the one making up an argument against available evidence; pretending that future evidence will become available to counter what we already have and move on to support your own?The studies show that outside of violent porn there is no indication of negative attitudes, and with violence the greatest level of negatuve affect is indifference. This does not mean no study was done, just that it was done and no supporting evidence was found. That means your position is being undercut.And again, if your logic was acceptable one could just as easily take the opposite position and say wonderful things will happen to a person that watches porn. THE verse? Like its only one? Oh boy. What difference does it make if the overarching message is anti-sinner, when the okay thing to do is rape and kill the women that are sinners?As a separate point I might also add that the we are talking about messages based on actions described/observed. If my story was about the reward of the just, would that make a graphic sex scene okay for you?The effects come from the sexual activity right, and that is regardless of context? Or being just as not degraded. You have yet to establish anything. Apparently yes. Antiporn feminists sometimes claim that men cannot be degraded in porn because they are the active "dominant" force. Gay porn not only has no women, but some men are in the "submissive" role. See this is where it all gets jumbled up. The original argument is that porn is harmful to everyone, by which I mean that viewing it will cause aggressive/negative behavior in people of all ages. When this is dispelled by facts then the argument changes that it doesn't act as the best educational tool for children.Porn is not an educational tool. It is at its most real a document of actual sexual activity, and more often than not a constructed fantasy.Does Free Willy show an appropriate way to handle animals? Do Indiana Jones movies deliver a good introduction to archeological methods? Do the kid spy and ninja movies teach kids the appropriate ways to treat others?Shall we ban all material which does not deliver the best educational instruction of every aspect of life? Does this sound reasonable to you?But to address your specified points...1) People sleeping with "whomever" is not an objective unhealthy thing, that is a moral position which can vary from person to person. And in any case, would you be okay with sexually explicit scenes as long as it was with just one partner, or was this just one additional reason you could come up with to knock porn? Oh yes and what about just nude pictures?2) I am trying to figure out where you are viewing this porn where people have all sorts of cold sores and raging infections? Generally people look healthy or it doesn't sell well. There is a new class of porn which does hinge on degradation, but that is along the same thing as bum fights, and is not about it being cool to catch a disease. Would you be okay with graphic scenes if people explained how to remain healthy, or is this just another reason you can think of to knock porn? Oh yes, and what about just nude pictures?3) Condom use varies. If it showed everyone using condoms would that make you happy, or is this just another reason you can think of to knock porn? And what about just nude pictures?In the end I get the feeling your problem with porn is not going to go away if all of these issues are dealt with, which they very well could. Why, I've stated quite clearly my gf works in porn and we have friends in the porn biz. Always surprised to find how many people haven't read the Bible.GENESIS 19:1-8... You really never heard of the fall of Sodom? Too long for a single quote. When faced with a mob looking to rape his male visitors, the hero offers his underage daughters to be raped instead. Only when they decline to rape the girls does the wrath begin.EZEKIEL 23:20... Too long for a single quote. A graphic depiction of two underage girls having sex with numerous well hung men, carrying on that way until God gets jealous and has them raped and murdered.JUDGES 19:22-29... Too long for a single quote. Similar plot as the genesis quote. Raping mob appears and the heroes offer up a female victim. They take her, raping and killing her. No harm no foul. One of the heroes chops up the girl (his concubine) afterward.DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21... Too long for a single quote. Describes how a girl can be proven not a virgin on her wedding night because she doesn't bleed (this is total BS scientifically). The punishment for failing to have her hymen break properly is death.TIMOTHY 2:11-15... "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."Have fun.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

the solution to this is good parenting, not censorship. if your daughter's only hero is christina aguilera, maybe you should introduce her into much cooler women... like the women christina learned her music from (ella for example...)

Holmes- "There is an objective and massive qualitative difference between injesting a chemical, and it having an effect on one's body, and there being an effect on one's social behavior and beliefs after having viewed something.You are tying two completely incompatible things together in order to make your position sound more credible"At the surface you are correct my freind, as there is a huge difference between taking a drug and veiwing adult material. However, it has been shown in clinical studies the addictive effect of Internet Pornography can be enormous. At the moment I am at a loss of where to find this study again, but if need be I will find it. It really doesn't take a clinical study to show that certain learned behaviors are very addictive, and amongst some of the least productive I beleive there is Internet Porn. The addictive ability that Internet Pornography posesses is why I compare it to a drug such as steroids. The hormonal levels DO change in ways similar, though I am unaware at what rate exactly.Holmes- "Unfortunately for you, studies have been done regarding such a connection and they suggest the relationship is not similar to the injestion of carcinogens. At that point repeating the above assertion as if it may still be true stops being reasonable."Intresting...someone has done their homework. Perhaps it was foolish to mention cigarettes. Nevertheless, the addictive ability from internet porn is still unignorable.
As for the statements you made about the Bible being so anti-feminist, I read the scriptures you cited andfirst off, saying that the Bible is one of the most anti-woman books ever written based on a few misunderstood passages is a great and definate misproportion of statements.In response to the scriptures you cited: Genesis 19:1-8 Is speaking of a time when God sends two angels to Sodom, the city in which God's prophet Lot is residing. These two angels are invited in with Lot and his family. A mob forms outside, obviously unaware or disrespective of these two guests being God's very own angels, sent with a purpose. In light of this purpose, Lot offers up his very own daughters in place of the messengers of God's will. This doesn't prove anything anti-feminine, however it does show Lot's deep respect for God's will. He was willing to offer up his own daughters in place of apathy towards God's plans. Truely, you cannot sit there and tell me that you think the Bible is such an anti-woman book that it shows Lot being willing to offer up his daughters to be raped. You can't tell me that Lot hates women THAT much..that he could give a sh$% about his daughters' welfare.As I previously mentioned in my first post, these references aren't quite as "anti-woman" as you think they are, but rather "anti-sinner", as is evident in your Ezekiel 23:20 reference. It is an example of how Oholibah's prostitutions caught up to her in the end when God punished her for her gross sins.As for the Judges 19:22-29 example, you should understand that there is no mention of the Bible's Author Jehovah God endorsing the actions of this wealthy man. Also, I'd like to bring up the point that while you state how horribly anti-woman the Bible is... out of tens of thousands of passages, you struggle to find 5 that seem to appear anti woman to the untrained eye. The same untrained eye that sees no harm in Internet Pornography. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is another passage where dishonesty and prostitution were serious offences. You mentioned wanting to block religious sites that contain violent material against women. Well I gotta tell ya, the Good Book would be a much better source to pass time than Internet Pornography on that note, as I see women being degraded a great deal..as well as men in Porn. Another point I wanted to bring up is that while most pornography IS directed towards men, this says little about the actual tastes of individuals in how the dominant/submissive role is played. To say that ALL MEN insist on being the dominant force is steriotpical statements that need to be endorsed by factual evidence and even after you pull a study out of your ass for that one, it proves very little as to whether or not Internet Pornography is harmful or not.
One very profound clarification I'd like to bring up is that I do beleive that Internet Porn can be very seriously influential to children, but no evidence has been presented as to the presence of harmful effects to adults, and therefore I will silence myself on advertising such statements on adults and Internet Porn in this forum, until evidence is created and then retreived.Holmes- "Would it be okay if the only porn allowed was nonfictional depictions of people actually having sex? And how does just nudity (which is also considered porn) fit into this scenario of yours?"Yes. I think I failed to mention that my largest critisms are based on children veiwing Internet Porn. This would mean that I think its wrong to depict sex in an unnatural light to someone so young and influential. By unnatural I mean staged and "acted" sexual behaviors. As for nudity, I can't see a problem with someone seeing the male/female body for what it really is, as long as it isn't going to influence a child's--or adult's mind into thinking similar to the advertisements in magazines...perfection is the only acceptable state to be in.
Nude pictures tend to be similar to the models you see in magazines also, just...without clothes. I see no harm in that one aspect of Internet Porn.

Actually it hasn't. That was my point. I even listed studies and sites which listed more studies.If you can find a clinical study which supports your position I would be more than happy to check it out. Until you do, your claim that one exists looks pretty bogus to me. I guess what this means is that you do need to find it. Yes it does take a study. Otherwise anyone can just as easily claim reading the Bible will lead to the bad and addictive habit of killing people. Impress me with a study or bore me with continued assertions. It is wholly ignorable as long as there is no evidence for it and credible evidence against it. I did not say that the Bible is one of the most anti-woman books ever written. I said it contains some of the most anti-woman statements ever made. I'm certain that somewhere there is a book more anti-woman than the Bible. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. He does offer up his daughters to be raped, so what if its out of a respect for God's plans for the angels. Don't you think he could have simply offered nothing to be raped, or perhaps himself?The idea that this is some respectable man that cared about his daughters is simply laughable if he willingly handed them out to be raped as some best case solution to the problem. As I stated before that makes no difference. First of all if you have a problem with gross depictions of sexuality, there should be a problem with this passage. But more to the point, his punishment of them (because he was jealous) was that he had them raped and killed.Punishment of sin hardly cuts it as an excuse. There were two men involved and both made the same gesture and neither one was punished or described as having done anything wrong. That is pretty much tantamount to endorsement isn't it? I mean it is pretty clear what is bad or when someone has done wrong everywhere else, right?You're twisting like a pretzel to excuse these passages. Who said I struggled, and who said there was only five? I only listed some pretty clear cut examples. I didn't feel like I needed more. You have yet to properly explain them so it appears you are the one that is struggling to deal with just these 5.But in any case I did not say the whole thing was about how to hate women or something. I just said there was nothing positive about them and some of the most anti-women statements out there. If this is the best shot you have you aren't even close to my league. Try again, that doesn't mean anything. So far I haven't seen anything out of you that proves anything, much less whether IP is harmful or not. I'm beginning to suspect you are a troll. Please make a point and provide evidence for it in your next post or I am out of here.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Maybe using .xxx as a requirement for porn sites.