Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,618 Year: 4,875/9,624 Month: 223/427 Week: 33/103 Day: 2/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   First Openly Gay Congressman dies... hero or villain?
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4011 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 31 of 111 (356707)
10-15-2006 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hyroglyphx
10-15-2006 3:11 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factor
evc policy is probably related to the fact that there are minors on this site.
company policy is related to the fact that YOUR TIME IS THEIR MONEY!
people go through the back door and hide stuff from their families because they have been shamed by an unhealthy upbringing.
i'm not ashamed of buying condoms. but do i brag loudly in the cvs when i go pick them up? i'm not ashamed of going to the adult store. but i don't call my mom and announce it every time. i'm not ashamed of my toys. but i do keep them in the closet. i'm not ashamed of having sex. but i don't do it in public. i'm not ashamed of looking at porn. but i don't have it on my desktop when i go to class with my laptop to take notes.
i'm not ashamed, but it's really not anyone's business what i do with my time. everything has it's place and time but that time is not at work and not on evc and not sunday dinner with your grandparents. the fact that people have been convinced that they ought to be ashamed of a healthy interest in sex is not proof that there is a natural shame in sexuality. the fact that women are so ashamed of their bodies that many have never seen a gynecologist and often feel raped after a pelvic exam is not proof that they are dirty and ought to not be interested in their bodies.
the fact that people do not communicate their desires and needs with their sexual partners is proof that we have a fucked up society not that there is something shameful about porn.
there is no logic in your argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2006 3:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2006 7:35 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 111 (356709)
10-15-2006 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by nwr
10-15-2006 3:22 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factor
Ah, but we will apply Creation Science to this:
Any scientific result that contradicts the Accepted Truth is the result of bias, lies, and sloppy research; the data must be reinterpreted to fit the Accepted Truth.
Any result that is consistent with the Accepted Truth must be accepted as valid and real, the actual methodology of the researcher or other evidence not-with-standing.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 10-15-2006 3:22 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by iano, posted 10-15-2006 4:01 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2024 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 33 of 111 (356717)
10-15-2006 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Chiroptera
10-15-2006 3:29 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factor
Any result that is consistent with the Accepted Truth must be accepted as valid and real, the actual methodology of the researcher or other evidence not-with-standing.
You mean there never has been a study/experiment/piece of research that hasn't aligned with the dogma and, having not algned with the dogma, is saved from being buried in a drawer somewhere.
Pray..how would we ever tell? You mean that scientists don't have to eat and pay mortgages. The Truth is their prime objective - come what may?
Get real CP....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Chiroptera, posted 10-15-2006 3:29 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 10-15-2006 4:14 PM iano has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 34 of 111 (356722)
10-15-2006 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by iano
10-15-2006 4:01 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factorTh
This appears to be another case of wanting the joke explained to you.

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by iano, posted 10-15-2006 4:01 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by iano, posted 10-15-2006 4:17 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 2024 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 35 of 111 (356723)
10-15-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by nwr
10-15-2006 4:14 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factorTh
Its been a hard weekend. Funny just ain't doing it for me right now
I'll get my coat...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 10-15-2006 4:14 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 36 of 111 (356733)
10-15-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Hyroglyphx
10-15-2006 3:20 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factor
The question is why its an offense to begin with. If sex is natural, shouldn't pornography?
Well, if money is good, why can't I gamble at work?
Bringing up gambling to derail my premise doesn't work because porn is outlawed on gov't and most companies for a reason. So why do you suppose that it?
Probably the same reason gambling is. Why wasn't that clear from my post?
No, my contention is that all serial killers had/have a serious problem with porn.
Serial killers eat food, too. Do they have a problem with food?
It seems to me that the problem serial killers have is that they kill people. What you're doing is just guilt by association.
No, it seems to be a unhealthy mix of both.
Oh, I'm sorry; I didn't realize we were playing the game where we make up our own facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2006 3:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2006 7:54 PM crashfrog has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 37 of 111 (356741)
10-15-2006 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
10-15-2006 12:07 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factor
NJ writes:
Pornography maybe a harmless and inquisitive endeavor at first, and certainly there is bueaty in the naked human form. Pornography, though, doesn't enhance this qualitative bueaty, it eradicates it and turns into something reprehensible. Those that lightly browse through it find themselves and their time devoted to ever-increasing bouts with it. Pornography, like cocaine or methamphetamines, is like a stimulant and considered by its honest adherents as highly addictive. It creates a strong physiological response in the viewer that almost certainly will become dulled from subsequent viewings. From the diminishment of "feeling" it could lead people into darker forms of pornography. And further down the path the individual is lead into depravity.
I think you have made your stand against pornography quite clear. However to keep saying "I am against pornography" really begs the following questions.
What is pornography?
Is your definition of pornography violent images associated with sex? depictions of the sexual act in a manner you don't approve of? any depitions of the sexual act? is it nakedness of white people? nakedness of all people? double beds? cleavage? on-screen kissing? liberalism? evolution? science? Without your definition, your statement becomes meaningless.
Given that you could define pornography, how would one approach the problem? fines?, jail?, castration?, beheading?
Also, would your definition and solution be acceptable to those who make judicial decisions concerning free speech?, the majority of voters?, evangelical christians?
Are you proposing that you alone should hold the office of censor, a position that has not been held since the Roman Empire?
IMO until you can answer these questions, your statements are empty complaints which are not to be taken seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2006 12:07 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2006 8:39 PM anglagard has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4194 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 38 of 111 (356743)
10-15-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
10-15-2006 12:07 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factor
Pornography maybe a harmless and inquisitive endeavor at first, and certainly there is bueaty in the naked human form. Pornography, though, doesn't enhance this qualitative bueaty, it eradicates it and turns into something reprehensible. Those that lightly browse through it find themselves and their time devoted to ever-increasing bouts with it. Pornography, like cocaine or methamphetamines, is like a stimulant and considered by its honest adherents as highly addictive. It creates a strong physiological response in the viewer that almost certainly will become dulled from subsequent viewings. From the diminishment of "feeling" it could lead people into darker forms of pornography. And further down the path the individual is lead into depravity.
uhuh, thanks for proving me right, you have no clue what you are talking about. if you are going to use such a broad brush, don't swipe me on the way, i look at porn a lot, and i have a healthy love of women that doesn't make them into objects as you are claiming looking at porn does
this has nothing to do with porn this has to do with the person themselves all porn does is show a reflection of the persons psyche
I also find it interesting that some obvious societal markers are not being recognized by my critics. Isn't it interesting that virtually all employers, secular or otherwise, can and will fire their employers if pornographic images have been downloaded on company computers. Any other download might give you a warning to get back to work at most. Pornography is different and everybody knows it. That's why pornshop windows are blacked out, that's why its taboo. It has less to do with what any religious person feels and more to do that, even though they wish is wasn't true, society frowns upon it.
its because of prudes like you that they do this, this has nothing to do with depravity and more to do with the aditude that sex is wrong or dirty and leads to violence and evil somehow
But to be sure, what do you suppose Percy who is of a more liberal ilk than some would think if I posted pornographic images on the web? What would happen to me? I'd be banned. Hmmmmmm, interesting. And yet, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. How do you reconcile that dichotomy?
because minors come to this site? that porn isn't the focus of this site? the only dichotomy is the false one you are making up
But let me be certain to share that puritanical homes that turn sexuality into some evil compulsion have an ostensibly negative effect on teenagers, especially when coupled with clandestine viewing of pornography. The polarization between purity and non-purity can often produce the worst offenders.
oh come on i can name some sickos who lived long before porno was widely avalible that people who hate porn would blame porn for
ever heard of ed gein? he was the insperation for psycho and buffalo bob from silence of the lambs, and he never saw porn in his life! but he skinned dead corpses to make a human skin suit and made furiture out of human corpses
your just trying to demonize pornography to fuel your own psychosis
It doesn't mitigate the effects it exacerbates the frequency and turns sexuality into paraphiliac aberrations. There are numerous reports that marry pornography to a host of problems from psychosomatic to pyschophysiological.
i don't get it what does foot fetishs or being sexually aroused by people doing wierd things have to do with this at all?
you are claiming that porn causes people to become devient and i'm saying the people claimed to be harmed by porn are already damaged by something else and all porn is, is a safer outlit than what they might do otherwise: namely hurt people
wow amazingly enough your goverment link refutes your whole argument! you should be careful to sit down before you swallow that other foot
from Pubmed
The results showed that in none of the countries did rape increase more than nonsexual violent crimes. This finding in itself would seem sufficient to discard the hypothesis that pornography causes rape.
there you have it folks! NJ hoasted his own patard, full stop.
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2006 12:07 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2006 9:10 PM ReverendDG has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 111 (356758)
10-15-2006 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by macaroniandcheese
10-15-2006 3:25 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factor
evc policy is probably related to the fact that there are minors on this site.
So place a disclaimer like any other website does. If it isn't wrong then it shouldn't be a problem.
company policy is related to the fact that YOUR TIME IS THEIR MONEY!
You won't get fired for surfing the net at most companies. At most, you'll get a stern warning not to be unproductive on their bill. But most companies will fire you on the spot for pornography. So why do you think that is?
people go through the back door and hide stuff from their families because they have been shamed by an unhealthy upbringing.
I would be more inclined to say that its because their significant other will hurt by it. The thought is the pre-cursor to the action.
i'm not ashamed of buying condoms.
My wife had a hysterctomy so no more condoms for me. But when I did buy them I didn't feel any shame for that either... Maybe its because buying condoms has nothing to do with pornography.
i'm not ashamed of going to the adult store.
That's because you're around like-minded people. Big surprise that you wouldn't feel it then. Go with your grandmother and then tell me if you feel the same way.
i'm not ashamed of having sex.
Neither am I, because there is nothing wrong with sex in and of itself.
the fact that women are so ashamed of their bodies that many have never seen a gynecologist and often feel raped after a pelvic exam is not proof that they are dirty and ought to not be interested in their bodies.
They are ashamed of their bodies not for their biological urges but because television and movies place standards on their outward appearance and make unrealistic requests that gives young girls stigmas if they don't look like the airbrushed bueaty in the magazines.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-15-2006 3:25 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-15-2006 9:35 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 111 (356762)
10-15-2006 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
10-15-2006 6:02 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factor
Probably the same reason gambling is. Why wasn't that clear from my post?
You never provided a reason in your post. What is the reason why people can't view porn at their work?
Serial killers eat food, too. Do they have a problem with food?
Eating food helps you survive, watching porn or even having sex won't determine whether or not you live or die. Serial killers have a problem with porn. Perhaps you don't want to make the connection because you are an advocate of porn. Its not a jab at anyone that watches porn. Everyone understands the lure of pornography. It isn't like anyone is weird for enjoying pornography. I'm just saying that pornography has some consequences attached to it and its promoters should understand that.
It seems to me that the problem serial killers have is that they kill people. What you're doing is just guilt by association.
During an interview with prolific serial killer, he was asked the following question:
"Do you really feel that hardcore pornography and the doorway to it, softcore pornography, is doing untold damage to other people and causing other women to be abused and killed the way you did?"
To which he replied:
"Listen, I'm no social scientist, and I haven't done a survey. I don't pretend that I know what John Q. Citizen thinks about this. But I've lived in prison for a long time now. And I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence just like me. And without exception, without question, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography." -Ted Bundy
Oh, I'm sorry; I didn't realize we were playing the game where we make up our own facts.
The FBI, among other premiere law enforment agencies, show unequivocially what Bundy said in plain English. Just about any profiler will tell you the same thing. There is a science to this. It isn't wishful thinking.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 10-15-2006 6:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2006 8:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 104 by Jaderis, posted 10-19-2006 5:46 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 111 (356770)
10-15-2006 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by anglagard
10-15-2006 6:39 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factor
Is your definition of pornography violent images associated with sex?
Not necessarily. There are different levels of porn. Soft and hardore porn, to name two levels. But nobody goes straight into extreme bondage if you know what I mean. That level of depravity grows over time.
depictions of the sexual act in a manner you don't approve of? any depitions of the sexual act? is it nakedness of white people? nakedness of all people? double beds? cleavage? on-screen kissing? liberalism? evolution? science? Without your definition, your statement becomes meaningless.
That's like asking what constitutes eating? Is mastication eating? Is the salivation glands eating? Or is it a conglomeration of things. Two terms often used in parlance for sexually explicit material is obscene and indecent. That can be a bit ambiguous, so specific meanings have to be coined out of jurisprudence.
The FCC defines "Obscenity" as, "that category of sexual material that the courts have deemed to be outside full protection of the First Amendment and subject to regulation by the state. Obscene material is defined as that which appeals to the prurient interest in sex, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value ( Miller v. California, 1973)."
It further defines "Indecency" as, "a term from broadcasting (radio and over-the-air television) that defines an even broader category that can be regulated -- language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities."
Given that you could define pornography, how would one approach the problem? fines?, jail?, castration?, beheading?
Pornography is protected, in most cases, by the First Amendment. It does not appear that this will be overturned at any given time. However, if it were outlawed instead of simply regulated, I would say the most logical way to handle is like drug offenders. You rehabilitate the offenders and go after the purveyors, the one's making a fortune of other peoples emotions. But I'm not making a legal stance, I'm making a moral one. Any one of you is protected by law and I recognize that. I'm just giving you my personal opinion on the matter.
Are you proposing that you alone should hold the office of censor, a position that has not been held since the Roman Empire?
I never mentioned censorship. Again, I'm making the point that pornography is not the no-fault answer its made out to be and that porn is often a gateway into depravity.
IMO until you can answer these questions, your statements are empty complaints which are not to be taken seriously.
Maybe you can answer me this one question so I can gauge your allegiance to it. How would you feel if your wife and/or daughter were in porn? Its just a job, right? Its 'just' sex, right? And if it would bother you, ask yourself why that is, especially in light if it 'just' being a normal biological urge. I think any honest person here recognizes that there is an unmistakable psychological factor associated with porn in the negative.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by anglagard, posted 10-15-2006 6:39 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by anglagard, posted 10-15-2006 9:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 111 (356774)
10-15-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ReverendDG
10-15-2006 6:40 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factor
uhuh, thanks for proving me right, you have no clue what you are talking about. if you are going to use such a broad brush, don't swipe me on the way, i look at porn a lot, and i have a healthy love of women that doesn't make them into objects as you are claiming looking at porn does
So, are you offended that I would find myself in disagreement with porn because you like it?
this has nothing to do with porn this has to do with the person themselves all porn does is show a reflection of the persons psyche
LOL! I can't argue with that. It isn't the action of porn, its what happens to the psyche that matters.
its because of prudes like you that they do this, this has nothing to do with depravity and more to do with the aditude that sex is wrong or dirty and leads to violence and evil somehow
First of all, a "prude" is somebody that is excessively modest, in which case, how have you determined that its in excess for me in one direction, but not excessive for you in the other? Secondly, I've mentioned several times that there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with sex, whatsoever. But there are parameters just like anything else in life. Assuming that is like assuming cars were invented for drag racing, other than their for their intent, which is for transportation. Its when something is abused for ill-gotten purposes that somnething good can be manipulated into something bad. So, please, with sugar-on-top, stop trying to derail my argument by distorting what I've been saying.
because minors come to this site? that porn isn't the focus of this site?
Um, minors go to porn sites without their parents permission. Its called a 'disclaimer.' And cars, cameras, zebras, or telephones aren't the 'focus' of EvC either, but you don't see the Admin's fussing about that. So, again, if pornography is really no big deal, why outlaw it from this site, why ban it from children's eyes, why is it taboo at all across the globe, irrespective of culture of religious affiliations? Could it be that there really is an innate sense, perhaps instituted by God, perhaps not, that its 'wrong' to abuse one's own sexuality?
oh come on i can name some sickos who lived long before porno was widely avalible that people who hate porn would blame porn for
Porn is just one avenue of the larger problem. Sexual immorality is really what's at heart. And that has been with us since the beginning.
ever heard of ed gein? he was the insperation for psycho and buffalo bob from silence of the lambs, and he never saw porn in his life! but he skinned dead corpses to make a human skin suit and made furiture out of human corpses
I already wrote about him. His mother had sex in front of him all the while hypocritically teaching him about purticanical rules and regulations. The boy obviously had a fractured psyche. As a result of this splintering effect, he developed a deep hatred for women as he projected his hatred for his mother on to them all.
your just trying to demonize pornography to fuel your own psychosis
Yeah, that's it.......
i don't get it what does foot fetishs or being sexually aroused by people doing wierd things have to do with this at all?
Everything! Its just what I've been saying. People that watch porn run the risk of growing calloused to it and so go from soft material to hard material. Eventually, it synthesizes into bizarre fetishes that should never be sexual to begin with-- unless of course you find it sexually appealing to be defecated on. Pshhh.
you are claiming that porn causes people to become devient and i'm saying the people claimed to be harmed by porn are already damaged by something else and all porn is, is a safer outlit than what they might do otherwise: namely hurt people
Ah yes... Just give a confused teenager some porn and that'll straighten him out. Forget sports or outdoor activities, just stimulate them sexually so they won't hurt people. Fascinating thesis.
wow amazingly enough your goverment link refutes your whole argument! you should be careful to sit down before you swallow that other foot from Pubmed
The results showed that in none of the countries did rape increase more than nonsexual violent crimes. This finding in itself would seem sufficient to discard the hypothesis that pornography causes rape.
No it doesn't, it says that violent and non-violent pornography have no disparity when it comes to rape. What does reflect is that rapists are into porn. Make the connection.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ReverendDG, posted 10-15-2006 6:40 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ReverendDG, posted 10-17-2006 1:14 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 920 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 43 of 111 (356775)
10-15-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Hyroglyphx
10-15-2006 8:39 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factor
What you have provided is the definition of pornography that is currently used by the US government, which obviously allows all this pornography that you are objecting to. The government definition is not what I asked for, I asked for your definition, as you seem to desire a stricter standard than currently allowed under US legal opinion.
NJ writes:
However, if it were outlawed instead of simply regulated, I would say the most logical way to handle is like drug offenders. You rehabilitate the offenders and go after the purveyors, the one's making a fortune of other peoples emotions.
I am unfamiliar with such rehabilitation being commonly used for drug offenders in the US. Here in Texas, it's straight to the joint, no rehab for all but the most minor infractions that used to be ticketed offenses prior to the ascent of Reagan.
I'm just giving you my personal opinion on the matter.
Not really, you have not even provided a definition of this pornography you are railing against other than the government definition that allows what we have now.
Maybe you can answer me this one question so I can gauge your allegiance to it. How would you feel if your wife and/or daughter were in porn? Its just a job, right? Its 'just' sex, right? And if it would bother you, ask yourself why that is, especially in light if it 'just' being a normal biological urge. I think any honest person here recognizes that there is an unmistakable psychological factor associated with porn in the negative.
Answer my question concerning your (not the government's) definition of pornography first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2006 8:39 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4011 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 44 of 111 (356778)
10-15-2006 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hyroglyphx
10-15-2006 7:35 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factor
So place a disclaimer like any other website does. If it isn't wrong then it shouldn't be a problem.
it's not a matter of being wrong, it's a matter of being illegal.
You won't get fired for surfing the net at most companies. At most, you'll get a stern warning not to be unproductive on their bill. But most companies will fire you on the spot for pornography. So why do you think that is?
they're fucking stupid?
I would be more inclined to say that its because their significant other will hurt by it. The thought is the pre-cursor to the action.
only to fundies.
My wife had a hysterctomy so no more condoms for me. But when I did buy them I didn't feel any shame for that either... Maybe its because buying condoms has nothing to do with pornography.
you know a vasectomy is more effective? why didn't you take the step to meet her in her endevours?
That's because you're around like-minded people. Big surprise that you wouldn't feel it then. Go with your grandmother and then tell me if you feel the same way.
actually, i wouldn't mind talking about it with my grandmother. but then my grandmother is a raging bitch and i don't really talk about anything with her.
hey are ashamed of their bodies not for their biological urges but because television and movies place standards on their outward appearance and make unrealistic requests that gives young girls stigmas if they don't look like the airbrushed bueaty in the magazines.
that's not what i'm talking about and you know it. women are ashamed of their vaginas and their vulvas. it's not because magazine covers have pictures of perfect clits either. it's because our sex organs are the source of sin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2006 7:35 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-16-2006 2:33 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 111 (356806)
10-16-2006 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by macaroniandcheese
10-15-2006 9:35 PM


Re: Its the Sleaze factor - not the Gay factor
quote:
You won't get fired for surfing the net at most companies. At most, you'll get a stern warning not to be unproductive on their bill. But most companies will fire you on the spot for pornography. So why do you think that is?
they're fucking stupid?
*starts a slow clap*
quote:
I would be more inclined to say that its because their significant other will hurt by it. The thought is the pre-cursor to the action.
only to fundies.
Are you suggesting that no pagan would ever be upset that their significant other is viewing pornography?
quote:
My wife had a hysterctomy so no more condoms for me. But when I did buy them I didn't feel any shame for that either... Maybe its because buying condoms has nothing to do with pornography.
you know a vasectomy is more effective? why didn't you take the step to meet her in her endevours?
Well, I hardly see how the removal of a uterus would be less effective, but regardless, she didn't get a hysterectomy for convenience. It was for medical purposes. But, prior to that proceedure I did try to get a vasectomy, but the military made it impossible for me to be eligible with all their restrictions. Apparently I had to be over 40, have a minimum of three children, be married for over 10 years, and some other ridiculous stipulations. I guess the "my body, my choice" mantra only applies to women.
actually, i wouldn't mind talking about it with my grandmother. but then my grandmother is a raging bitch and i don't really talk about anything with her.
hmmmm.... Well, I guess all grandmothers can't be sweet. I guess some have to be cantakerous hags.
that's not what i'm talking about and you know it. women are ashamed of their vaginas and their vulvas.
Women are ashamed of their vaginas and vulvas??? (Is there something you wanna share? Something traumatic, perhaps? Maybe you just need a good hug). I'm not sure that I've ever met a woman that was ashamed of their vaginas? Some have expressed that its unattractive because of extended labias and whatnot, but not shame.
it's not because magazine covers have pictures of perfect clits either.
*Billy Joel plays in the background: Yeah, but she's always a women to me*
it's because our sex organs are the source of sin.
Female sex organs are the source of sin....? Huh.... Well, I'm beginning to think maybe you've watched too much TBN and its given you a warped perspective on how most Christians view sex and sex organs. You might be pleased to know that Benny Hinn and those of his ilk irritate me too. Perhaps even more so than you because I get automatically associated with people like him simply because I say that I'm a Christian and so does he. Its pretty annoying.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-15-2006 9:35 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-16-2006 7:43 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024