War on Pornography (1172 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 1.07 on 47 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by d'ohnuts (View user info) at 2004-04-06 12:20:06 EDT
We have the War on Drugs. We have the War on Terror. Now, thanks to the Bush administration and spearheaded by Attorney General John Ashcroft, we have the War on Porn.
That's right, according to Ashcroft, "a religious man who does not drink alcohol or caffeine, smoke, gamble or dance" (and we've all seen what the evil of dancing can lead to in films such as Footloose and Dirty Dancing!!!), pornography "invades our homes persistently though the mail, phone, VCR, cable TV and the Internet," and has "strewn its victims from coast to coast."
And so, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains.
We're not talking child porn here, or beastiality, or any number of other sexual proclivities that you, dear reader, may find deplorable. We're talking regular, old-fashioned "vanilla" sex. Says Drew Oosterbaan, chief of the division in charge of obscenity prosecutions at the Justice Department, "Nothing is off the table as far as content."
The Bush administration is eager to shore up its conservative base with this issue. Ashcroft held private meetings with conservative groups a year and a half ago to assure them that anti-porn efforts are a priority. A YEAR AND A HALF AGO!!!! I can think of quite a few other things going on in the US and the world, at that time and now, that were and are a whole hell of a lot more important than Joe Blow getting his rocks off to the latest offering from Vivid Videos.
It's rather strange that the Bush administration and its affiliated political party claim to want less government intrusion in the private lives of Americans, yet seemingly around every corner there they are, trying to impose their vision of How Things Should Be upon people and trying to involve themselves in the most intimate of ways in the lives of citizens.
I don't even watch much porn anymore. I'm getting older, I'm married, I have a son, and I'm just to fucking busy...or tired. But once in a blue moon I like to engage in a little sexual voyeurism via my DVD player, you know, just to keep abreast of the latest production techniques and such...
But even if I didn't, I don't want the government controlling what I see, hear, and read. And this administration seems hell-bent on controlling all forms of media and the flow of information in ways that I find absolutely alarming.
Not that he was getting it anyway, but Bush sure as shit isn't getting my vote now. And not because of any War on Porn, but because of the whole mind-set behind it. As far as John Ashcroft goes, well, he can just blow me. He's no better than any other religious extremist.
User Reviews
Submitted by dohnuts (user info) at 2004-04-23 13:34:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-04-23 13:24:48 (#)
Ranking: 2
lets do the Most Heated cha cha
one two cha cha cha
three four cha cha cha
most heated cha cha cha
high score cha cha cha
---------------------------------
Dude, that made me laugh out loud...
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-04-23 13:24:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"just to keep abreast of the latest production techniques and such..."
ba-dum ching!
lets do the Most Heated cha cha
one two cha cha cha
three four cha cha cha
most heated cha cha cha
high score cha cha cha
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-04-23 13:14:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
it was my brothers and i did not know it was porn when i started watching, it becuase i did not know that porn existed and i only watched ten minutes of it because it frieghted me.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-04-23 13:05:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i saw a porno once when i was ten and i am ok.
Submitted by vaya (user info) at 2004-04-23 12:49:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I'd like to see these alleged 'victims of porn', other then protestant mothers who volunteer at sunday school.
Submitted by dohnuts (user info) at 2004-04-07 09:09:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Damn... leave work early one day, and things just kind of take on a life of their own...
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-04-06 21:18:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The Bush Admin is also trying to make it a felony to harm a fetus. The precendent is coming from the Scott Patterson case in California, so harming a pregnant woman will give you a double charge... one for the woman, one for the fetus.
Basically, its a back door way to make abortion illegal.
Fuck I hate the Bush Administration
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-06 16:56:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"The same group of people who can throw you in jail without a trial or having access to a lawyer, forever."
You mean terrorists who kill hundreds of people, who happen to be exploiting legal loopholes to remain free? I whole heartedly agree that if no evidence exists to support that a person is guilty than this is bullshit... and I think (hope) it will be abolished as soon as this Iraq fiasco is over with (which won't be for a long time).
"The same people who can legally go in to any public library and find out every book i have ever read?"
Key word "PUBLIC" library... Funded by the government. Sure it seems like invasion of privacy, but you don't HAVE to go to a library to get a book.
-------------------
I will agree with you about the government not regulating pornography viewing by minors only if they also stop regulating tobacco and alcohol consumption by them as well, because if parent's can decide one one they can decide on the other.
-------------------
As far as going to hell - it is my "personal" belief that none of us will go to hell. Call me cynical but I think when Jesus died he did it for all of us, whether we believe in him or not. I hate the fact that I judge people, and I know it's wrong of me to do so. So I try to do it as little as possible, and try to see things from every possible viewpoint.
--------------------
Now, why I don't like being personally attacked, and why I don't do it on here...:
I realized I had gone too far with this cherade <sp> when my friend at work was reading over my shoulder and commented on what I was writing. He knows how I am, and what I really believe in, so he laughed at what I was writing. But he told me "If I had read that from my computer I'd really be offended."
The real me?
Classify me as a republican if you wish, but I liked Clinton better personally. I even voted for Gore. (fuck me, but I think his heart was in the right place) I am all for the environment, all for free speech, and I wish someone better were running against Bush instead of Kerry.
Bush the elder sent my uncle (a national guardsmen) to fight a war that none of us (my family) agreed with. He missed out on a couple semesters of school, but got off lucky... some men and women were killed. He joined the guard to defend his country, not fight a war for oil. We (a few guardsman families) protested on the steps of the Louisiana State capitol in Baton Rouge, but we were largely unheard. (that's right Loki, I demonstrated on the capitol steps... I would have thrown a fit had I been ushered to a fenced in area)
If there were a Democratic president right now, and Republicans were bitching about something they didn't agree with, I'd be arguing the same shit with them as I am with you all. No offense, but I'd be arguing pro-porno if the post had been anti-. It's all about being bored at work and trying to have fun with people. Looking back maybe I should have just done the boring, but honest, thing
and just +2 agree with the posts I've argued on. But the temptation to try to get a rise out of people was too much.
In a hundred years when gay marriage is legal, crack is unavailable through Google searches and disk drive speweing, blacks and whites get along without racism, and someone looks back and says "SlowlyRotting was against gay marriage, he was a horrible person", maybe they'll have a point. But they'd only get that information if they happened to stumble upon a little website called ubersite, because the real me is a whole different person.
The beauty of the internet is that you can portray a personality, the likes of which you are not. (like when a 40 year old cop pretends he's a 13 year old girl to catch pedophiles) I may come of as a hundred different personalities, mainly a conservative, but I have to convince my girlfriend every day that this is all just a joke because she reads the crap I post and she's like "What the fuck are you talking about???" I am not a conservative, I only play one on ubersite.
TO be fair to everyone I've argued against, I should say mostly I've agreed with you. If you can't handle someone prodding and poking at your theories without resorting to name-calling, then your point wasn't very valid.
For the record, I've never slept with a married woman. (At least I don't think I have, but alcohol does make you forget things...) But I was a cop, I was a fraternity active, I was a bleeding heart liberal, and my mom is gay. The views I have expressed here, however, for the most part are false.
That being said, I really should get some work done... So if anyone was offended by me comparing homosexuals and beastiality I am truly sorry. I didn't intend to hurt anyone by it, and I want you to know that I truly do not feel that way. I am all for personal freedom and all for gay marriage, and I think that despite Bush's hardest attempts, he will ultimately fail. I intended my responses on these posts as humor mainly for my friends who read what I write here, not to be taken seriously.
I know I made an ass of myself and portrayed myself as an ignorant conservative, but I honestly didn't want to hurt anyone. Feel free to leave me nasty voice messages:
337-224-2804
Submitted by ScoutCJustice (user info) at 2004-04-06 16:51:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Marriage has traditionally for the last... however long the human civilization been in effect... been a preservation of the species tactic."
That is one confusing ass sentence, but I think you are saying that marriage is a method preserving the species. Not sure why that is the case. Couldn't we have kids just as easily without being married? Why does marriage help to preserve the species? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. It's a symbol of love between to people that want to stay committed to each other for the rest of their lives.
And no, it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that a man can marry another man or a woman can marry another a woman, but niether does it say that a man can only marry a woman. And why are only things said in the constitution rights. Does the constitution say that I have a right to live? Well no, but does that make my life a privilege?
Actually you know what, there is an amendment to the constitution that says you're wrong:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In words that you can understand, that means that the government can not take away rights just because they are not listed in the constitution.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-04-06 16:48:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Donitsu2002 - If you are going to base your views of marriage on history then is it safe to assume that you don't have a problem with polygamy?
Submitted by Donitsu2002 (user info) at 2004-04-06 16:29:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-04-06 15:49:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
"The government should't be allowed to decide who gets married? Marriage is a priveledge, not a right. Simple as that."
Says who?
"If homosexuals can marry why not a man and a dog, if they are truly in love?"
Ah, the time tested homosexuals marrying and dogs marrying tactic. See the problem relies in the fact that there is a slight difference. Being that homosexuals are PEOPLE. You better off going with the cousins marrying ploy. That one atleast takes 5 or 6 sentences to shoot down.
"If the government does not step in and keep kids from having access to porn, there are plenty enough shitty parents to let their kids have unlimited access to it."
But who makes the decision what is a good parent? The government? The same group of people who can throw you in jail without a trial or having access to a lawyer, forever. The same people who can legally go in to any public library and find out every book i have ever read? This is the group of people you trust to parent our children with the morals they feel is best?
Is this really what your saying? Your want to give up your personal freedoms because some shitty parents arent watching their kids? Thats how you think a FREE country should be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriage has traditionally for the last... however long the human civilization been in effect... been a preservation of the species tactic.
If you can prove to me in the constitution where it says that a man may marry a man or likewise with a woman i'll give you a dollar (paypal, checks, or money order maybe cash if i'm a risky mood).
So... it wouldn't be a right. Humanity has governed marriages for as long as anybody can remember. Marriage is a government institution not an institution of love or some western idea that's been propogated for the last 4 or 5 centuries.
That given... Marriage is a privilege not a right.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-04-06 16:19:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yup, called it.
Redirect:
This crusade of Ashcroft's is not about keeping children away from porn. It's about keeping adults away from porn, therein lies the problem. See the party of "small government" is absolutely 100% sure that they know better than you do how you should live your life. They will attack a country based on some bullshit intelligence that they, it turns out, knew was bullshit but oh just let a boob pop out on national tv and they raise holy hell.
Sorry, I said "redirect"
"They" do not want small government nor do they want to let "we the people" decide how to self govern. What "they" want is a theocracy based on the beliefs of fundamentalist Christianity. Do you know who these people are? Does anyone out there really understand how their twisted little minds work? Here enjoy: http://www.ag.org/top/
Ashcroft is one of these people. This is a guy who actually had himself anointed with oil when he took the office of attorney general.
Submitted by Insanethemind (user info) at 2004-04-06 16:11:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-04-06 16:08:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Without reading the replies, why do I get the feeling that this has jumped the topic?
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-06 15:50:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Im so glad that after you beat suspects, did drugs, fucked married women, and all your other shit you have found the lord and now YOU CAN TELL ME(?!) how the fuck to live my life.
----------------------------
But it's OK for you to tell people how to live their life because you haven't done fucked up shit?
Anyway, I'm not telling anyone how to live their life... I'm simply saying a) Porno will never be illegal and b) I don't think homosexuals should marry. If by stating my opinion I am somehow hampering the liberal movement then maybe freedom of speech should be outlawed as well. Oh wait, that's what Republicans would do, right?
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-04-06 15:49:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"The government should't be allowed to decide who gets married? Marriage is a priveledge, not a right. Simple as that."
Says who?
"If homosexuals can marry why not a man and a dog, if they are truly in love?"
Ah, the time tested homosexuals marrying and dogs marrying tactic. See the problem relies in the fact that there is a slight difference. Being that homosexuals are PEOPLE. You better off going with the cousins marrying ploy. That one atleast takes 5 or 6 sentences to shoot down.
"If the government does not step in and keep kids from having access to porn, there are plenty enough shitty parents to let their kids have unlimited access to it."
But who makes the decision what is a good parent? The government? The same group of people who can throw you in jail without a trial or having access to a lawyer, forever. The same people who can legally go in to any public library and find out every book i have ever read? This is the group of people you trust to parent our children with the morals they feel is best?
Is this really what your saying? Your want to give up your personal freedoms because some shitty parents arent watching their kids? Thats how you think a FREE country should be?
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-06 15:37:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The government should't be allowed to decide who gets married? Marriage is a priveledge, not a right. Simple as that.
The God argument, however, is a very good one. It's true that it is very hard to say "You shouldn't do this because..." without envoking religious arguments. I mean, what is the harm in a man marrying a dog if that's what he wants to do? After all, the only argument against it is that the Bible says it's not right. What harm could come from something like that? If homosexuals can marry why not a man and a dog, if they are truly in love?
Look, the truth is, I am pulling most of this shit out of my ass. I love to argue, whether I believe in my arguments or not. Call it defense lawyer syndrome. (I would NEVER defend a criminal however, so that's where the comparison ends) I don't know... I guess I get a high out of people's reactions. But some of the stuff I say is true, whether you want to agree or not.
This administration may have it's faults, and I agree that they should not be allowed to choose whether adults can view pornography... but if my tax money (and government funds) are going to pay for welfare, food stamps, medical expenses, etc. etc. etc. for some lazy piece of shit that is unwilling to work to provide for his own kids, I would NOT trust that person to raise a good moral human being.
If the government does not step in and keep kids from having access to porn, there are plenty enough shitty parents to let their kids have unlimited access to it.
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-04-06 15:34:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Scout just nailed two topics i was gonna address so i will move on.
"Crack is everywhere, probably more so because it is illegal. Despite all the war paths this topic has gone on, the fact remains that everytime the government hinders some kind of "right" in the smallest way, every liberal shouts big brother"
You know why liberals are the ones shouting big brother? Because for SOME FUCKING REASON YOU REPULICANS ARENT. If there was one thing i did like about the republican party its fucking they want (ed?) little gov. Isnt that one of the pillars of your group? Keep the govt out of my life. At what point did that stop and this "the government must enforce morality" into its citizens shit begin? When did the hell did you guys lose your balls?
Its going to come a time when NRA jerk-offs and liberal hippes are going to join forces because of big government.
And one last thing that i should have to mention, but it ERKS the fuck out of me. Congratualtions on finding God. Im so glad that after you beat suspects, did drugs, fucked married women, and all your other shit you have found the lord and now YOU CAN TELL ME(?!) how the fuck to live my life.
Fuck off.
Submitted by ScoutCJustice (user info) at 2004-04-06 15:17:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And I'm sorry slowlyrotting, but you are on the fucking internet RIGHT NOW! The ultimate porn palace. It would take a hell of a lot more effort to get in a car and drive to some alley to find a dealer and pay lots of money to get crack, than it would to type google into the address bar, type porn in the search engine and click on the first link that pops up.
Submitted by ScoutCJustice (user info) at 2004-04-06 15:13:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Damnit, I didn't even get my reply out before you said something else stupid.
However, first, congrats on turning your life around. Seriously, it takes a lot of courage and strength to get out of those kinds of situations.
Anyway, on to why you are wrong:
"(if you don't believe in God then don't bother reading, you'll just argue the whole way through)".
No shit. Once, just once, I'd like to see an argument as to why the government should ban homosexual marriage that doesn't involve God. I still doubt it would be convincing, but at least it would hold merit as a valid argument as to why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Why is the God argument not valid you say? Because this country was founded on the separation of church and state, religious freedom for all, and all that stuff that makes this country greater than pretty much every other country in the world. The Christian God that believes homosexuality is wrong should have no bearing on the laws that are decided by the state. NONE WHATSOEVER. I don't want your god telling me what I can and can't do. It is not the buisness of the government to enforce the ten commandments. That is left to God (if there is one) and everyone will be judged accordingly. If you think homosexuality is wrong and a sin, that's fine. If you don't think gays should be allowed to marry, that's fine too, but recognize that it isn't the governments place to make a judgement based on religion. Join a church that believes the same thing you believe, and won't let gays marry in their church (although I'm going to make the assumption that you've already done that). Let people that you think are going to hell go to hell and stop trying to force your veiws on people that don't believe the same thing. They aren't hurting you, why do you have to hurt them?
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-06 15:12:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I live in Ashburn, VA. I can't even find an "adult novelty" shop, unless you count "spencer's", let alone an all out porn palace. (unless I go to DC) But I can sure as hell drive down to Sterling and buy a rock.
Crack is everywhere, probably more so because it is illegal. Despite all the war paths this topic has gone on, the fact remains that everytime the government hinders some kind of "right" in the smallest way, every liberal shouts big brother.
In this country right now you can do almost anything you could do a hundred years ago, if not more. We have access to things that we couldn't have dreamed of when this country was founded. In that sense, we have more freedom now than we ever have. From a liberal view, then, this country is better than it ever was. What's to complain about?
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-06 15:01:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Not sure? Just go ask somebody like Jenna Jameson or Houston (both of which are EXTREMELY wealthy) why they continue it. Maybe they *gasp* like their job. Maybe they feel like they are actually performing some sort of service to men/women/couples everywhere.
----------------------
much like drug dealers provide a "service" to people... why dont we ask some crackheads why they smoke crack... maybe they *gasp* like it.
Submitted by ScoutCJustice (user info) at 2004-04-06 14:58:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"One can access crack as readily as porno, if not more readily. Agree with it."
BULLSHIT. Most of you're argument is crap anyways, but most of it has been addressed. You can't tell me that a highly illegal and expensive narcotic is easier to get than porn. Until you can go into google and type in crack and white powder starts spitting out of your disk drive then shut the fuck up. There are thousands upon thousands of porn shops and strip clubs accross the country. Hell, you can buy porn magazines in Barnes & Noble.
Also, no one here is debating that kids shouldn't watch porn, but as others said it lies with the parents to do most of the protecting in that regard. Also, I'd like to know why porn is bad for me. As an adult, how does it hurt me in any way to watch porn? I don't really understand that argument. Again, I'm not saying that porn won't effect children that watch it, but how does it hurt an adult that already has their foundations of sexuality set?
And as far as your shooting in the foot versus the head example, the key there is that you would be hurting someone else. If porn is in fact harmful (not a point that I'm willing to concede) at worst minor damage to your own person would be the extent of the consequences. There is certainly an extent to which the government has a responsibility to limit the harm one can inflict on themselves (crack for example, which can KILL you and will certainly fuck up your ability to function as a member of society... I haven't seen a porn that could do that), but largely if the only person you are hurting is yourself then you have a right to do it. By your logic the government should outlaw cigarettes, alcohol, red meat, fried foods, fast food chains, sports equipment (especially for sports like football and hockey), and so many other things we find enjoyable. It's when you start hurting others (like shooting someone in the foot for example) that the government needs to step in. You have a right to do what you want, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HARM OTHERS.
As for the original post +2. Yet another reason to vote against Bush.
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-06 14:57:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If your silly enought to believe that a adminstration that wants to define marriage with a constitional AMENDMENT won't do what they can to attack porno and maybe ban it, you have some serious waking up to do.
---------------------------------------------------
This is where things get heated. (if you don't believe in God then don't bother reading, you'll just argue the whole way through) My mom is a lesbian. All my life I was surrounded by gay people. I grew up in a house where everything masculine about me was attcked by her "partner" constantly. I was made to feel like "the enemy" by her when my mom wasn't around. It made me hyper-masculine.
I attended "Gifted and Talented" classes at the local university starting in 4th grade where I was taught to be a democrat. Every lesson we learned had liberal spin on it, and I bought into everything. I was a kid, and I was idealistic. I thought I could make a difference. Combine this with my rebellious attitude towards "authority" (my mom's partner), and then...
Fast forward 12 years...
Until about 6 months ago I didn't believe in God (despite being raised a Catholic by the other members of my family and attending Catholic school until 9th grade). I lived my life in the kind of sin that even Uber doesn't talk about. I was lower than low. I was worse than the crackheads I dealt with. I beat suspects up because I didn't think the courts would handle it properly. I was abusive in relationships with women. I was addicted to pain killers. I slept with almost every woman I met, some married, even had threesomes. Luckily I somehow never got a disease.
I had no place to turn, and no one to help me... I had to do it on my own. And I did it. And the shit I went through is all the proof I needed that there IS a God.
SO now that I believe in God, I also believe that he created us. We didn't just evolve into having the mind capacities that we have over the other creatures, we were GIVEN this gift.
What does this have to do with homosexuality? Well, God created sex as a means of reproduction. Sure, he wanted us to enjoy it as well, otherwise he wouldn't have given us the desires he has. But it is still unnatural. Our bodies were designed for a man to enter a woman, not for anything else.
I have nothing against homosexuals, like I said, my mom is gay and I love her to death. A gay nurse took better care of me than I've ever been cared for by any medical professional when I was in a drug-induced coma for 3 days, and I hug him every chance I get.
But I oppose gay marriage. Call me what you want, but America could be the next Sodom and Gomorrah. Who am I to talk, after all I've done in my fucked up life? Someone who has grown the fuck up, that's who. I won't condemn anyone for being gay, but marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-04-06 14:54:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
agree. Asscroft is apparently working on an all american version of sharia.
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-04-06 14:38:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And as for kids: I say we propose a study (much like your 100 vs 100, crack vs. porn one) Let 100 kids watch porno and 100 watch sex-ed videos. Let's see which ones grow up and degrade women sexually, or become sexual predators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sex-ed videos? Where the fuck are you pulling that out of your ass? We are talking about wether or not children seeing porno has a negative effect. What you SHOULD of said was 100 kids watching porn, and 100 not watching it.
I would be VERY interested to see the results of that.
Anyway its obvious that you cant be rational when it comes to this subject. Your personal bias is just bleeding through your arguments.
Statements like "What kind of woman would want the whole world to see her sucking a dick? A fucked up bitch... that's who." really have no basis in what we are discussing.
Not sure? Just go ask somebody like Jenna Jameson or Houston (both of which are EXTREMELY wealthy) why they continue it. Maybe they *gasp* like their job. Maybe they feel like they are actually performing some sort of service to men/women/couples everywhere.
Either way it doesnt matter. The basic premise is cenorship. Something that should not be existant in a "Free" country.
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-06 14:28:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
For every link you send that defends pornography, i could find one that bashes it. It is a fact, though, that porn actors have high suicide rates.
I have neither the time nor inclination to research, though... (well, I probably have the time but since this debate really isn't important I won't bother.)
And as for kids: I say we propose a study (much like your 100 vs 100, crack vs. porn one) Let 100 kids watch porno and 100 watch sex-ed videos. Let's see which ones grow up and degrade women sexually, or become sexual predators.
Therefore I stand by my previous response.
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-04-06 14:18:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You know for a minute there you had a point. But then you said this shit:
"Pornography is a product of fucked up people who have had fucked up lives. The suicide rates of porn stars are much higher than non-porn actors, probably higher than almost any occupation period. Homemade porn is different, obviously, because it is not being mass-distributed. What kind of woman would want the whole world to see her sucking a dick? A fucked up bitch... that's who."
Backup Please. Heres some BENEFITS of porn.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/mcelroy_17_4.html
http://www.zetetics.com/xxx/preface.htm
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html
http://www.sexuality.org/l/activism/laurhglr.html
"A child who sees a porno at a young age WILL end up seriously fucked up, AT LEAST sexually. Agree with it. A child should not have access to porno. Agree with it. Porno and crack are both bad things. Agree with it. One can access crack as readily as porno, if not more readily. Agree with it. Even if pornogrpahy were banned (WHICH IT WILL NEVER BE), an adult could still get it. Agree with it."
I dont agree that a child will be guaranteed to be fucked up if they see porn. I know as a kid I walked in on my parents going at it once or twice. But i do agree children should not have access to it. The problem i have have is WHO controls the access. IMHO its the parents not the government.
If your silly enought to believe that a adminstration that wants to define marriage with a constitional AMENDMENT won't do what they can to attack porno and maybe ban it, you have some serious waking up to do.
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-06 13:57:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-04-06 13:13:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
Ah, but who decided what's an apple and what's an orange? Why is crack worse than porn? They both damage people...
---------------------------------------------
Are you fucking retarded? How the fuck is porn worse then crack?
----------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter HOW MUCH damage is done to a person, or which is worse, they are both "bad" things. One is illegal, the other is not, still one can access either if he or she is so inclined.
THAT IS THE POINT OF MY RESPONSE.
Still... who gets to decide what's bad and what's not? There are things out there much worse than crack. NAMBLA for instance. They go on existing, and the ACLU protects them. Why not protect crack, then? They are both the stupidest fucking things I can think of to do in the world, but at least if someone smokes crack they are only hurting themselves.
I can shoot you in the face or shoot you in the foot, either way it would suck for you, wouldn't you agree? Should it be illegal for me to shoot you in the face but not the foot? No, that would be stupid. Much like trying to ban adults from watching pornography.
Crackheads don't think smoking crack is bad. (if they do, they do it anyway) Pornographers don't think porno is bad. (if they do, they do it anyway) Of course crack will destroy a person... but let me ask you this: would you want to marry a porn actress?
Pornography is a product of fucked up people who have had fucked up lives. The suicide rates of porn stars are much higher than non-porn actors, probably higher than almost any occupation period. Homemade porn is different, obviously, because it is not being mass-distributed. What kind of woman would want the whole world to see her sucking a dick? A fucked up bitch... that's who.
A child who sees a porno at a young age WILL end up seriously fucked up, AT LEAST sexually. Agree with it. A child should not have access to porno. Agree with it. Porno and crack are both bad things. Agree with it. One can access crack as readily as porno, if not more readily. Agree with it. Even if pornogrpahy were banned (WHICH IT WILL NEVER BE), an adult could still get it. Agree with it.
Now what the fuck is everyone arguing for?
Submitted by Manfre (user info) at 2004-04-06 13:35:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
RB couldnt have said it better.
I, for one, would like to be on that 100 person test. Preferably in the lesbian porn part.
Actually Im sure the only defects that the lesbian porn viewers would have are blue balls or sticky fingers.
I say we legalize marijuana. Why? Cause it seems like everyone in the Bush Administration is already fucking stoned.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-04-06 13:16:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by dohnuts (user info) at 2004-04-06 13:15:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-06 12:51:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
I also don't think kids should be able to get it.
-----------------------------------
Ok, we share some common ground. But, I think it is 99.9% my job to keep my son from viewing pornography, and .1% the government's. Ashcroft seems to think it's the other way around. And as Loki pointed out, this is a guy who would cover the Venus de Milo in a burqa if he had to give a speech in front of it.
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-04-06 13:13:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ah, but who decided what's an apple and what's an orange? Why is crack worse than porn? They both damage people...
---------------------------------------------
Are you fucking retarded? How the fuck is porn worse then crack? Lets look at this rationally. Your talking about one of the hardest possible drugs out their. One of the most addicted drugs that MAKES BABIES ADDICTED BEFORE THEY ARE BORN. Do you see babies born addicted to Porn because their parents watched it? Yes certain types of porn (S&M, Child, Snuff) can have a horrible phsychologicaly effect on people that would maybe rival the physical effects of crack. But i think you would be hard fucking pressed to get the same results with straight normal vanilla husband and wife porn.
I got an idea. Lets got 100 people and have them watch two hours of the raunchiest lesbian porn we can find. Then lets take another group of 100 people and have them smoke crack for two hours. Ill give you two guesses as to which group is more fucked up at the end.
I honestly believe your smarter then this, and that your just arguing to argue. Otherwise, go fucking kill yourself.
Submitted by Deisangua (user info) at 2004-04-06 13:03:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Yeah, the fucking Puritans.
"It's rather strange that the Bush administration and its affiliated political party claim to want less government intrusion in the private lives of Americans..."
These are really two different groups. The Bush Administration is often confused with the Republican party, but ideologically speaking, this Administration perverts or ignores the basic party fundamentals that once gave Republicans ideas respectability.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-04-06 12:56:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I read about that in the paper over the weekend. They are being very careful to bring these cases to court in very conservative areas. They were complaining that the Clinton administration only went after child pornography. Personally, I'd rather see those resources go toward shutting down child porn rings and let consenting adults to what they will.
Lest we forget, these are the people who paid $8,000 of taxpayer money to cover naked brestestess on a statue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1788845.stm
Submitted by lawryde (user info) at 2004-04-06 12:55:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
MMMMMM, Porn is good
Submitted by TwEE (user info) at 2004-04-06 12:53:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
They should just declare war on life, and get it over with..
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-06 12:51:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
They may not be able to stop adults from purchasing/accessing pornography, but the point is they shouldn't even by trying. The crack/pornography analogy simply doesn't work. Apples and oranges.
---------------
Ah, but who decided what's an apple and what's an orange? Why is crack worse than porn? They both damage people...
I agree that no-one should try to hamper an adult's ability to access the things he wants to access, but I also don't think kids should be able to get it.
It may not say anything about children in the particular article you read but if you read everything about the issue you will see why something is being done.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-04-06 12:46:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Conservitive should get over the fact that its never going to be 1950 agian...
Submitted by lucid (user info) at 2004-04-06 12:46:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
It's a ploy to get asexual elders to the polls.
Submitted by dohnuts (user info) at 2004-04-06 12:41:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-06 12:31:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
Once again, paranoia spreads among uber's liberals...
---------------------------------
They may not be able to stop adults from purchasing/accessing pornography, but the point is they shouldn't even by trying. The crack/pornography analogy simply doesn't work. Apples and oranges.
And nowhere in the pretext for this initiative is it claimed that this is to protect children, or keep pornography out of the hands of children. Ashcroft and the Bush administration want to control its access by consenting adults.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-04-06 12:38:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i think that restricting porn is a GREAT idea- while were at it, i also think that allowing people to have sex is immoral and that the human race should reproduce ENTIRELY by adoption.
Submitted by I_Have_a_Kristen_Fetish (user info) at 2004-04-06 12:33:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
No Comment
Submitted by cwl989 (user info) at 2004-04-06 12:32:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Damn the Bush administration and them trying to stop me from watching my porn.
Don't they have anything better to do, like fix the economy or pay off the national debt?
Submitted by slowlyrotting (user info) at 2004-04-06 12:31:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Once again, paranoia spreads among uber's liberals...
No one will ever be able to stop an american adult from purchasing, or watching, pornography. (unless it is the illegal variants e.g. rape, incest, beastiality, etc)
Making it more difficult for children to get hold of will not stop an adult from getting their hands on it.
John Ashcroft doesn't like crack, but I've met some pretty braindead fucks who can still manage to get it whenever they want it. Why would porno be any different... even if restricted or 'banned' (which it will never be).
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-04-06 12:28:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Ashcroft sucks.
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2004-04-06 12:24:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
only only legalised it recently and now we get hardcore available in licensed shops. Before that there was always a convenient pot plant or wine bottle in the way of those evil body parts.