View Full Version : Selling Pornography
Sasaki Kojiro
03-21-2012, 08:07
If we don't let people sell their kidneys, and we don't let people sell themselves into indentured servitude, why do we allow them to sell their bodies/dignity? Isn't there a point where it goes to far? At a certain point we should say that people are allowed to make it, but they can't sell it. They can give it away. There's plenty of people who will do stuff like that.
I'll pick this out as an example that's "unexpected":
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — A video company paid homeless men $50 to be filmed while scantily clad women punched, kicked and whipped them, according to a lawsuit filed this month in a Florida court.
Lawyers for two homeless men said the website sells videos on the internet of the so-called "beatdowns," starting at $2.99 for a two-minute "sparring session" clip and increasing in price to $33.99 for a 33 minute clip of two women beating a man.
The lawsuit contends the beatings violate a state hate crimes law that specifically protects the homeless and that the producers are exploiting the poverty of transients for whom any cash is hard to come by.
"What type of society would allow this to happen?" said Neil Chonin, the lawyer for the homeless men. "This company preyed on people who are desperate."
Chonin and area homeless advocates said there are many more men who were assaulted in exchange for cash and that some were injured so badly that they were hospitalized.
The lawsuit, which was first reported by the St. Petersburg Times, was filed April. 1. A judge recently ordered the website manager, Jeffrey S. Williams, to not take down the website or erase the videos in question so the evidence could be preserved for trial.
In an email to the Associated Press on Tuesday, Williams said his accusers are trying to pressure him through public attacks.
"My side will come out in court," he wrote in the brief statement.
St. Petersburg Police Spokesman Mike Puetz said detectives are investigating the allegations as well.
Word of the homeless beatings first surfaced about three months ago, said G.W. Rolle, a St. Petersburg homeless advocate who works with the National Coalition for the Homeless and Southern Legal Counsel, the Gainesville firm that filed the lawsuit.
Rolle, who was formerly homeless himself, was walking through a downtown St. Petersburg park that is frequented by transients. He noticed that several men had black eyes, busted lips and were limping.
At first, people wouldn't talk. But Rolle "overheard a couple of conversations about the beatdown," and started asking questions.
Several men explained that promoters and others from shefights.net recruited homeless men for the female domination fetish videos. The men were taken to a nearby townhome, where women beat them while someone videotaped the session. Sometimes, the men told Rolle, they were handcuffed or shackled and whipped or flogged.
The men's accounts correspond with the content on the website, which gives brief descriptions of each video for sale. For instance, a four-minute long video promises that "Denise loves to fight bare-knuckle because she can cause so much more pain that way. She challenged the guy to step outside for a no-rules, bare-fisted fight and proceed to break his nose, beat him up, and leave him sprawled on the ground in pain."
Williams' statement said he'd fight the accusations in court.
"I will just say that there is no truth to the allegations, the testimony is perjured and paid for by the organizer of the suit, and the attempt right now is to harass us in the media in an attempt to shake us down before this goes to trial. We won't be intimidated, and these allegations against us will be disproved," the statement said.
The lawsuit said that said one woman fought 20-year-old Kyle Shaw and "used him as a punching bag," resulting in back injuries and a dislocated arm for Shaw. The other plaintiff, 37-year-old George Grayson, was videotaped on numerous occasions. Grayson said he was whipped and suffered multiple lacerations on his back.
Shaw and Grayson's lawsuit claims that Williams, the production company and the women who administered the beatings violated Florida's hate crime laws, which prohibits crimes based on homeless status, among other things.
"Defendants chose to solicit, assault and batter Plaintiffs because they were homeless, and Plaintiffs suffered injuries so severe as to evidence a hatred and contempt for people who are homeless," Chonin wrote in the lawsuit.
Williams, the website manager, said Rolle "bought that testimony" from the homeless men.
Rolle denies this and on Tuesday, played an audiotape of other homeless men discussing how they had been beaten for money. Rolle said he spoke with other men who suffered broken ribs, fractured skulls and torn ligaments after the performances.
Rolle said he is not surprised that homeless men would jump at a chance to make money – because of the bad economy, day labor has all but dried up, he said.
Social welfare advocates say such videos – including the "Bumfights" series, which features homeless men brawling in exchange for money and other incentives – dehumanize and demonize the homeless.
"I think we've become callous and indifferent enough that anything goes," said Rolle. "The environment is ripe for this sort of thing to happen."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/lawsuit-homeless-get-50-t_n_848269.html
Just a matter of taste. It's an honost profession. I don't think it's very arousing to watch that fleshwound in full HD personally but what's wrong with it if you do.
Papewaio
03-21-2012, 08:36
Homeless are vulnerable people. I'd class them similarly to children. A lot of them have mental illness, abused backgrounds, drug use etc.
People taking advantage of such homeless people are scum of the earth.
a completely inoffensive name
03-21-2012, 08:52
We don't let people sell their bodies. In almost every state in the US prostitution is illegal. Porn stars are legitimate workers who sign a contract with a company and are taken care of with frequent STD testing, proper wages and the ability to more or less decide what kind of material they want to make.
Prostitutes are subject to the same situation that homeless are in. Vulnerable people who might be very well abused and come from harsh backgrounds.
I really don't see the problem with what we have today in regard to pornography. I would not be angry if we legalized prostitution as well, but only because looking at it from a realistic point of view, we should not allow the sex market to be within the sphere of the black market and hopefully by legitimizing it we can better help those that find themselves working in it. But I guess that is a different topic.
CountArach
03-21-2012, 10:22
I really don't see the problem with what we have today in regard to pornography. I would not be angry if we legalized prostitution as well, but only because looking at it from a realistic point of view, we should not allow the sex market to be within the sphere of the black market and hopefully by legitimizing it we can better help those that find themselves working in it.
Agreed.
We aren't ever going to make pornography go away, and it is a profession in which abuse is just a small step away, so as long as it is highly regulated and the actors and actresses are well looked after, I don't see the problem with it. Of far greater concern is ensuring that pornography becomes something different to what it is, which is so often borderline rape. The article you linked is unlikely to be prevalent or it certainly isn't representative.
Agreed.
We aren't ever going to make pornography go away, and it is a profession in which abuse is just a small step away, so as long as it is highly regulated and the actors and actresses are well looked after, I don't see the problem with it. Of far greater concern is ensuring that pornography becomes something different to what it is, which is so often borderline rape. The article you linked is unlikely to be prevalent or it certainly isn't representative.
Careful what you wish for, a corrupted legal system is far worse, legalised means taxed and nothing more.
Ibn-Khaldun
03-21-2012, 12:50
When I read the title I thought Sasaki is selling pornography... glad that I was wrong..
rory_20_uk
03-21-2012, 15:02
We aren't ever going to make pornography go away, and it is a profession in which abuse is just a small step away, so as long as it is highly regulated and the actors and actresses are well looked after, I don't see the problem with it. Of far greater concern is ensuring that pornography becomes something different to what it is, which is so often borderline rape.
Many professions are a small step away from some sort of abuse, in one way or other. Policemen, Teachers, Doctors, Nurses. All can have vast power over others.
Porn is an industry where women first off earn more money than men. They are not vulnerable. Many of them are probably amazed that they get paid a comparative fortune for doing something they enjoy. Why be a bored housewife having an affair when you can do the same thing on camera and get paid for doing so?
They are bribed into doing it...? We are are bribed into our jobs. It's called a salary. I don't work on Easter for the wellbieng of humanity. I do it as I'll get paid over £1200 for the day. Investment bankers don't work 14 hour days for years on end as they hate sleep and don't want a social life or a family. They Want The Money.
You want to stack shelves? Fine, earn some money. You want to get recorded having a shower? Get a lot more money - etc etc.
I don't know the going rates, but when I was at a stag night for a friend's wedding for a topless "dance" (swaying to music) was I think £20 for about 4 mins work. So, for many people, do 4 hours work, or 4 mins work. It's one's call, but make the choice.
Would I be proud if my daughter was a pornstar? No. I'd not be proud if she stacked shelves either.
~:smoking:
CountArach
03-21-2012, 15:14
Many professions are a small step away from some sort of abuse, in one way or other. Policemen, Teachers, Doctors, Nurses. All can have vast power over others.
I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is that they are just a small step away from being abused either sexually or physically. Some types of pornography take that step.
I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is that they are just a small step away from being abused either sexually or physically. Some types of pornography take that step.
And who's going to keep an eye on the people who keep an eye, where would you go. Black market is just the way of things, the color grey comes in almost infinite variations
Sasaki Kojiro
03-21-2012, 20:06
We don't let people sell their bodies. In almost every state in the US prostitution is illegal. Porn stars are legitimate workers who sign a contract with a company and are taken care of with frequent STD testing, proper wages and the ability to more or less decide what kind of material they want to make.
Prostitutes are subject to the same situation that homeless are in. Vulnerable people who might be very well abused and come from harsh backgrounds.
Where did you get that impression of the porn industry from??? I don't get how you are making a demographic distinction between the people who go into pornography and the ones who become prostitutes.
Porn is an industry where women first off earn more money than men. They are not vulnerable. Many of them are probably amazed that they get paid a comparative fortune for doing something they enjoy. Why be a bored housewife having an affair when you can do the same thing on camera and get paid for doing so?
:freak:
The story I used as an example is about homeless guys who got paid 50 bucks and ended up with broken ribs and torn ligaments. Why on earth are you talking about someone getting paid a fortune to be recorded while taking a shower?
PanzerJaeger
03-21-2012, 21:06
The story I used as an example is about homeless guys who got paid 50 bucks and ended up with broken ribs and torn ligaments. Why on earth are you talking about someone getting paid a fortune to be recorded while taking a shower?
How common is homeless porn or the use of homeless people in porn, though? The issue you highlighted is more about a generalized problem of people taking advantage of the homeless than the porn industry, where the vast majority of the actors are equitable to employees of other industries. Stories where homeless people are paid to do crazy things that no normal person would do crop up every once in a while. Remember bum fights?
Sasaki Kojiro
03-21-2012, 21:12
How common is homeless porn or the use of homeless people in porn, though? The issue you highlighted is more about a generalized problem of people taking advantage of the homeless than the porn industry, where the vast majority of the actors are equitable to employees of other industries. Stories where homeless people are paid to do crazy things that no normal person would do crop up every once in a while. Remember bum fights?
But it's really not difficult to generalize beyond homeless people. It's not a leap at all to extend the argument into "hardcore" pornography. Why the heck would you compare that kind of stuff to stocking shelves?
PanzerJaeger
03-21-2012, 21:21
But it's really not difficult to generalize beyond homeless people. It's not a leap at all to extend the argument into "hardcore" pornography. Why the heck would you compare that kind of stuff to stocking shelves?
But it is. Homeless people are unique in that, for whatever reason, they cannot operate in normal society and many are thus uniquely susceptible to such offers. (We do not know how many homeless people turned down this offer, either. I'm not prepared to declare them without free wills.) Most porn actors could make a living stocking shelves but choose to do porn for the same reasons most people choose their line of work.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-21-2012, 21:29
But it is. Homeless people are unique in that, for whatever reason, they cannot operate in normal society and many are thus uniquely susceptible to such offers. (We do not know how many homeless people turned down this offer, either. I'm not prepared to declare them without free wills.) Most porn actors could make a living stocking shelves but choose to do porn for the same reasons most people choose their line of work.
:freak:
Don't feel up to arguing with such a bizarre claim at the moment.
How common is homeless porn or the use of homeless people in porn, though? The issue you highlighted is more about a generalized problem of people taking advantage of the homeless than the porn industry, where the vast majority of the actors are equitable to employees of other industries. Stories where homeless people are paid to do crazy things that no normal person would do crop up every once in a while. Remember bum fights?
The problem here is not with porn (that is an entirely different subject), but with porn being commodified. The problem is that when human beings are commodified they become slaves. That is the difference between sleeping with someone because you want to, and sleeping with them for money.
Whether porn or prostitution, you will have people who enjoy it and like getting the money, but you will also open the door to people who do not enjoy it and would not otherwise do it being subjected to it for money. You also give those in the industry the incentive ($) to prey on vulnerable people and exploit them for money.
There are plenty of swingers and fetish communities for those interested in those activities, and they put out plenty enough free videos and pictures. There is no need to get money involved. If you want to stand there and let a woman punch you in the face and put it on Youtube, good for you. But if you make a business of paying guys for it and selling the vids, it will always lead to abuse.
One of my professors told me once that majority of the women in porn industry had been molested as children. I wish I could source that, but I can't. The point is that the porn models are usually not on equal footing with their employers, and often don't have a lot of choice. De-commodify it and you get rid of that problem. The big businesses don't want that though, because they all make a fortune off of sex.
EDIT: Here is a fun link for you. (http://licensetopimp.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/porn-stars-trafficking-victims/) Just something google brought up, but when I was in college, I remember reading tons of more academic stuff about the problem. Porn stars are almost never fully in control of what they can do, and lots rely on their employer to give them their 'fix' drug.
PanzerJaeger
03-21-2012, 21:48
:freak:
Don't feel up to arguing with such a bizarre claim at the moment.
I'm not sure what is so bizzare about it. Maybe I did not articulate it well. The story you posted is disturbing because the homeless people were taken advantage of and injured. The porn aspect is only incidental. I would wager that a story about an aspiring actress who chooses to do porn instead of a 9-5 so she can have more time to attend auditions would have less impact. :shrug:
The problem here is not with porn (that is an entirely different subject), but with porn being commodified. The problem is that when human beings are commodified they become slaves. That is the difference between sleeping with someone because you want to, and sleeping with them for money.
Whether porn or prostitution, you will have people who enjoy it and like getting the money, but you will also open the door to people who do not enjoy it and would not otherwise do it being subjected to it for money. You also give those in the industry the incentive ($) to prey on vulnerable people and exploit them for money.
There are plenty of swingers and fetish communities for those interested in those activities, and they put out plenty enough free videos and pictures. There is no need to get money involved. If you want to stand there and let a woman punch you in the face and put it on Youtube, good for you. But if you make a business of paying guys for it and selling the vids, it will always lead to abuse.
If that is the case, then, as Rory said earlier, everyone who has to earn an income to live is a slave. Doing porn is a choice, just like working in retail or construction.
One of my professors told me once that majority of the women in porn industry had been molested as children. I wish I could source that, but I can't. The point is that the porn models are usually not on equal footing with their employers, and often don't have a lot of choice. De-commodify it and you get rid of that problem. The big businesses don't want that though, because they all make a fortune off of sex.
Well I'm not surprised that it cannot be sourced, but even if true it does not remove free will.
If that is the case, then, as Rory said earlier, everyone who has to earn an income to live is a slave. Doing porn is a choice, just like working in retail or construction.
No, there is a big difference because of what your employer is demanding of you. In the sex and porn industry, the demands are of an incredibly more personal nature. Say I work at a factory. I don't like the work, but I need the money. So in order to get by I assemble brake pads. I don't want to do it, but big deal.
That is very different from being forced to have sex with STD ridden strangers who you don't know or like, and to completely give up all your pride and demean yourself for a stranger's enjoyment. The demands are very different, and the danger much greater.
Also, there is the matter of labor supply and conditions. There are plenty of people willing to do my job at the factory, so my employer is not desperate and has no need to coerce me into doing it. Also, my work is not of a private nature, and therefore, he will not have as much opportunity.
Think of how many really sexy, really young women are actually willing to do what is required of them in the sex and porn industry. Not a lot. That is why employers need to press unfair advantages or coerce women a lot.
Well I'm not surprised that it cannot be sourced, but even if true it does not remove free will.
A quick google brought up plenty of hits actually, you should try it. Did you ever consider that your free will argument could be just as easily applied to child labor? They are preying on vulnerable people who they often give no choice. What free will is there really? Is it that you care so much about freewill?
rory_20_uk
03-21-2012, 22:20
Cobblers. Loads of industries require personal aspects to their work. Sex for many is just sex. Like why prostitutes don't kiss, as that makes it personal. They are acting roles, and are well compensated for it. It hardly suits everyone.
There are few people in porn. It only takes a minute percentage to want / choose to do it. The coercion is the amount of money they're offered. They still choose to take it. Then the large number of exhibitionists. Are they too merely pawns who are coerced to doing it? Or do we have to accept that some women choose to take naked pictures of themselves?
Most in the porn industry have regular STD checks. More so that randoms one might meet in a club.
What is a child? 12? 14? 16? 18? All are arbitrary chronological points.
~:smoking:
Papewaio
03-21-2012, 22:23
:freak:
Don't feel up to arguing with such a bizarre claim at the moment.
PJ is dead on the money. Most people have a choice of income including porn actresses. Homeless people on the other hand are in a rut of some sort. At a minimum they are between jobs and trying to survive whilst being of sound body and mind. However even in this best case scenario their lack of wealth sets them at an extreme disadvantage when choosing a survival option. Most have mental and or drug abuse options that mean they cannot function as an adult in modern society.
Adults choosing to engage in sex for love, money, ego or any other reason is up to the adults involved.
An adult is someone who takes responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Homeless people by their predicament are still humans, a lot are still adults. However they are in such a disadvantaged state of life that taking advantage of them should be punished.
Mercy is for the strong. It is given from the strong to the weak. Taking advantage of our weakest is a sign of a sick society. So whilst I see porn as a work choice for some. Having homeless men beaten for a pittance should be a serious sentence. Akin to serious assault and deprivation of liberty or abuse of a child.
PanzerJaeger
03-21-2012, 22:28
No, there is a big difference because of what your employer is demanding of you. In the sex and porn industry, the demands are of an incredibly more personal nature. Say I work at a factory. I don't like the work, but I need the money. So in order to get by I assemble brake pads. I don't want to do it, but big deal.
If you don't like working in the factory, you can go work at WalMart. That's the point. No one is forced to work in the regulated porn industry. A lot of people think that factory work is dehumanizing. Should it be banned?
That is very different from being forced to have sex with STD ridden strangers who you don't know or like, and to completely give up all your pride and demean yourself for a stranger's enjoyment. The demands are very different, and the danger much greater.
Pride and what is and is not demeaning are personal concepts. What you may find demeaning someone else may be proud of.
Also, there is the matter of labor supply and conditions. There are plenty of people willing to do my job at the factory, so my employer is not desperate and has no need to coerce me into doing it. Also, my work is not of a private nature, and therefore, he will not have as much opportunity.
Think of how many really sexy, really young women are actually willing to do what is required of them in the sex and porn industry. Not a lot. That is why employers need to press unfair advantages or coerce women a lot.
Coercion? Do you mean paying them?
A quick google brought up plenty of hits actually, you should try it. Did you ever consider that your free will argument could be just as easily applied to child labor? They are preying on vulnerable people who they often give no choice. What free will is there really?
Child labor laws were put in place to regulate the activities of parents, not children. Adults are not dependent on their employers in the same way that young children are dependent on their parents.
Free will is typing 'how to get in to doing porn' in Google. It is calling casting directors and setting up meetings with producers. It is showing up at the studio. And it is the removal of clothing and finally sex. At none of those points is a gun held to the actor's head.
REMOVED
Sasaki Kojiro
03-22-2012, 01:41
I'm not sure what is so bizzare about it. Maybe I did not articulate it well. The story you posted is disturbing because the homeless people were taken advantage of and injured. The porn aspect is only incidental. I would wager that a story about an aspiring actress who chooses to do porn instead of a 9-5 so she can have more time to attend auditions would have less impact. :shrug:
I'm sure a story about someone who took heroin a couple times and enjoyed it instead of someone who became an addict would have less impact too...it would be totally irrelevant however...and why is your story a positive one? Aspiring actress does porn, fails to become a real actress (odds a bazillion:1) and then what?
Or do we have to accept that some women choose to take naked pictures of themselves?
They can do that. The stuff just shouldn't be sold after a certain level of "hardcore".
What is a child? 12? 14? 16? 18? All are arbitrary chronological points.
:freak:
PJ is dead on the money. Most people have a choice of income including porn actresses. Homeless people on the other hand are in a rut of some sort. At a minimum they are between jobs and trying to survive whilst being of sound body and mind. However even in this best case scenario their lack of wealth sets them at an extreme disadvantage when choosing a survival option. Most have mental and or drug abuse options that mean they cannot function as an adult in modern society.
Lots of people have drug abuse problems. It is obvious that if the homeless are off limits many other people are as well.
If you don't like working in the factory, you can go work at WalMart. That's the point. No one is forced to work in the regulated porn industry. A lot of people think that factory work is dehumanizing. Should it be banned?
What's the point of comparing working in a factory to working in porn? Such a comment can't possibly be taken seriously.
Pride and what is and is not demeaning are personal concepts. What you may find demeaning someone else may be proud of.
Lol. Yeah I think some things are pretty **** hardcoded. And the existence of people who don't mind is irrelevant to the basic point of the thread.
I don't see what it is that's difficult to understand. A porn company goes to a college campus and finds some 18 year old girls of the most desperate and insecure kind. They promise them fame and money and give them attention. They don't know what they heck they're getting into. Drugs everywhere. Good chance that they got an STD at some point, good chance that they were raped or had things done that they really didn't want done to them. A few years later they are "too old" and get dumped. So what's all this gibberish about? Who cares if it goes differently for other women? Are you seriously going to fight that hard for them to be able to work in hardcore porn instead of some other job, while other women are being raped on set? It is obviously WIDE OPEN to abuse. You can't be against the homeless being paid and in favor of this.
PanzerJaeger
03-22-2012, 02:27
I'm sure a story about someone who took heroin a couple times and enjoyed it instead of someone who became an addict would have less impact too...it would be totally irrelevant however...
Why is it any less relevant than your story? Is there an epidemic of homeless people being abused on porn sets? Anecdote is always a weak argument and cannot be the basis of legislation.
...and why is your story a positive one? Aspiring actress does porn, fails to become a real actress (odds a bazillion:1) and then what?
I did not say it was positive. I was trying to illustrate that the impact of your story had more to do with the treatment of the homeless than the porn industry.
The industry can be portrayed in positive or negative terms dependent on perspective. My point has nothing to do with that, though, and everything to do with personal choice. Banning things to save people from themselves should never be the first option in a free society.
What's the point of comparing working in a factory to working in porn? Such a comment can't possibly be taken seriously.
Well, I was responding to Vuk's comments. Why can't they be compared? Why is porn any different from any other occupation that people voluntarily choose?
Lol. Yeah I think some things are pretty **** hardcoded. And the existence of people who don't mind is irrelevant to the basic point of the thread.
That is your opinion. Attitudes towards sex vary greatly within our society. And that is the point of this thread. In the OP you posed the question: 'Why do we allow people to sell their dignity'. Dignity is a personal concept. You cannot push yours on other people.
I don't see what it is that's difficult to understand. A porn company goes to a college campus and finds some 18 year old girls of the most desperate and insecure kind. They promise them fame and money and give them attention. They don't know what they heck they're getting into. Drugs everywhere. Good chance that they got an STD at some point, good chance that they were raped or had things done that they really didn't want done to them. A few years later they are "too old" and get dumped. So what's all this gibberish about? Who cares if it goes differently for other women? Are you seriously going to fight that hard for them to be able to work in hardcore porn instead of some other job, while other women are being raped on set? It is obviously WIDE OPEN to abuse.
More anecdote, but the bolded portion is questionable at best.
You can't be against the homeless being paid and in favor of this.
The major issue with the homeless story for me was that they were scammed and seriously injured, not that they did not have a choice.
What's the point of comparing working in a factory to working in porn? Such a comment can't possibly be taken seriously.
On the contrary, a blanket dismissal without reasoning or rationale can't possibly be taken seriously.
I've known people who worked for a bit in various aspects of the sex industry. All of them are doing well. In college, for example, I dated a girl with a respectable (you might even say Olympian) libido who made ends meet by doing live phone sex. She's now happily married with two kids, and a professor of film at a first-tier Uni (and she just had a massively successful book published). Both of the women I knew who stripped in their 20s are doing very, very well these days. Frankly, I don't know anyone personally who got anything but gobs of cash and high job satisfaction from doing that sort of work.
Sure, there are messed-up people on drugs who are probably on the fast track to ruin their lives. But then, the only person I know who ODed at work was an investment banker.
As for the OP, using homeless (probably mentally disturbed) people for the purpose of injury is so out-there, marginal and illegal that it's hardly representative of the sex industry. Sorta like saying that anyone involved in mineral extraction is just like children who harvest blood diamonds. Or maybe you weren't comparing this episode of disgusting to the sex trade as a whole? Hard to tell from your writing.
"Selling one's body" for porn/prostitution is no different from "selling one's body" for any sort of labour, in principle. The main difference is that in the former, you will be (often) performing your work on/with someone else's body. But you don't have to think too long before you think of reputeable professions that do exactly the same; only with no genitalia involved on the actor's side. But that is a digression, they key is that you are getting paid to use your body to accomplish something; building a house, playing Frodo - whatever. The talk of "selling one's body" is nought but empty rhetoric.
The use of violence is borderline, and so is using vulnerable people.
rory_20_uk
03-22-2012, 10:53
GC, for women porn stars the salary is apparently $60k for 4 films, taking 3 weeks each to film. Pro-rata that's something like $250k a year. No up front costs, no debts.
~:smoking:
gaelic cowboy
03-22-2012, 11:17
GC, for women porn stars the salary is apparently $60k for 4 films, taking 3 weeks each to film. Pro-rata that's something like $250k a year. No up front costs, no debts.
~:smoking:
I guessing those pay rates have reduced a lot in the last 4-5 year due to a tinterweb piracy.
rory_20_uk
03-22-2012, 11:22
Two competing factors - more competition and piracy driving down prices, but bigger target audiences driving up prices.
~:smoking:
No, there is a big difference because of what your employer is demanding of you. In the sex and porn industry, the demands are of an incredibly more personal nature. Say I work at a factory. I don't like the work, but I need the money. So in order to get by I assemble brake pads. I don't want to do it, but big deal.
That is very different from being forced to have sex with STD ridden strangers who you don't know or like, and to completely give up all your pride and demean yourself for a stranger's enjoyment. The demands are very different, and the danger much greater.
you have a moral objection to one of the activities, I do not, that does not make for a "big difference" in logical terms between them
I also do not think sex is a "demeaning" activity, and therefore the simple capture of that act on film is not on itself demeaning either.
I will agree there are some more extreme forms of pornography that go too far for my tastes, and I would consider some of them demeaning, but that is a personal taste matter, you don´t like it you don´t watch it, no reason to go crazy with the regulation.
and we are talking about regulated "mainstream" pornography (in the USA, Europe, etc) here, were actors are subjected to regular health screenings, and where in most cases the actresses make more money then the men (as well they should since they are the attraction point of the product) and in some cases even can enforce lists of male actors they accept or not accept to work with, so the "being forced to work with STD ridden strangers" line is just a straw man argument.
Also, there is the matter of labor supply and conditions. There are plenty of people willing to do my job at the factory, so my employer is not desperate and has no need to coerce me into doing it. Also, my work is not of a private nature, and therefore, he will not have as much opportunity.
Think of how many really sexy, really young women are actually willing to do what is required of them in the sex and porn industry. Not a lot. That is why employers need to press unfair advantages or coerce women a lot.
The sheer number of new female porn actresses that show up on the scene on a weekly basis (just on American productions alone) contradicts the claim that it is somehow difficult for porn producers to find girls willing to participate in this activity.
I think this topic is mislabeled and misdirected, the fact that there is some "pornographic" aspect to the situation described on the first post is secondary at best to the problem at hand.
gaelic cowboy
03-22-2012, 12:31
Two competing factors - more competition and piracy driving down prices, but bigger target audiences driving up prices.
~:smoking:
That only works if there is not enough of a given product to satisfy the larger target audience.
This however is digital media and is generally downloaded even when it's legally paid for.
GC, for women porn stars the salary is apparently $60k for 4 films, taking 3 weeks each to film. Pro-rata that's something like $250k a year. No up front costs, no debts.
~:smoking:
Maybe five ten years ago that was true for a top earner under contract with a production company. I think I know (I don't know if I can post names or not) who your stats are coming from, and it was a single company and it was going for 7 years ago. These days the porn star women get paid $500-$1500 (based on experience and the earning power of their name natch') to show up and preform what ever sex act they've agreed to do over the phone. And if it's not a actual sex act, it's considerably less. Plus porn men get paid about half that, in mainstream stuff.
Also there are potentially travel expenses. Not all of the women live in California, and not all companies are based there either. Some might be based in Montreal or Florida. Some work in Japan or Europe.
The Stranger
03-22-2012, 19:39
When I read the title I thought Sasaki is selling pornography... glad that I was wrong..
but are you? :inquisitive:
I found this!
sasaki kojiro porn [100% Tested]
REMOVED, ext: .rar, date: 2012-03-22
sasaki kojiro porn [100% Tested]
REMOVED
you have a moral objection to one of the activities, I do not, that does not make for a "big difference" in logical terms between them
I also do not think sex is a "demeaning" activity, and therefore the simple capture of that act on film is not on itself demeaning either.
I will agree there are some more extreme forms of pornography that go too far for my tastes, and I would consider some of them demeaning, but that is a personal taste matter, you don´t like it you don´t watch it, no reason to go crazy with the regulation.
and we are talking about regulated "mainstream" pornography (in the USA, Europe, etc) here, were actors are subjected to regular health screenings, and where in most cases the actresses make more money then the men (as well they should since they are the attraction point of the product) and in some cases even can enforce lists of male actors they accept or not accept to work with, so the "being forced to work with STD ridden strangers" line is just a straw man argument.
The sheer number of new female porn actresses that show up on the scene on a weekly basis (just on American productions alone) contradicts the claim that it is somehow difficult for porn producers to find girls willing to participate in this activity.
I think this topic is mislabeled and misdirected, the fact that there is some "pornographic" aspect to the situation described on the first post is secondary at best to the problem at hand.
I did not say that sex is demeaning. I said that having hardcore sex in front of a camera with strangers to sexually stimulate a stranger is demeaning.
Joker Obama Girl
03-22-2012, 21:04
Maybe five ten years ago that was true for a top earner under contract with a production company. I think I know (I don't know if I can post names or not) who your stats are coming from, and it was a single company and it was going for 7 years ago. These days the porn star women get paid $500-$1500 (based on experience and the earning power of their name natch') to show up and preform what ever sex act they've agreed to do over the phone. And if it's not a actual sex act, it's considerably less. Plus porn men get paid about half that, in mainstream stuff.
Also there are potentially travel expenses. Not all of the women live in California, and not all companies are based there either. Some might be based in Montreal or Florida. Some work in Japan or Europe.
This is very true. I am pretty active in my local fetish community, and I know quite a lot of women who make fetish porn and more mainstream porn. Especially with fetish porn they usually have to travel a lot to different studios and shoot things with different men and other female stars. For instance, take the ballbusting fetish, there are not a lot of guys who can take that abuse, and the ones who can are pretty much stars that many female fetish models work with. (For instance PC guy, whom I know, and who also did a lot of videos with shefights.)
A lot of regular porn stars I know supplement their income by traveling around and doing fetish sessions. It is quite expensive.
Even if you are doing fetish vids completely locally, you have to spend a fortune on shoes and clothes, stocking your dungeon, etc, etc. Some girls do quite nicely, most barely get by, and many work dayjobs or have another partner bringing in income.
Even the prodommes, pro-porn stars, and exotic dancers I know almost all complain about how bad the type of work they do is. About how badly they are treated by their customers and employers, and about how desensitizing it is. Most of them do it when they are younger and struggling to make ends meet, and then move on. They don't get any respect, even by the guys who fetishize them, and it is a pretty degrading line of work. It is not that sex (for porn stars) or fetish play is degrading, but in a professional environment it often is. Many of these same women 'relax' and enjoy themselves by having relationships with and doing casual (non-paid) play with lucky guys (like moi) in the local fetish community.
It seems that as soon as money is added to the mix, things go seriously South. There, for the sake of an argument, I have come out of the closet as a pervert. :P
Sasaki Kojiro
03-22-2012, 23:48
Why is it any less relevant than your story? Is there an epidemic of homeless people being abused on porn sets? Anecdote is always a weak argument and cannot be the basis of legislation.
The industry can be portrayed in positive or negative terms dependent on perspective. My point has nothing to do with that, though, and everything to do with personal choice. Banning things to save people from themselves should never be the first option in a free society.
Why is it illegal for people to sell their kidneys? This is a perfectly basic legal/moral principle :dizzy2:
Why is porn any different from any other occupation that people voluntarily choose?
Why aren't you a porn star?
That is your opinion. Attitudes towards sex vary greatly within our society. And that is the point of this thread. In the OP you posed the question: 'Why do we allow people to sell their dignity'. Dignity is a personal concept. You cannot push yours on other people.
Nothing at all is being pushed. No one is banned from appearing in a porno. This has nothing to do with what people are free to do.
Some people are very responsible and self controlled. They could take heroin and not get addicted. They would really enjoy it. Making heroin illegal is not about pushing our idea of responsibility on them, it's acknowledging all the problems of people who do become addicted. And we aren't talking about making porn illegal--just about taking some of the money out of it.
I'm sure there are some homeless people who are really tough. How much pain is too much is personal, surely. Why would we save them from themselves?
... phone sex...stripped
This kind of stuff is making me think you guys might actually agree with me if you read more carefully...phone sex, stripping, women recording themselves in the shower, topless dance???? Who in the world is talking about shutting down any of that? What's difficult to understand about "a certain level of "hardcore"", obviously it's a bit vague but still, has anyone ever called phone sex "too hardcore"?
As for the OP, using homeless (probably mentally disturbed) people for the purpose of injury is so out-there, marginal and illegal that it's hardly representative of the sex industry. Sorta like saying that anyone involved in mineral extraction is just like children who harvest blood diamonds.
You have heard the argument that people shouldn't buy diamonds because some of the people involved are abused, right? Whatever the merit of it is, the people arguing for it are saying "these guys should have to get a different job because too many people in the industry are getting abused". So I don't know why you are talking about phone sex operators and the industry as a whole.
There is a lot of misinformation here. I need to find statistics to back it up, but I'd be willing to bet that--at least within the USA--Porn stars make more money than the average middle-class worker by a large margin and are part of a very well-regulated industry, and not some black-market wierdness like some poeple are making it out to be.
I doubt they make very much, and it's a quick turnover industry that negatively effects your future job prospects...and I'm sure people selling their kidneys would make more money than the average worker :dizzy2:
"Selling one's body" for porn/prostitution is no different from "selling one's body" for any sort of labour, in principle.
:freak:
I don't know how to respond to people saying things they so obviously can't mean. Are you saying that you would be just as likely to take a job where you were degraded sexually (anal sex like in a "hardcore" porn perhaps) as you would stocking shelves? According to this thread it's amazing most of you guys aren't in porn.
The use of violence is borderline, and so is using vulnerable people.
In other words you agree with me????
It seems that as soon as money is added to the mix, things go seriously South.
I don't get why this is a difficult concept for people.
rory_20_uk
03-23-2012, 00:05
Most men aren't in porn as they don't measure up to put it politely.
If people earned the same for stacking shelves as they did for porn the'y almost all stack shelves. Would people be investment bankers if they earned the same salary pro-rata teaching? Screwing someone and stacking shelves are both basically low skilled work. The fact that one pays $6 and the other $600 are these other factors.
Most persons who go into porn are probably not College grads. How, exactly, does it negatively affect one's job prospects? Here's a tip - don't put it on the CV. My CV airbrushes out a few things here and there which would massively impact my ability to get work. I am sure there are lines of work where they would dig and uncover these... irregularities, so isn't it lucky I don't do them? Doing porn and then trying to work for MI5 / become a Judge probably would cause problems, but there are many jobs where it'd not matter at all.
Having one's kidney removed will shorten one's live on average. Many women do have sex regularly without being paid. Some will undertake hardcore acts because they like to. Some might choose to do some more for money.
And regarding these homeless persons. I take it that it is better that they don't have the money and live rough, drink industrial grade alcohol and y'know, die. Better that than be degraded.
~:smoking:
This kind of stuff is making me think you guys might actually agree with me if you read more carefully...phone sex, stripping, women recording themselves in the shower, topless dance???? Who in the world is talking about shutting down any of that? What's difficult to understand about "a certain level of "hardcore"", obviously it's a bit vague but still, has anyone ever called phone sex "too hardcore"?
Look at the title you chose. The question you seems to be asking is not really even about pornography per se. Hell, your OP isn't even thar clear, either. :whip:
I don't know how to respond to people saying things they so obviously can't mean. Are you saying that you would be just as likely to take a job where you were degraded sexually (anal sex like in a "hardcore" porn perhaps) as you would stocking shelves? According to this thread it's amazing most of you guys aren't in porn.
How would you feel about being degraded by carrying heavy stuff? How about being degraded by sitting 8 hours in front a computer for your salary? You need to be able to come up with something better than empty rhetorics based on the word "degrade".
How do you feel about being degraded by stocking shelves versus being degraded by washing elderly people at nursing home?
In other words you agree with me????
I cannot say yes or no on such a matter that that swiftly, it relates to a lot of other concepts concerning what the state can/should. If you had actually made a proper title, I would have been better stimulated to come up with a proper response already. ;-)
Why aren't you a porn star?
like stated above, most men are not "endowed" to porn standards, and even a smaller number of men can "perform" in the presence of other men and a camera.
there is a reason why in most porn movies you always see the same men over and over again and the women keep rotating...the girls can fake it on camera...the guys have to put up or shut up.
If I though I could...I would surely consider it.
PanzerJaeger
03-23-2012, 05:30
Why is it illegal for people to sell their kidneys? This is a perfectly basic legal/moral principle :dizzy2:
Now who is making nonsensical comparisons? There is a slight difference between having a body part removed and using your body to earn an income. Porn is far more akin to construction or factory work than organ donation. In any event, I am in favor of legalizing and regulating the organ trade.
Why aren't you a porn star?
I do not want to be one.
Nothing at all is being pushed. No one is banned from appearing in a porno. This has nothing to do with what people are free to do.
You are suggesting that people be banned from making money from porn due to your own perception of the industry. That is pushing your morality on others.
I personally think coal mining is dehumanizing. Poor, vulnerable people in areas with high unemployment are taken advantage of by large corporations who pay them a pittance for hard manual labor that often results in a myriad of health problems later in their lives. Should coal mining be banned?
Some people are very responsible and self controlled. They could take heroin and not get addicted. They would really enjoy it. Making heroin illegal is not about pushing our idea of responsibility on them, it's acknowledging all the problems of people who do become addicted. And we aren't talking about making porn illegal--just about taking some of the money out of it.
Are you suggesting that people can become addicted to performing in porn? The justification for making a substance like heroin illegal is that it changes the mental capacity of a significant amount of users to such a degree that they lose their free will. In contrast, each and every scene a porn performer does is a choice.
I'm sure there are some homeless people who are really tough. How much pain is too much is personal, surely. Why would we save them from themselves?
They should not be saved from themselves if they knowingly agree to the working conditions, assuming they conform to workplace safety regulations. The issue in your article was that the homeless were deceived and injured.
This kind of stuff is making me think you guys might actually agree with me if you read more carefully...phone sex, stripping, women recording themselves in the shower, topless dance???? Who in the world is talking about shutting down any of that? What's difficult to understand about "a certain level of "hardcore"", obviously it's a bit vague but still, has anyone ever called phone sex "too hardcore"?
How do you define 'hardcore'? If I pay some young lady 20$ to take pictures of her and make 500$ a month by selling access to them online, she is still being exploited and has lost her dignity by your standard. Each individual must be the ultimate arbiter of what his or her body is worth and what he or she is willing to do with it. Keep the moralists, acting through government fiat, out of our bedrooms and away from our bodies, lest we open the door to Santorum-esque government activism.
And regarding these homeless persons. I take it that it is better that they don't have the money and live rough, drink industrial grade alcohol and y'know, die. Better that than be degraded.
~:smoking:
So you are saying that it is acceptable because someone is poor and desperate that you have them kicked in the groin and beaten within an inch of their lives in order not to starve? That goes way beyond degrading someone, that is hardcore physical abuse by any standards. It is torture. Some may enjoy it, but that does not mean that you should exploit a bunch of homeless people and put them through it. The company obviously has a hard time finding males willing enough to put themselves through that torture, guess why. Even those who fantasize about it and think it is hot mostly are not willing to actually let it happen to them.
This is utter brutality when it is not done on a willing person, or when you take advantage of the poor like this and get them to do it out of desperation. No offense, but you sound like the industrialists of a few centuries ago commenting on the plight of chimney sweepers "Well if we did not employ them sweeping chimneys, they would starve."
It is dangerous, brutal work, and the employers have no regard for the safety of their employees.
rory_20_uk
03-23-2012, 09:48
So you are saying that it is acceptable because someone is poor and desperate that you have them kicked in the groin and beaten within an inch of their lives in order not to starve? That goes way beyond degrading someone, that is hardcore physical abuse by any standards. It is torture. Some may enjoy it, but that does not mean that you should exploit a bunch of homeless people and put them through it. The company obviously has a hard time finding males willing enough to put themselves through that torture, guess why. Even those who fantasize about it and think it is hot mostly are not willing to actually let it happen to them.
This is utter brutality when it is not done on a willing person, or when you take advantage of the poor like this and get them to do it out of desperation. No offense, but you sound like the industrialists of a few centuries ago commenting on the plight of chimney sweepers "Well if we did not employ them sweeping chimneys, they would starve."
It is dangerous, brutal work, and the employers have no regard for the safety of their employees.
"Acceptable" is your words. And indeed you managed to have an entire rant without answering the question I posed. When the straw has settled, try having another go.
~:smoking:
a completely inoffensive name
03-23-2012, 09:54
So you are saying that it is acceptable because someone is poor and desperate that you have them kicked in the groin and beaten within an inch of their lives in order not to starve? That goes way beyond degrading someone, that is hardcore physical abuse by any standards. It is torture. Some may enjoy it, but that does not mean that you should exploit a bunch of homeless people and put them through it. The company obviously has a hard time finding males willing enough to put themselves through that torture, guess why. Even those who fantasize about it and think it is hot mostly are not willing to actually let it happen to them.
This is utter brutality when it is not done on a willing person, or when you take advantage of the poor like this and get them to do it out of desperation. No offense, but you sound like the industrialists of a few centuries ago commenting on the plight of chimney sweepers "Well if we did not employ them sweeping chimneys, they would starve."
It is dangerous, brutal work, and the employers have no regard for the safety of their employees.
https://i.imgur.com/iTg97.jpg
Major Robert Dump
03-24-2012, 17:02
I'm so tired of this BS fake study that everyone quotes about how all porn stars, strippers and prostitutes were sexually abused or are doing their profession involuntarily.
And of course there are often drugs involved, it's show business and night-life oriented activity, and many of them are young. I bet a bunch of them drink, too, just like regular actors, the bouncers in bars and sorority girls.
No one argues that there are not potential self-esteem issues and family issues and fututre career-option issues that arise from working in this profession, but jeebus please stop the "these women are vicitms" statements, for the sake of argument.
Well it doesn't help that when a some of these women leave the porn game they just want to bury everything they ever did. I've heard of several who left the left and now talk smack about it. Mostly for their own current self esteem they say they were exploited and manipulated. When really they went in fully informed and with full consent.
Not to say that there are not damaged and vulnerable women who end up in the sex trade. Because there very much is. Porn how ever is much safer than any other part of it.
Major Robert Dump
03-24-2012, 18:40
And many of them don't talk smack on the industry, or end up going into directing or producing, or onto other sorts fo things. Former workers like Sasha Gray may not be as common, but I always like it when the shrinks/talk shows get her on and try to make her cry about her "vicitmhood" and she is all like "no I liked it."
And many of them don't talk smack on the industry, or end up going into directing or producing, or onto other sorts fo things. Former workers like Sasha Gray may not be as common, but I always like it when the shrinks/talk shows get her on and try to make her cry about her "vicitmhood" and she is all like "no I liked it."
Yeah, and what's the problem it's an honost profession, nobody gets hurt. So patronising.
I'm so tired of this BS fake study that everyone quotes about how all porn stars, strippers and prostitutes were sexually abused or are doing their profession involuntarily.
And of course there are often drugs involved, it's show business and night-life oriented activity, and many of them are young. I bet a bunch of them drink, too, just like regular actors, the bouncers in bars and sorority girls.
No one argues that there are not potential self-esteem issues and family issues and fututre career-option issues that arise from working in this profession, but jeebus please stop the "these women are vicitms" statements, for the sake of argument.
"I don't want to hear examples, I want to see studies and facts!"
"All the BS studies, I know better than facts and statistics."
I guess there is no winning this, is there?
No, there's definitely no winning when people try to shut down legitimate business because of a misguided sense of moral outrage. There's even less winning when they hide behind patronizingly fake concern for the people they are trying to condemn.
Who is condemning anyone? Who is saying that the average porn star is a bad person? You are just pulling that out of your arse.
I always find it funny to consider the motivations for a bunch of teenage-middle aged men to sit around defending the porn industry. I am sure it is only the strong moral argument of freewill of course.
I'm not pulling anything out of my ass. Its a legitimate business which you condemn, and one of your reasons for condemning it is a patronizing concern for the welfare of the 'actors.' Nevermind that its a consenting activity that pays well and even offers some upward mobility. Sylvester Stallone worked in porn briefly. Trina Michaels was a hardcore porn star who is now with World Wrestling Entertainment. Sasha Grey was even in a big budget movie not too long ago.
Your condescension is your entire argument. You cover it up with this false concern for the welfare of the participants. Its an act, and a bad one.
Ok, so its an act. Tell me then what nefarious motives I have. I would be interested to hear, oh yee of pure motives.
You cover it up with this false concern for the welfare of the participants. Its an act, and a bad one.
Why assume so
How can it be anything otherwise? You're condemnation of the industry stems from a belief that the participants are being exploited. This is a ludicrous claim, at least in American porn. Its the last argument you can throw at the subject, but the welfare of the participants is not your motivation, all you seek to do is pass a moral judgement on something you do not approve of. If its not an act, its at least willing ignorance.
Ah yes, moral judgment. You could of course say the same thing about someone trying to stop genocide, so I hardly see how that is a bad thing. And what is it that I do not approve of? Pornography? No, I never said that. I simply said the sex industry, including for-profit pornography.
There is plenty of pornography available that you do not have to pay for. I am not for banning pictures or videos of people having sex, just people being able to sell them. You will always have plenty of pornography, even without the business.
Rather than assuming some intimate knowledge of my moral beliefs GC, you could try reading my posts.
Uh, what? You support non-profit porn, but are against for-profit porn? So, you want to shut down the porn industry because you find it morally wrong to have sex for money? Right?
Nope. I thought I made myself clear in previous posts, but since I obviously did not, let me reiterate.
I have no problem with porn (personally, I consider it a vice, but in a free country I do not think you have the right to ban it, and I know that it will always exist, either legally or illegally), but with turning people's body's into commodities. I have a problem with it, because it will always lead to abuse. Whether that is allowing people to sell their organs on the market, or to sell sexual favors. It will lead to large corporations exploiting the individual. The government, as with all other things will be no help, because the large corporations will bribe government regulators to look the other way.
rory_20_uk
03-24-2012, 21:50
Politicians who did drugs either deny it, obfuscate or say it was a terrible mistake that they regret as it is poison to their careers. Hell, I'd deny it if asked (and we're talking about a small amount of cannabis over a decade ago).
Ex-prostitutes / porn stars who want to move into a more mainstream industry will also get a lot further with a sob story about how they are the victim rather than they got well paid to have fun. Although there was one interesting interview where there were two women being interviewed about pornography and prostitution. One woman was ranting on about how demeaning it was, how abusive etc etc. The other one was saying it was a choice, well paid and most women involved are not abused junkies. The really funny thing was the latter woman was an ex-prostitute and even then the first woman stuck to her theories and stories and was not swayed by the woman telling her what she had done and what she knew from those women she worked with.
If we were to shut down every industry where there is potential for corruption or abuse, what exactly would there be left? I can't think of anything. It's illegal to sell organs... and guess what? It happens illegally, with no regulation.
~:smoking:
There is plenty of pornography available that you do not have to pay for. I am not for banning pictures or videos of people having sex, just people being able to sell them. You will always have plenty of pornography, even without the business.
They are pornstars, these are professional productions made by people who are serious about making porn-movies. Pornstars have fans who are willing to pay for it, what's wrong with that. It's pretty innocent all in all.
a completely inoffensive name
03-25-2012, 00:17
Ahhh crap, I just realized I posted the wrong picture in my last post responding to Vuk.
Ahhh crap, I just realized I posted the wrong picture in my last post responding to Vuk.
Impressive dog though, that guy is BIG
PanzerJaeger
03-25-2012, 01:10
There's no better dog than a Dane in my opinion. Loyal to a fault...
a completely inoffensive name
03-25-2012, 11:00
You will always have plenty of pornography, even without the business.
What if the servers go down? 1TB hard drive's worth can only last you so long....
CountArach
03-25-2012, 12:48
Whether that is allowing people to sell their organs on the market, or to sell sexual favors. It will lead to large corporations exploiting the individual. The government, as with all other things will be no help, because the large corporations will bribe government regulators to look the other way.
So you want it regulated, but you don't want it... regulated?
What if the servers go down? 1TB hard drive's worth can only last you so long....
Do you really think that people will stop putting up porn on the net?
That is a very extremist position. You're equating a legitimate business to black market organ dealers. Listen to yourself.
You act as if being considered a 'legitimate' business makes it great, and being 'illegitimate' makes it bad. It is just a question of what is legal at the time. Don't forget that making beer was an illegitimate business at one point in our history.
The comparison is valid, as both, while the acts are not necessarily harmful or bad in themselves (people donate organs or give theirs up for loved ones all the time, and lots of people have sex in front of cameras because they like to), they both commodify the body, and open the door for commercial abuse. When you put a price on the human body, we become slaves. Porn is a bad step in that direction that opens the door for slavery or something close to it for many involved in the industry.
So you want it regulated, but you don't want it... regulated?
Not regulate, ban. That way if it is being sold on the black market, we can hunt them down and arrest them, and therefore keep the business to an absolute minimum. Because you will likely have an increase of attention hungry idiots making home porn, there will be less of a demand of 'professional' porn.
There's no better dog than a Dane in my opinion. Loyal to a fault...
Have you ever heard of a Kuvasz. That and pointer/rott mixes are my fav dogs. I have never had a Kuvasz, because I don't have the resources (financial or time) right now (they are high-upkeep dogs), but from everything I have heard about them and from all the ones I have seen, they seem like complete win.
Greyblades
03-25-2012, 15:58
Huh, the more I read the more I think Vuk is mistaking porn actress' workiing conditions for prostitutes'.
Huh, the more I read the more I think Vuk is mistaking porn actresses for prostitutes.
No, I am not. The conversation has, however, come to include all both. Both, have sex for money.
rory_20_uk
03-25-2012, 16:06
You act as if being considered a 'legitimate' business makes it great, and being 'illegitimate' makes it bad. It is just a question of what is legal at the time. Don't forget that making beer was an illegitimate business at one point in our history.
Not regulate, ban. That way if it is being sold on the black market, we can hunt them down and arrest them, and therefore keep the business to an absolute minimum. Because you will likely have an increase of attention hungry idiots making home porn, there will be less of a demand of 'professional' porn.
Oh God, you mention prohibition - and we all know what a disaster that was - and think that doing the same thing to porn is a good idea??!?? Booze at least was something that was solid.
The police have all existing crimes under control and are looking for extra work?
A lot will be covered by amateurs, and the rest by professionals. In exactly the way it is at the moment, except that the production will be in other countries.
~:smoking:
My only problem with your argument, Vuk, is that you were hiding your moral judgements behind an argument for the welfare of the participants--which is silly.
If you actually want to debate the morality of the situation then we can do that since we do, in fact, completely disagree. Total opposites, maybe. I think things that are illegal should be legal (Prostitution, for example) since that way society as a whole benefits from the business being legitimate, and anyone potentially being exploited will be under the protection of society instead of working apart from it. Of course, I think what we do with our bodies or with others consentually is nobody's business, and if you can make money from these consentual activities then all the better.
You, on the other hand, seem to want things that are currently legal to be illegal, presumably because they create a tangibly corrupt scenario. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the morality of the situation bluntly and without relying on patronizing people.
Is it really that hard for you to comprehend that someone could disagree with the pornography business without it being because of a moral objection to porn?
You want to make everything legal, indiscriminately? There are not things you think should be legal?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRfluaMKoOY
I think it is much more likely that like me, there are things you think should become legal, and things you think should become illegal.
Oh God, you mention prohibition - and we all know what a disaster that was - and think that doing the same thing to porn is a good idea??!?? Booze at least was something that was solid.
The police have all existing crimes under control and are looking for extra work?
A lot will be covered by amateurs, and the rest by professionals. In exactly the way it is at the moment, except that the production will be in other countries.
~:smoking:
I mentioned prohibition as an example of something being illegal and not bad rory. Did you read my post? And hey, if it is done by pro's in other countries, then we can do our best to keep that out, and still, we have protected our people, which is what our laws are meant for.
Tellos Athenaios
03-25-2012, 16:51
Vuk: the accent in that clip is rather accurate, though...
Noncommunist
03-25-2012, 20:47
That is a very extremist position. You're equating a legitimate business to black market organ dealers. Listen to yourself.
If organ dealing were made legal, would it really be that bad?
rory_20_uk
03-25-2012, 21:33
I mentioned prohibition as an example of something being illegal and not bad rory. Did you read my post? And hey, if it is done by pro's in other countries, then we can do our best to keep that out, and still, we have protected our people, which is what our laws are meant for.
I did read your post, but I clearly misread it. I apologise. :bow:
~:smoking:
a completely inoffensive name
03-25-2012, 22:05
Do you really think that people will stop putting up porn on the net?
No, but they also won't stop using crappy camera phone quality. This isn't 1987 anymore, some pink pixels don't do it.
You act as if being considered a 'legitimate' business makes it great, and being 'illegitimate' makes it bad. It is just a question of what is legal at the time. Don't forget that making beer was an illegitimate business at one point in our history.
The comparison is valid, as both, while the acts are not necessarily harmful or bad in themselves (people donate organs or give theirs up for loved ones all the time, and lots of people have sex in front of cameras because they like to), they both commodify the body, and open the door for commercial abuse. When you put a price on the human body, we become slaves. Porn is a bad step in that direction that opens the door for slavery or something close to it for many involved in the industry.
Pornography is acting or modeling, in a sexual context. If we ban the porn industry, then we need to ban fashion shows and magazines as well; those are a lot more comparable to porn then selling your organs.
Crazed Rabbit
03-26-2012, 00:35
Is it really that hard for you to comprehend that someone could disagree with the pornography business without it being because of a moral objection to porn?
You're the one who's against 'commodifying' the body, and that porn is demeaning. That sounds like moral judgments on your part.
When you put a price on the human body, we become slaves.
That is absolutely ridiculous. It is a statement without any grasp on the reality of what a slave is.
This 'argument' of yours has already been dismissed in this thread, but since you keep making it, I'll have a turn.
When someone chooses to do something like porn, or construction, or sports, or whatever other job because of the money, that's their choice.
Read that last word again several times; choice. Choice. Choice. Choice.
The whole of our interactions with humanity and society is a compromise. We do things we might otherwise not want to because we get paid. That does not mean a person is coerced or forced if they do something for money they wouldn't do without money. The deals are different, and that person has decided that getting paid has changed the balance on their own personal scales of action.
Having choice means you are not a slave. The foundation of your argument is illogical.
I shouldn't have to explain it more than that.
*As an aside, federal restrictions on paying for organ donations - even just compensation for travel and missed work - have prevented some bone marrow donations that could be life saving.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
03-26-2012, 04:31
So you guys are even if favor of organ selling :shame:
PanzerJaeger
03-26-2012, 05:56
So you guys are even if favor of organ selling :shame:
It's definitely worth a second look (http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/13673629). Our bodies do not belong to the government.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-26-2012, 07:01
It's definitely worth a second look (http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/13673629). Our bodies do not belong to the government.
Gah, why did you link me to this article? And what is your non-sequitur about?
The only place I can see (though I quit wasting time on it after a bit) where they deal with the moral question is a few inane paragraphs about whether it's "coercive" or not. Who cares?
Granted I think it is maybe too fundamental a point for me to put effort into arguing about, but it's pathetic that they pretend to have dealt with the moral issue with that little section.
PanzerJaeger
03-26-2012, 07:50
Well, I linked to it because I thought it was an interesting take on the organ trade. The section you mentioned actually does make a pretty good point about the selective application of morality to the issue. Poor people are inherently disadvantaged. Going back to my coal mine example, no wealthy person is going to strap on a hard hat and spend his days working in subterrainian depths for crappy pay. And no wealthy person is going to waste her life stocking shelves at WalMart. Why is it an outrage when the poor are paid for their bodies in some ways and not others? Make no mistake, that coal miner's body was bought, paid for, used up and exhausted by some rich person in just the same way that his kidney would have been if he sold that.
Personally, I don't think government mandated morality has any place in organ donation or porn. They are deeply personal choices that effect no one but the maker. Really, though, if we must venture into the morality of such choices, what is more immoral - the government mandating what people can and cannot do with their own bodies or the government setting artificial constraints that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people each year? Let people apply their own morality to their own bodies. :shrug:
rory_20_uk
03-26-2012, 12:35
Well, I linked to it because I thought it was an interesting take on the organ trade. The section you mentioned actually does make a pretty good point about the selective application of morality to the issue. Poor people are inherently disadvantaged. Going back to my coal mine example, no wealthy person is going to strap on a hard hat and spend his days working in subterrainian depths for crappy pay. And no wealthy person is going to waste her life stocking shelves at WalMart. Why is it an outrage when the poor are paid for their bodies in some ways and not others? Make no mistake, that coal miner's body was bought, paid for, used up and exhausted by some rich person in just the same way that his kidney would have been if he sold that.
Personally, I don't think government mandated morality has any place in organ donation or porn. They are deeply personal choices that effect no one but the maker. Really, though, if we must venture into the morality of such choices, what is more immoral - the government mandating what people can and cannot do with their own bodies or the government setting artificial constraints that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people each year? Let people apply their own morality to their own bodies. :shrug:
Especially in the USA. In civilised countries, there is a welfare state that will ensure a basic standard of healthcare for example. For a large number of Americans this is not the case. Selling an organ, be it a kidney or lobe of liver (which would grow back) has risks associated with it, and would reduce one's life expectancy. But then so would having uncontrolled diabetes / hypertension / asthma which is fine as far as the USA is concerned. One can give a kidney to a relative who needs one, and that is fine and dandy - apparently there would be nothing coercive involved in this. Selling a kidney to provide healthcare to one's relative is not allowed though as this is clearly completely different.
So, for some the treatment is not provided by the state as people should look after their own health, and they are denied a source of revenue to do so as their bodies aren't their own after all.
~:smoking:
gaelic cowboy
03-26-2012, 14:13
They should just make it law that as long as it's possible all organs are donated after death if there suitable for use.
No, I am not. The conversation has, however, come to include all both. Both, have sex for money.
So what, some people kill for money.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-26-2012, 16:32
Well, I linked to it because I thought it was an interesting take on the organ trade. The section you mentioned actually does make a pretty good point about the selective application of morality to the issue.
You are going wrong by using these abstract contorted phrases. "Selective application of morality" sounds bad and all, but it's a twisted substitution for "they are saying some things are immoral and others aren't, despite superficial similarities" which is obviously a good thing to do.
Why is it an outrage when the poor are paid for their bodies in some ways and not others?
ok I'll play your game:
Personally, I don't think government mandated morality has any place in organ donation or porn.
We have government mandated morality in many areas. Why should we have it in some areas but not others? Why would you selectively give organ donation and porn a free pass?
They are deeply personal choices that effect no one but the maker.
Why are some choices deeply personal but not others? We make certain drugs illegal and stop people from committing suicide, there's a whole bunch of things we don't allow people to do. Why would you selectively favor these?
Really, though, if we must venture into the morality of such choices, what is more immoral - the government mandating what people can and cannot do with their own bodies or the government setting artificial constraints that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people each year? Let people apply their own morality to their own bodies. :shrug:
Why is it any different when these people die compared to when others die? Just because they are important in your personal morality.
We can get absolutely nowhere with such sweeping equivalencies. The world isn't a nice place, but we set an upper limit on how bad we allow it. This is an incredibly simple concept so I don't believe it is where the real disagreement comes from.
Well, I linked to it because I thought it was an interesting take on the organ trade. The section you mentioned actually does make a pretty good point about the selective application of morality to the issue. Poor people are inherently disadvantaged. Going back to my coal mine example, no wealthy person is going to strap on a hard hat and spend his days working in subterrainian depths for crappy pay. And no wealthy person is going to waste her life stocking shelves at WalMart. Why is it an outrage when the poor are paid for their bodies in some ways and not others? Make no mistake, that coal miner's body was bought, paid for, used up and exhausted by some rich person in just the same way that his kidney would have been if he sold that.
Personally, I don't think government mandated morality has any place in organ donation or porn. They are deeply personal choices that effect no one but the maker. Really, though, if we must venture into the morality of such choices, what is more immoral - the government mandating what people can and cannot do with their own bodies or the government setting artificial constraints that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people each year? Let people apply their own morality to their own bodies. :shrug:
After all, Iran is such a beautiful place, completely devoid of human rights abuse. I can see why we would want to be just like them! While we're at it, let's stone people for adultery! (unless they are men of course)
Also, you keep saying that laws shouldn't be based on morals, but could I ask you why? Many of our fundamental laws are based on morals. Why don't we just put people with genetic conditions or crippled people down, when it would make economic sense. The answer is, because of morals. Our constitution and other founding documents are all based on morals. The entire idea of freedom from tyranny is a moral argument. The idea that you can do whatever you want, so long as it does not hurt others, is a moral argument based on a respect of others.
Without morals in our laws, the government would operate by itself, enslave everyone useful, kill those not useful, and alcohol, video games, and every other leisure promoting thing would be illegal, because they decrease productivity. How can you argue that morals cannot go into making laws?
After all, Iran is such a beautiful place, completely devoid of human rights abuse. I can see why we would want to be just like them! While we're at it, let's stone people for adultery! (unless they are men of course)
Huh, why are we talking about Iran all of a sudden, and what does Iran have to do with the application of morality in legislation?
gaelic cowboy
03-26-2012, 17:18
Why don't we just put people with genetic conditions or crippled people down, when it would make economic sense. The answer is, because of morals.
Your not talking about morals though Vuk your talking about using a template from some primitive middle eastern nomadic society.
I would say that laws should be based on ethics and not morals. (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm)
Sasaki Kojiro
03-26-2012, 17:20
Huh, why are we talking about Iran all of a sudden, and what does Iran have to do with the application of morality in legislation?
The kidney article was about Iran's program.
PanzerJaeger
03-26-2012, 19:26
You are going wrong by using these abstract contorted phrases. "Selective application of morality" sounds bad and all, but it's a twisted substitution for "they are saying some things are immoral and others aren't, despite superficial similarities" which is obviously a good thing to do.
Not at all. If your argument is that doing porn and selling organs strips people of their dignity and results in abuse which is immoral, that is a selective application of morality unless you apply it to all situations in which that occurs. Doing that however, would not leave you very much free time as your outrage would be perpetual.
We have government mandated morality in many areas. Why should we have it in some areas but not others? Why would you selectively give organ donation and porn a free pass?
The obvious threshold for legal mandate in any free society should be when personal choices lead to public outcomes. Theft, fraud, and murder all impact others by definition.
Why are some choices deeply personal but not others? We make certain drugs illegal and stop people from committing suicide, there's a whole bunch of things we don't allow people to do. Why would you selectively favor these?
I do not know why you believe I should defend the status quo. I do not know why suicide is illegal. I do understand why some hard drugs are illegal, but I am generally in favor of legalization.
Why is it any different when these people die compared to when others die? Just because they are important in your personal morality.
You're stretching to fit this into the 'game'. The choice, as laid out in the article, is to either live in a society where the organ trade is illegal based on some antiquated conception of morality where hundreds of thousands of people die each year because they cannot get needed organs or to live in a society where the trade is legal and those people's lives are preserved.
We can get absolutely nowhere with such sweeping equivalencies. The world isn't a nice place, but we set an upper limit on how bad we allow it. This is an incredibly simple concept so I don't believe it is where the real disagreement comes from.
The limit should be the impact 'bad' actions have on others, as I discussed above. That very descriptor, 'bad', shows the folly of your reasoning. 'Bad' is your own morality bleeding into your writing. You've yet to prove that porn is objectively bad for the people that do it, and that is because it cannot be done. You may think it is bad, but then you have the choice not to perform in it or consume it.
Why are you so adamant about forcing your own morality on others through the government? If you are really serious about the issue, set up a website, make a facebook page, film some youtube videos, and write some letters to the editors of major newspapers around the country explaining the evils of pornography. Convince people to embrace your view, do not force them. If your individual morality on the issue is adopted by enough people, porn will disappear on its own.
These kinds of silly morality laws, whether they be against drinking, interracial marriage, homosexuality, or porn all seek to limit personal choice and control people, theoretically for their own good. They are anathema to a free society.
Well then PJ, I take it by your posts you would be in favor of child porn. If not, do please tell why, and how it does not contradict your above posts. Isn't banning child porn and the child sex trade a moral decision?
Strike For The South
03-26-2012, 19:36
two consenting adults are having sex
There are already laws on the books for coericon
Ho hum, dont take away my spank
two consenting adults are having sex
There are already laws on the books for coericon
Ho hum, dont take away my spank
It is different when people are filming it and when it is for money.
It is not illegal for two, consenting 12 year olds to have sex, but it still is (and shouldn't it be?) illegal for someone to video camera them and then sell the tape.
There is a difference between having sex, and making funny by filming yourself having sex, and therefore laws need to be different.
PanzerJaeger
03-26-2012, 19:54
After all, Iran is such a beautiful place, completely devoid of human rights abuse. I can see why we would want to be just like them! While we're at it, let's stone people for adultery! (unless they are men of course)
It is foolish to assume that we can learn nothing from another culture based on certain aspects of it that we do not agree with.
Also, you keep saying that laws shouldn't be based on morals, but could I ask you why? Many of our fundamental laws are based on morals. Why don't we just put people with genetic conditions or crippled people down, when it would make economic sense. The answer is, because of morals. Our constitution and other founding documents are all based on morals. The entire idea of freedom from tyranny is a moral argument. The idea that you can do whatever you want, so long as it does not hurt others, is a moral argument based on a respect of others.
Our laws are fundamentally based on antiquated religious teachings, and those teachings are based on the collective human experience of living together in community throughout our history. Their validation in modern society is based pretty simply on whether the action in question harms others. Those actions that do - theft, rape, murder - have been upheld as illegal and those actions that do not - blasphemy, sodomy, alcohol consumption, obscenity - have not.
I personally believe that such a litmus test is a solid basis on which to organize a free society. Yes, Vuk, you may not like it that girls choose to get into porn, but I may not like it that you drink. It does not take much of a slippery slope to see why pushing your morality on other people's personal decisions can come back to bite you.
Without morals in our laws, the government would operate by itself, enslave everyone useful, kill those not useful, and alcohol, video games, and every other leisure promoting thing would be illegal, because they decrease productivity. How can you argue that morals cannot go into making laws?
Apart from the fact that your scenario makes absolutely no sense, it is interesting that you seem to be concerned about a big government banning things that you choose to do. The irony cannot be lost on you. If the government ever does slip into such a dystopian future, it will be because of moralists like you. Once you start to decide what is best for other people, the nanny state is not far behind.
PanzerJaeger
03-26-2012, 19:58
Well then PJ, I take it by your posts you would be in favor of child porn. If not, do please tell why, and how it does not contradict your above posts. Isn't banning child porn and the child sex trade a moral decision?
Sigh... Child porn impacts children because they cannot consent to it, just like rape.
It is different when people are filming it and when it is for money.
It is not illegal for two, consenting 12 year olds to have sex, but it still is (and shouldn't it be?) illegal for someone to video camera them and then sell the tape.
There is a difference between having sex, and making funny by filming yourself having sex, and therefore laws need to be different.
12 year olds can't legally give consent.
Is there a Godwin corollary that applies to "thinking of the children"? Edit-> Oooooh! New favorite term: "Thought-terminating cliché". I love Google.
rory_20_uk
03-26-2012, 20:06
It is not illegal for two, consenting 12 year olds to have sex, but it still is (and shouldn't it be?) illegal for someone to video camera them and then sell the tape.
In the UK, it is.
~:smoking:
Greyblades
03-26-2012, 20:25
Technically, but good luck finding a judge who would proclaim them guilty.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-26-2012, 20:30
Not at all. If your argument is that doing porn and selling organs strips people of their dignity and results in abuse which is immoral, that is a selective application of morality unless you apply it to all situations in which that occurs. Doing that however, would not leave you very much free time as your outrage would be perpetual.
But you just did the exact same thing again.
Let's imagine I say that beating your wife is wrong. You start talking about "abuse in domestic situations" being wrong, and then point out that there are many kinds of abuse, after all cheating is abuse of trust, so if one "abuse" should be illegal, others should be. You're cramming a giant square peg into a tiny round hole.
I do not know why you believe I should defend the status quo. I do not know why suicide is illegal. I do understand why some hard drugs are illegal, but I am generally in favor of legalization.
Why don't you? How generally? Is prostitution ok too?
You're stretching to fit this into the 'game'. The choice, as laid out in the article, is to either live in a society where the organ trade is illegal based on some antiquated conception of morality where hundreds of thousands of people die each year because they cannot get needed organs or to live in a society where the trade is legal and those people's lives are preserved.
Why is it bad that they die?
The limit should be the impact 'bad' actions have on others, as I discussed above. That very descriptor, 'bad', shows the folly of your reasoning. 'Bad' is your own morality bleeding into your writing. You've yet to prove that porn is objectively bad for the people that do it, and that is because it cannot be done. You may think it is bad, but then you have the choice not to perform in it or consume it.
You aren't even going to argue for "most", but you are going to claim it's not bad for anyone that does it? And I thought you were against the homeless beatings?
Why are you so adamant about forcing your own morality on others through the government? If you are really serious about the issue, set up a website, make a facebook page, film some youtube videos, and write some letters to the editors of major newspapers around the country explaining the evils of pornography. Convince people to embrace your view, do not force them. If your individual morality on the issue is adopted by enough people, porn will disappear on its own.
No one's morality is being forced. Everyone is entirely free to make porn. Not being allowed to profit of something is not oppression. Quit retreating into this rhetoric. The only real disagreement is from your persistent equation of people getting a job stocking shelves and people going into hardcore porn.
rory_20_uk
03-26-2012, 21:00
Technically, but good luck finding a judge who would proclaim them guilty.
I imagine that the judge would be taking a view on the parents of the children, as they are of course responsible for their children undertaking statutory rape.
In hospital there was a 12 year old female and a 14 year old male. He ended up on the sex protection register.
~:smoking:
Greyblades
03-26-2012, 21:22
What a wonderful world we live in (!)
Technically, but good luck finding a judge who would proclaim them guilty.
You know the youngest person on the Sex Offenders list is a 8 year old boy for touching a 6 year old girls Ho-ha, right?
Greyblades
03-26-2012, 21:56
Well, there goes my respect for the legal system, 'matter of time really.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-26-2012, 22:11
Anyway, I'm confused...are you arguing that nothing the porn producers do is wrong, or that it is wrong but that we shouldn't prevent them from profiting by it? Or that it's not wrong and that even if it was. All this talk of personal moralities and pushing of moralities...
There's plenty of points I'm not going to bother to argue, but can we agree that:
It's not crazy to say "cigarettes should be legal, but not crystal meth"? That we don't have to abstract to "addictive" and then "not be selective"? And that therefore, in principle there is nothing odd about arguing that "this level of exploitation should remain legal, but we should draw a line here"? And can we agree that not everyone or even a majority has to be exploited in order for it to be reasonable to say that the line should be drawn anyway, in the same way that it's not weird to make drugs illegal even when some people manage them just fine?
If we did that we could get the argument back out of wacky land, and into a basic disagreement about porn vs coal mining...
a completely inoffensive name
03-26-2012, 22:17
Well then, I take it by Vuk's posts he would be in favor of erotic asphyxiation. If not, do please tell why, and how it does not contradict his above posts where he asphyxiates logic.
PanzerJaeger
03-26-2012, 22:22
But you just did the exact same thing again.
Let's imagine I say that beating your wife is wrong. You start talking about "abuse in domestic situations" being wrong, and then point out that there are many kinds of abuse, after all cheating is abuse of trust, so if one "abuse" should be illegal, others should be. You're cramming a giant square peg into a tiny round hole.
To be completely honest, I'm having difficulty understanding this. I'll take a stab at responding, though.
You are proposing the use of government to ban a personal freedom people have over their own bodies based on nothing more than your own opinion of the results of that activity. It is logically inconsistent to single out that one activity for banning when many others have similar results. If you are against the ability of the individual to trade his or her body for money - as you outlined in the OP - that opposition should extend far beyond the porn industry. You have failed to demonstrate why porn is a special case that goes beyond coal mining or any other physical labor. Repeating 'hardcore' over and over is not an argument.
Why don't you? How generally? Is prostitution ok too?
All three should be legalized and regulated to protect third parties from negative externalities. If buyers and sellers choose to engage in such activity, it is none of my business as long as it does not affect me.
Why is it bad that they die?
Why don't you address the my question before asking your own?
You aren't even going to argue for "most", but you are going to claim it's not bad for anyone that does it? And I thought you were against the homeless beatings?
I think you misunderstood my statement. In my opinion, doing porn can be good for some people and bad for others. My personal opinion means nothing, though. Neither does yours. The question at hand is not whether porn is good or bad for people, but whether it is the government's role to make that decision for people. It is not.
No one's morality is being forced. Everyone is entirely free to make porn. Not being allowed to profit of something is not oppression. Quit retreating into this rhetoric. The only real disagreement is from your persistent equation of people getting a job stocking shelves and people going into hardcore porn.
That is a distinction without a difference. My rhetoric is the reality of what you put forward in the OP. You carefully packaged it in concern over the well being of those involved (as such laws always are), but what you are proposing is that government be used to limit personal freedom and choice. Your only justification for this is anecdote and your own personal conception of dignity.
Montmorency
03-26-2012, 22:34
God :daisy: it, ACIN.
Tellos Athenaios
03-26-2012, 23:00
God :daisy: it, ACIN.
Choke on? :huh:
Sasaki Kojiro
03-26-2012, 23:04
To be completely honest, I'm having difficulty understanding this. I'll take a stab at responding, though.
You are proposing the use of government to ban a personal freedom people have over their own bodies based on nothing more than your own opinion of the results of that activity.
What aren't the allowed to do? I guess you call the difference between arresting people for making porn and arresting them for selling it a distinction without a difference later. Yeah :dizzy2:
It is logically inconsistent to single out that one activity for banning when many others have similar results. If you are against the ability of the individual to trade his or her body for money - as you outlined in the OP - that opposition should extend far beyond the porn industry. You have failed to demonstrate why porn is a special case that goes beyond coal mining or any other physical labor. Repeating 'hardcore' over and over is not an argument.
Yes I'm against many things beyond the porn industry, I've mentioned some of them...you really don't understand the basic idea of allowing wrong things to be legal, but only up to a certain point? For example, it is wrong to mislead people about the product you are selling, but only at a certain point does it become illegal. Would you seriously argue with someone who said fraud should be illegal by pointing out that most advertising is misleading? Would you equate misleading advertising with blatant fraud? Apparently.
I think you misunderstood my statement. In my opinion, doing porn can be good for some people and bad for others. My personal opinion means nothing, though. Neither does yours. The question at hand is not whether porn is good or bad for people, but whether it is the government's role to make that decision for people. It is not.
It's not, in your personal opinion. personal opinion personal opinion personal opinion
But seriously. Why the extreme libertarianism? At least, why act like it is not a very unusual conception of what the governments role should be?
That is a distinction without a difference. My rhetoric is the reality of what you put forward in the OP. You carefully packaged it in concern over the well being of those involved (as such laws always are), but what you are proposing is that government be used to limit personal freedom and choice. Your only justification for this is anecdote and your own personal conception of dignity.
This is crazy rhetoric PJ and it's where you are going wrong.
I mean really. The government banning meth, prostitution, and profits from hardcore porn is oppression? And thinking that being a meth addict who prostitutes herself and shoots porn involving vomit and urine and pain to keep going is a bad life is supposed to be my "personal conception of dignity"? I mean, you're the one making the argument go that extreme.
All three should be legalized and regulated to protect third parties from negative externalities. If buyers and sellers choose to engage in such activity, it is none of my business as long as it does not affect me.
SO WRONG
What happens to people should be the concern of every decent human being. Caring about other people is a fundamental tenant, and one of the pillars of law. Liberalism is about allowing freedom in spite of it resulting in people making themselves miserable, not about maximal pure freedom with no regard to compassion.
You should make the argument you are covering up with rhetorical bows and ribbons honestly. Admit that the interests of these people is very far from your heart and that is why are more concerned about the government "oppression".
Would you be a pimp and a heroin dealing if there was good money in it for you PJ? If they choose to do it it's none of your business right?
PanzerJaeger
03-27-2012, 02:10
What aren't the allowed to do? I guess you call the difference between arresting people for making porn and arresting them for selling it a distinction without a difference later. Yeah :dizzy2:
I do not understand your first question. The answer to the statement after it is 'yes'. Whether you ban the production or sale of porn, you are removing other people's personal freedom. You've yet to justify such an imposition with anything other than your own opinion.
Before we can even have a reasonable discussion about whether a ban is the appropriate reaction to the ills the porn industry, the role of free will and choice by the actors, and whether the benefits of such a ban would outweigh the necessary loss of that free will it would entail, you first have to at least make some effort to show that the industry is objectively harmful to its participants. A story about bums being beaten up and a bunch of crass anecdote does not an objective analysis make.
Yes I'm against many things beyond the porn industry, I've mentioned some of them...
Are you against coal mining? What about factory work? Construction? What is the fundamental difference between such labor intensive occupations and porn? You have mocked the assertion but you have not actually refuted it.
you really don't understand the basic idea of allowing wrong things to be legal, but only up to a certain point? For example, it is wrong to mislead people about the product you are selling, but only at a certain point does it become illegal. Would you seriously argue with someone who said fraud should be illegal by pointing out that most advertising is misleading? Would you equate misleading advertising with blatant fraud? Apparently.
There are laws against false advertising and regulatory agencies in place to enforce them. I support those efforts.
It's not, in your personal opinion. personal opinion personal opinion personal opinion
You seem to be getting frustrated and I'm not sure why. You chose to start a thread proposing banning an activity based on nothing but, yes, your personal opinion. You have not supported that opinion with any facts. You have not even bothered to define what you consider 'hardcore' porn versus what you would keep legal. Basing law on subjective conceptions of dignity and morality is wrong headed in my opinion, because those conceptions differ greatly between people. I'm sorry that you are upset that I said as much.
But seriously. Why the extreme libertarianism? At least, why act like it is not a very unusual conception of what the governments role should be?
Why the extreme authoritarianism? A few posts up I suggested many ways in which you could attempt to convince people to embrace your version of morality instead of forcing it upon them.
This is crazy rhetoric PJ and it's where you are going wrong.
I mean really. The government banning meth, prostitution, and profits from hardcore porn is oppression? And thinking that being a meth addict who prostitutes herself and shoots porn involving vomit and urine and pain to keep going is a bad life is supposed to be my "personal conception of dignity"? I mean, you're the one making the argument go that extreme.
I do not believe I have said anything about oppression. It is easy to make someone's argument crazy when you write it for him.
Any limits on personal freedom are worthy of discussion in my opinion, even if they do not necessarily lead to concentration camps. There are many freedoms that exist on the margins of society that, if lost, would not lead to a state of oppression. That does not mean those rights are not important. Your proposal raises serious questions about the role government should play in people's personal lives and the sway it should have over their personal choices. Instead of trying to mischaracterize my argument, you should bolster your own with something other than anecdote about prostitutes being pissed on.
SO WRONG
What happens to people should be the concern of every decent human being. Caring about other people is a fundamental tenant, and one of the pillars of law. Liberalism is about allowing freedom in spite of it resulting in people making themselves miserable, not about maximal pure freedom with no regard to compassion.
Forcing other people to adhere to your conception of dignity and morality is not compassion. It is moralist authoritarianism dressed up as a solemn concern for humanity.
If you truly believe that porn exploits the poor and vulnerable, a well thought out compassionate response would attempt to address the causes of extreme poverty instead of randomly picking out symptoms that personally offend your sensibilities, as the truth is that poor and vulnerable people will gravitate toward physically exploitive jobs. If you ban a young lady from making money doing porn and she ends up working for minimum wage in a factory and stripping on the weekends, have you really helped her?
You should make the argument you are covering up with rhetorical bows and ribbons honestly. Admit that the interests of these people is very far from your heart and that is why are more concerned about the government "oppression".
On the contrary, the reason I am bothering to argue this is because I relate to these people. Both the gay community and the gun community are important to me, and I constantly witness moralists from both sides of the ideological aisle try to tell these people what is best for them and force their own conceptions of morality on them through the law. It's all done under the veil of compassion for their own good and it is all pretty disgusting.
Strike For The South
03-27-2012, 04:26
It is different when people are filming it and when it is for money.
Meh, they get cash most women get dinner and a movie. If they are really good a diamond ring. Not trying to say all sexual interaction is like this but people exchange favors for sex all the time, both ways. Porn just reduces that to a base commididty.
It is not illegal for two, consenting 12 year olds to have sex, but it still is (and shouldn't it be?) illegal for someone to video camera them and then sell the tape.
Yes it is, please look up terms like consent, age of majority, and pedophillia
There is a difference between having sex, and making funny by filming yourself having sex, and therefore laws need to be different.
What is the difference? Not all sex is had by two people who are in a committed loving relationship. Some of the best sex I ever had was really a thinly veiled ruse by me to try and stab her heart with my genitals. I failed, but that is more a reflection of other failings....but seriously
Wow, nice thread here.
Sasaki, 9 times out of 10 I'm in general agreement with you, but on this it's polar opposites. I'm a bit perplexed, usually the stance taken is what I'd expect from the religious nutcases and holy rollers.
At any rate, I'm completely for legalization of this, as well as all drugs. If people want to do these things, get paid for sex (gay or straight), put whatever they want into their bodies, then I could care completely less. Where I DO care is when it affects me or my family, ie. drunk or high drivers. Legalize it, regulate it a little, tax it, and call it good. Porn and prostitution have been around since the dawn of civilization and will be here until we reduce ourselves to radioactive glowing ash, period. Making it illegal or supposedly harder to get doesn't work at all, history has borne this out time and time again. Drugs? Same thing. Legalizing them will completely defang the cartels and end the ridiculous, wasteful war on drugs. Tossing people in jail for personal marijuana use is as wasteful on my taxpayer money as it is stupid. I think the penalties for obvious things like drunk driving need to be stiffened significantly though. Snort enough coke until your eyeballs pop out of your head for all I care, but don't think about getting behind the wheel.
It's high (lol) time that this nation shucks off that idiotic puritanical heritage we've inherited over the years, and stop all this legislating morality bunk.
a completely inoffensive name
03-27-2012, 05:16
The problem with "doing away" with legislating morality is where to draw the line.
I also agree that it should be legal. And that legislating morality just doesn't work.
Also it looks like the first steps toward legalizing prostitution in Canada have been taken. Imma go make a new thread about it.
gaelic cowboy
03-27-2012, 09:57
It is not illegal for two, consenting 12 year olds to have sex, but it still is (and shouldn't it be?) illegal for someone to video camera them and then sell the tape.
not only is it illegal here but the boy can get charged and put on the register and while the girl neither gets charged nor put on the register.
Despite the fact that in this scenario the girl could be 16 and experienced and boy 15 and a virgin and he still will end up on the register of sex offences. We have lobbying from various womens groups and other assorted vested interest groups for this illogical piece of law.
In other words as many people have pointed out like PJ by acceding to the clarion calls for a moral law they have made instead an illogical one.
Any attempt to lobby for change could potentialy ruin you political career by use of the "Thought terminating cliche"
(excellant term there Drone)
not only is it illegal here but the boy can get charged and put on the register and while the girl neither gets charged nor put on the register.
Despite the fact that in this scenario the girl could be 16 and experienced and boy 15 and a virgin and he still will end up on the register of sex offences. We have lobbying from various womens groups and other assorted vested interest groups for this illogical piece of law.
In other words as many people have pointed out like PJ by acceding to the clarion calls for a moral law they have made instead an illogical one.
Any attempt to lobby for change could potentialy ruin you political career by use of the "Thought terminating cliche"
(excellant term there Drone)
In general, thoughts below are not aimed at gaelic cowboy, more are general responses to thread topics.
In response to the underage sex discussion, I want to say that whom is found "guilty" is the instigator of the action. I totally cannot back that up or cite anything to prove it, but it's what I generally recall. Someone could certainly prove me wrong.
That being said, I do have some problems with the sex offender system as it exists now. Putting an 8 year old on it for doing something stupid that little kids do, or some other instances that land people on the registry that are *clearly* not worthy of the purpose of it, I find to be sad and a misuse of justice. I had some examples of the latter in mind but they fail me now that I actually have to think of them, sorry.
Lastly, in response to the whole "age of majority" point. There was an issue of National Geographic a few months back that discussed the young and teenage brain. One of the points discussed that I found interesting; it mentioned a few studies which suggest that most teenagers aren't capable of understanding true consequences of action, due to their mental capabilities haven't reached full adult potential yet. It's not saying that teenagers are stupid (well.... yes they are), it's just a function of the body and mind maturing. In line with what it suggests, I do support the underage sex laws to a point, maybe some changes here and there would be good.
gaelic cowboy
03-27-2012, 10:38
In response to the underage sex discussion, I want to say that whom is found "guilty" is the instigator of the action. I totally cannot back that up or cite anything to prove it, but it's what I generally recall. Someone could certainly prove me wrong.
Yes I would agree with you that is a fair way but I suppose I should have said these would be cases of two young people were we only have there word against each other. In these cases the system is predicated to rule in favour of the girl that has to be wrong and it is being defended by saying the girl might get pregnant so the boy must be guilty.
The problem we had was poorly constructed laws that took no account of the sexual activity of young people today, when effort was made to change the age of consent a huge hullabulu was created by the people "Thinking of the Children"
Instead we got a law that presumes greater guilt on the boys part purely because it was constructed to prevent older men from having sex with younger girls.
rory_20_uk
03-27-2012, 12:51
The problem we had was poorly constructed laws that took no account of the sexual activity of young people today...
I'm am confident that for almost of all human evolution both genders had sex from the time of puberty onwards.
~:smoking:
gaelic cowboy
03-27-2012, 13:49
I'm am confident that for almost of all human evolution both genders had sex from the time of puberty onwards.
~:smoking:
Naturally who would think otherwise apart from eejits with an agenda.
It had originally been thought a good idea to make it not illegal IF the age difference between the two under age teens was less than two years.
In other words two 16yr olds would not be criminals in the eyes of the law, they had wanted to bring it down the age of consent to 16 but they backed down under pressure from interest groups and scrapped the whole thing. (this was despite the fact public opinion favours 16)
Leaving us with our present legal situtation of whereby a girl of just under 17 can seduce a boy of say 15 and he gets the blame regardless.
Age of consent for teens will not be lowered (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/age-of-consent-for-teens-will-not-be-lowered-136375.html)
Sunday October 29 2006
MAEVE SHEEHAN
AN OFFICIAL proposal to the Government to keep the age of sexual consent at 17 for both sexes is seriously at odds with public opinion which would like to see it lowered in the face of social reality.
The Oireachtas Committee on child protection is to recommend the status quo while a nationwide telephone poll by the Sunday Independent shows that 65 per cent of the public want the age reduced to 16.
It is also known the Government would prefer to reduce the age to 16, bringing it more in line with what is commonly believed to be the reality of sexual activity among teenage boys and girls.
The issue was discussed at a meeting of the committee last Thursday. Yesterday, committee sources said the volume of submissions in favour of 17 has swayed the 13-member cross-party committee towards recommending it as the legal age of consent in its report to the Oireachtas next month.
The committee was set up to review criminal law relating to sexual offences against children, and the age of consent, in the wake of the debacle last summer, when the Supreme Court struck down the law on statutory rape. A convicted statutory rapist had appealed successfully on the grounds that he had not been afforded the defence of mistake of age.
It is known that Justice Minister Michael McDowell favoured lowering the age of consent to 16. The Minister also advocated sanctioning "peer sex", so that a teenager would not be criminalised for having sex with another teenager who was within two years of their own age.
However, the period of reflection he advocated was ruled out as Fianna Fail backbenchers came under public pressure. Emergency legislation was rushed through.
However, sources said that "Government voices" on the committee are still pushing for the age of consent to be lowered to 16, the age favoured by the Justice Minister and the Labour Party.
That position is supported in a Sunday Independent telephone poll today. Almost two thirds of respondentsfavoured 16 as the legal agefor sex while 35 per cent favoured 17.
However, last week an ESRI study poll of 7,000 people found that the average age of first sexual intercourse in 2006 was 17.
Professor Finbarr McAuley, the UCD criminal law professor and acknowledged expert in this field, said to leave the age of consent at 17 in his recommendations to the committee. The Rape Crisis Centre has also said that the age of consent should remain at 17.
And sources on the Committee, which is chaired by Fianna Fail TD Peter Power, have told the Sunday Independent that they have been receiving numerous submissions favouring the retention of the present limit and that it is now likely their recommendation will be in line with these submissions.
After the enactment of what a Government source described at the time as the "bastardised" June legislation, the Labour spokesman, Brendan Howlin, pointed out that previously it had not been illegal for a 16-year-old boy and girl to engage in consensual sexual acts other thanintercourse.
After the June legislation, this became a crime.
Prior to the legislation, if a 60-year-old man sexuallyinterfered with a consenting 15-year-old boy, but did not perform penetrative sex, he was guilty of gross indecency under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences)Act 1993.
Anomalies in the June legislation meant that if two 16-year-olds engage in sexual intercourse, the boy is guilty of a serious offence, but the girlis not.
If the girl performs oral sex on a boy, they are both guilty of a serious offence. If the boy performs oral sex on the girl, then neither of them is guilty of anything.
Sources said that in addition to public submissions, a further factor weighing the committee in favour of 17 was the need for a common age of consent North and South. In Northern Ireland , the age of consent currently stands at 17. It is understood that Fine Gael, which has persistently argued that 17 should be the age of consent for boys and girls, pointed out the need for a common age of consent with Northern Ireland at last Thursday's meeting.
The 1935 Act set the age of heterosexual consent for girls at 17. It was completely silent as to the age for boys.
The 1993 Criminal Law Rape Amendment Act set the ages at which people could consent to sexual touching. It said that at under 15, it was not permissible to sexually touch a girl or a boy.
By implication, that meant sexual intercourse with a boy under 15 was illegal.
In response to the CC case concerning statutory rape, the 2006 sexual offences act made a common age of consent for boys and girls at 17. So it raised the age of consent for boys to put it on a paritywith girls.
Justice Minister Michael McDowell had wanted to replicate the situation in the UK and have a common age at 16 for boys and girls. If changed to 16, the age of consent for homosexual acts would have to be lowered from 17 to 16. Lawyers for the committee will now draft a report which will recommend an age of consent based on the views of the committee and on public submissions. The committee will discuss the draft report in a fortnight's time before signing off on an agreed age of consent. A final report must be presented to the Oireachtas by November 30.
Sources said while no decision has been made, almost all of the submissions received by the committee were infavour of 17 and "the committee, in fairness, will be guided by that".
One source said: "I think it's reflected by all parties that if this is what the general public is looking for, if this is what they want, who are we to say no, that's not right. That is the whole reason we looked for submissions."
Another source said: "The indications are at this stage that there will be support for maintaining the age of consent at 17."
The age of consent is just one issue being deliberated by the committee, which also includes Michael McDowell and Brian Lenihan, Minister of State for Children. It is also examining whether the Constitution was adequately protecting children.
Basically some people flew of the handle at the idea homosexual age of consent might come down and got together to block it. The government knows there is support for it in the wider public but the bottled under pressure from interest groups.
It is also known the Government would prefer to reduce the age to 16, bringing it more in line with what is commonly believed to be the reality of sexual activity among teenage boys and girls.
The issue was discussed at a meeting of the committee last Thursday. Yesterday, committee sources said the volume of submissions in favour of 17 has swayed the 13-member cross-party committee towards recommending it as the legal age of consent in its report to the Oireachtas next month.
If there is good evidence for keeping it 17 then thats fine but two 16yr olds should not be criminalised nor should one be more criminalised over the other.
Of course the big laugh is that until someone went and made it illegal to sexually touch someone under 15 then boys had until then no actual age of consent.
No doubt the Catholic mores of the law makers in a previous age had only considered that girls needed protecting as reproduction was there sole occupation.
So in order to fix a bad law and make it more sensible they actually made it just as silly for two equal but underage people. As usual politicians can not be relied upon to properly do there one and only job ie make laws.
Wow, nice thread here.
Sasaki, 9 times out of 10 I'm in general agreement with you, but on this it's polar opposites. I'm a bit perplexed, usually the stance taken is what I'd expect from the religious nutcases and holy rollers.
At any rate, I'm completely for legalization of this, as well as all drugs. If people want to do these things, get paid for sex (gay or straight), put whatever they want into their bodies, then I could care completely less. Where I DO care is when it affects me or my family, ie. drunk or high drivers. Legalize it, regulate it a little, tax it, and call it good. Porn and prostitution have been around since the dawn of civilization and will be here until we reduce ourselves to radioactive glowing ash, period. Making it illegal or supposedly harder to get doesn't work at all, history has borne this out time and time again. Drugs? Same thing. Legalizing them will completely defang the cartels and end the ridiculous, wasteful war on drugs. Tossing people in jail for personal marijuana use is as wasteful on my taxpayer money as it is stupid. I think the penalties for obvious things like drunk driving need to be stiffened significantly though. Snort enough coke until your eyeballs pop out of your head for all I care, but don't think about getting behind the wheel.
It's high (lol) time that this nation shucks off that idiotic puritanical heritage we've inherited over the years, and stop all this legislating morality bunk.
Ah, so the argument is that it has been around for a long time, and always will be, so we might as well legalize it? Murder has always been around, and always will be, so why don't we legalize it? Let people buy a permit to shoot their neighbor?
Seriously, where is the logic in that argument? You could use it to legalize anything.
gaelic cowboy
03-27-2012, 14:59
Ah, so the argument is that it has been around for a long time, and always will be, so we might as well legalize it? Murder has always been around, and always will be, so why don't we legalize it? Let people buy a permit to shoot their neighbor?
Seriously, where is the logic in that argument? You could use it to legalize anything.
First off there is no way legally to consent to murder so your way off.
Secondly we do sanction murder in certain cases of very violent criminals say during an attempted arrest or of people on death row, also enemey soldiers during war are effectively murdered too.
Essentially those people have a permit to murder people or at least void a persons contitutional rights under certain circumstances.
First off there is no way legally to consent to murder so your way off.
Secondly we do sanction murder in certain cases of very violent criminals say during an attempted arrest or of people on death row, also enemey soldiers during war are effectively murdered too.
Essentially those people have a permit to murder people or at least void a persons contitutional rights under certain circumstances.
Legal consent is neither here nor there. His argument was that an illegal activity has been around, and always will be around, and therefore should be legal. That could be applied to molesting children, murder, or any other illegal activity.
gaelic cowboy
03-27-2012, 15:18
Legal consent is neither here nor there. His argument was that an illegal activity has been around, and always will be around, and therefore should be legal. That could be applied to molesting children, murder, or any other illegal activity.
Consent is the total crux of the OP since you started it, a child cannot consent to molestation so it is illegal end of.
An adult can consent to sex with another adult therefore why should payment for said action be illegal.
Consent is the total crux of the OP since you started it, a child cannot consent to molestation so it is illegal end of.
An adult can consent to sex with another adult therefore why should payment for said action be illegal.
You may want to look again, because I did not open this thread.
Also, the argument I was responding to by Whacker was not one of consent, but simply that because it exists and will exist it should be legal. A very basic, and very flawed argument. When you attach moral arguments to it (such as making exceptions for non-consenting activities), then the argument is completely invalid, as the law is now being based on moral beliefs rather than the activity's inevitability. Savvy?
gaelic cowboy
03-27-2012, 17:48
When you attach moral arguments to it (such as making exceptions for non-consenting activities), then the argument is completely invalid, as the law is now being based on moral beliefs rather than the activity's inevitability. Savvy?
I never attached any morals to any assertion I made Vuk in this thread.
I never attached any morals to any assertion I made Vuk in this thread.
Why does the law not recognize the consent of a 6 year old, if not for moral reasons? You can deny it or dress it up any way you like, but laws are based on morals, and to say otherwise is simply dishonest.
Why does the law not recognize the consent of a 6 year old, if not for moral reasons?
A pre-pubescent child cannot offer consent for reasons both anatomical and hormonal. They are incapable of "getting" sex. They can understand sensuality, such as a good backrub, but they cannot grok sexuality. It's an endocrine thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_system).
Much more relevant to your argument to ask why we do not allow a post-pubescent child to give consent. A sixteen-year-old, for example, has all of the correct physical development and triggered hormones to function as a sexual creature, and yet we do not see them as consenting partners.
Strike For The South
03-27-2012, 19:03
Why does the law not recognize the consent of a 6 year old, if not for moral reasons? You can deny it or dress it up any way you like, but laws are based on morals, and to say otherwise is simply dishonest.
The little engine that could
A pre-pubescent child cannot offer consent for reasons both anatomical and hormonal. They are incapable of "getting" sex. They can understand sensuality, such as a good backrub, but they cannot grok sexuality. It's an endocrine thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_system).
Much more relevant to your argument to ask why we do not allow a post-pubescent child to give consent. A sixteen-year-old, for example, has all of the correct physical development and triggered hormones to function as a sexual creature, and yet we do not see them as consenting partners.
So what if they get nothing out of it, there are perverts who like children that young. (A famous religious figure amongst them) Why can a six year old not give their consent for that activity? And as you say, why not a 15 or 16 year old?
Why do we care whether people have sex with children or not? Why do we care if people kill their neighbors or not? Call it ethics (defined as " a system of moral principles" and also "also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.") if you want, but it all gets down to morals. All of our laws are based on morals. Some morals can contradict themselves (moral belief in complete freedom of the individual vs moral belief that the government has a duty to make sure its citizens lead a good life), but all laws are based on one person's morals or another's. America was founded on a certain set of morals that emphasized responsible freedom, and that is why the moral basis of America is so important to politics today.
So what if they get nothing out of it, there are perverts who like children that young. (A famous religious figure amongst them) Why can a six year old not give their consent for that activity? And as you say, why not a 15 or 16 year old?
Wow, you actually managed to bring Islam into the discussion. Very good, you must be really proud of yourself. That'll show them jihadis.
Guys, can't we make a new Godwin's Law? At a certain point in a discussion about what's wrong in our modern society, someone will blame Islam. Let's call it Vuk's Law.
Wow, you actually managed to bring Islam into the discussion. Very good, you must be really proud of yourself. That'll show them jihadis.
Guys, can't we make a new Godwin's Law? At a certain point in a discussion about what's wrong in our modern society, someone will blame Islam. Let's call it Vuk's Law.
You mentioned Islam, not me. I never said the word.
Why can a six year old not give their consent for [sex]? And as you say, why not a 15 or 16 year old?
Because a pre-pubescent child would not get anything out of it, and would probably be harmed physically, mentally, or both. As for 15 or 16 year olds, that's a judgment call. We, as a society, deem them too immature to have consensual sex with an adult or drink intoxicating beverages. Both are arguable, but that's where we've arrived as a society.
Why do we care whether people have sex with children or not?
For the same reason we don't allow children to rollerskate on the roofs of skyscrapers. Strong potential for harm.
All of our laws are based on morals. Some morals can contradict themselves (moral belief in complete freedom of the individual vs moral belief that the government has a duty to make sure its citizens lead a good life), but all laws are based on one person's morals or another's.
Laws are compromises reached to achieve a minimal level of mutual protection and non-destructive behavior. Obviously laws proceed from a moral/ethical underpinning, but ... I'm not even clear on what point you're trying to make. Rephrase, maybe? Are you trying to circle back to Hobbes' Leviathan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)) or something? And if so, how is that relevant to porn?
Because a pre-pubescent child would not get anything out of it, and would probably be harmed physically, mentally, or both. As for 15 or 16 year olds, that's a judgment call. We, as a society, deem them too immature to have consensual sex with an adult or drink intoxicating beverages. Both are arguable, but that's where we've arrived as a society.
For the same reason we don't allow children to rollerskate on the roofs of skyscrapers. Strong potential for harm.
Laws are compromises reached to achieve a minimal level of mutual protection and non-destructive behavior. Obviously laws proceed from a moral/ethical underpinning, but ... I'm not even clear on what point you're trying to make. Rephrase, maybe? Are you trying to circle back to Hobbes' Leviathan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)) or something? And if so, how is that relevant to porn?
But who cares if the 6 year old is harmed? Who cares if a child rollerskates of the roof of a skyscraper? Why should we care if there is strong potential for harm? Why do we make laws to achieve a minimal level of mutual protection and non-destructive behavior? Exactly because laws do have a moral/ethical underpinning. That is the point I was trying to make. Those in this thread in favor of porn have been consistently denying both that laws do and should have a moral basis, and stating that their arguments have none. I was trying to explain to them that laws do indeed have a moral underpinning, and that even their arguments are based on moral beliefs.
Strike For The South
03-27-2012, 19:24
You mentioned Islam, not me. I never said the word.
He who must not be named. ?
Listen you. Their is demonstrable proof the sexually abused children are subject to a litany of other problems later in life. Children object to being touched in the first place. It does not take a mental Herakles to realize that these acts should be illegal. Now if you were a smarter man I would say you are using a logical principle known as "reduction to the absurd" but you are not as evidenced by you ripping defnitions from wikipedia.
Also as a supposed history student you should know better than to use "And that is why X has such a bearing on our lives today" Such a dull statement which only proves the basest of knowledge. Graduate Assistants around the world cringe when they see this phrase on 99 out of their 100 1000 level papers they need to grade over a weekend which would have been much better spent killing themselves with gin
rory_20_uk
03-27-2012, 19:33
Come on - punches above the belt. Merely having nasal polyps isn't a matter for the .org
~:smoking:
Rhyfelwyr
03-27-2012, 19:38
You mentioned Islam, not me. I never said the word.
So who was the reference about then?
Anyway, as much as I really dislike the idea of prostitution, I realise that that is my own opinion and it should not be enshrined in law. It's your body, you can do what you like with it.
At the same time there is a difference between the simple principle of selling your body for money, and the realities of the prostitution business today.
As such there should be pretty harsh restrictions on brothels and how and where they operate. For example those addicted to drugs should be protected as vulnerable people in the same way that the homeless are. You can't compare a high class escort with somebody needing their next dose of crack.
And I would also be very sympathetic towards residents that would not want a brothel anywhere near them. Communities should be able to legally ban brothels if they don't want them in their area.
Those in this thread in favor of porn have been consistently denying both that laws do and should have a moral basis, and stating that their arguments have none. I was trying to explain to them that laws do indeed have a moral underpinning, and that even their arguments are based on moral beliefs.
Um ... that's a bit confusing. I argued in favor of porn and sex work, for example, and I didn't go into anything about the law being divorced from morality.
Look, a certain level of mutual protection is not only moral, it's necessary. A society that cannot offer us some minimal protection from each other is a failed society. It's the difference between Switzerland and Somalia. So yes, mutual protection is both moral and practical.
So ... I'm not clear on what argument you're responding to, or what point you're trying to make. Morality plays a role in law? Sure, absolutely. But it does not follow that any single group's morality or any single religion's morality is formative in American law. We're a nation of comrpomises. And practical, empirical considerations almost always win in the end (okay, so the War on Drugs puts lie to my argument, but I believe even that festering sore will some day be lanced).
Anyway. Am I even addressing what you're saying? I'm very unclear on what you're advocating.
rory_20_uk
03-27-2012, 19:59
And I would also be very sympathetic towards residents that would not want a brothel anywhere near them. Communities should be able to legally ban brothels if they don't want them in their area.
Ah, good old NIMBYs. With them we'd have no major roads, airports, sewage plants, power plants, council houses etc etc. Of course they are needed... but there are reasons why it would be much better elsewhere - nothing to do with us living here.
I think that things should be banned based upon events in the area, not merely a carte blanche block. Shutting down the business would be a good incentive by itself to ensure punters are well behaved, but I am sure others could be thought of.
Most disturbances around brothels are likely to be related to alcohol.
Again with all things there would be no problems with high cost venues - Link (http://www.ladymarmaladeparties.com/) a friend spoke very highly of it, and was perplexed that I declined attending based upon the fact I am married. Anyhoo... It is not a brothel, it organises private parties where one is 100% guaranteed to have intercourse with one or more attractive women regardless of how one looks. Semantics? Probably.
~:smoking:
Listen you. Their is demonstrable proof the sexually abused children are subject to a litany of other problems later in life. Children object to being touched in the first place. It does not take a mental Herakles to realize that these acts should be illegal. Now if you were a smarter man I would say you are using a logical principle known as "reduction to the absurd" but you are not as evidenced by you ripping defnitions from wikipedia.
Also as a supposed history student you should know better than to use "And that is why X has such a bearing on our lives today" Such a dull statement which only proves the basest of knowledge. Graduate Assistants around the world cringe when they see this phrase on 99 out of their 100 1000 level papers they need to grade over a weekend which would have been much better spent killing themselves with gin
Listen my MDF, I am not saying it will not harm children, or that it is good to harm them. I am pointing out that there is a reason why we don't let people do it, and it is a moral one: because it would hurt the children. If you read the rest of this thread, you find out that 90% of those arguing in favor of the pornography industry were trying to completely divorce morality from law. I used an extreme example to demonstrate that laws are indeed based on morals.
Wait, why did I just waste my time responding to a MD weightlifter who thinks that having pumped biceps is the same thing as being intelligent?
Anyway, as much as I really dislike the idea of prostitution, I realise that that is my own opinion and it should not be enshrined in law. It's your body, you can do what you like with it.
At the same time there is a difference between the simple principle of selling your body for money, and the realities of the prostitution business today.
As such there should be pretty harsh restrictions on brothels and how and where they operate. For example those addicted to drugs should be protected as vulnerable people in the same way that the homeless are. You can't compare a high class escort with somebody needing their next dose of crack.
And I would also be very sympathetic towards residents that would not want a brothel anywhere near them. Communities should be able to legally ban brothels if they don't want them in their area.
"I really dislike the idea of prostitution"
"It's your body, you can do what you like with it."
You see Rhyf, what my point is is that no matter the moral reason you object to prostitution, the belief that "it is your body, you can do what you like with it" is also a moral belief.
You cannot say "That is a moral belief, you cannot push it on me", when the opposing side is also a moral belief. With laws, you are dealing with two competing moral beliefs. You cannot invalidate someone else's belief as "simply a moral argument" when yours is too! You need to accept them as equally valid and worthy of discussion, and then analyze their individual merit and decide which one you agree with.
Why should those addicted to drugs be protected as they are vulnerable people? Shouldn't they be allowed to do what they want with their bodies? You are imposing your personal moral beliefs on them by passing a law like that. You see what I mean? Which moral argument is more important, someone's right to do what they want, or the government's responsibility to protect them, even against their will? You either go absolute, or compromise. Absolutism on such issues is very rare, and most people draw a line of compromise. Where they compromise between the two different beliefs and draw the line is different from person to person though.
You cannot though dismiss an argument out of hand as being 'moral' or a 'personal belief', because all laws and lacks of laws and regulation are based on morals and personal beliefs. It just depends which ones are held by a majority of our representatives at the time.
Um ... that's a bit confusing. I argued in favor of porn and sex work, for example, and I didn't go into anything about the law being divorced from morality.
Look, a certain level of mutual protection is not only moral, it's necessary. A society that cannot offer us some minimal protection from each other is a failed society. It's the difference between Switzerland and Somalia. So yes, mutual protection is both moral and practical.
So ... I'm not clear on what argument you're responding to, or what point you're trying to make. Morality plays a role in law? Sure, absolutely. But it does not follow that any single group's morality or any single religion's morality is formative in American law. We're a nation of comrpomises. And practical, empirical considerations almost always win in the end (okay, so the War on Drugs puts lie to my argument, but I believe even that festering sore will some day be lanced).
Anyway. Am I even addressing what you're saying? I'm very unclear on what you're advocating.
Forgive me, I did not mean 100% (though I believe I said it), but a majority at least were arguing that morals had no place in the formation of laws.
Mutual protection is moral. Who said that moral things are not practical? Moral decisions can be practical or impractical, but they are still based on moral beliefs.
And though it is not what this thread is about (nor the linchpin of my argument), a single religion and a single group's morality was very dominant in America's founding documents.
If you don't understand my argument, let me take the War on Drugs. The main argument against the WoD is that it violates people's freedom. Is that not a moral argument? On both sides, the arguments are both moral and practical (or at least their claims are that they are practical: reduce crime, etc, etc.).
Rhyfelwyr
03-27-2012, 21:08
"I really dislike the idea of prostitution"
"It's your body, you can do what you like with it."
You see Rhyf, what my point is is that no matter the moral reason you object to prostitution, the belief that "it is your body, you can do what you like with it" is also a moral belief.
You cannot say "That is a moral belief, you cannot push it on me", when the opposing side is also a moral belief. With laws, you are dealing with two competing moral beliefs. You cannot invalidate someone else's belief as "simply a moral argument" when yours is too! You need to accept them as equally valid and worthy of discussion, and then analyze their individual merit and decide which one you agree with.
Why should those addicted to drugs be protected as they are vulnerable people? Shouldn't they be allowed to do what they want with their bodies? You are imposing your personal moral beliefs on them by passing a law like that. You see what I mean? Which moral argument is more important, someone's right to do what they want, or the government's responsibility to protect them, even against their will? You either go absolute, or compromise. Absolutism on such issues is very rare, and most people draw a line of compromise. Where they compromise between the two different beliefs and draw the line is different from person to person though.
You cannot though dismiss an argument out of hand as being 'moral' or a 'personal belief', because all laws and lacks of laws and regulation are based on morals and personal beliefs. It just depends which ones are held by a majority of our representatives at the time.
There is a distinction to be made between the rules we need to function as a society (eg your body your rules), and the manner of life that we as individuals believe to be appropriate or moral for people to lead (eg selling your body is bad).
You are suggesting that consent is just another moral belief. But it is not, in fact it is the single most important rule for establishing the boundaries that allow us to live together as a social species. Of course this doesn't mean it has to be taken as an absolute rule, it is just a principle that is best generally respected.
I would have thought that all this was obvious, and that this context would be a given when I was talking about enforcing morality.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-30-2012, 06:00
Wow, nice thread here.
Sasaki, 9 times out of 10 I'm in general agreement with you, but on this it's polar opposites. I'm a bit perplexed, usually the stance taken is what I'd expect from the religious nutcases and holy rollers.
Yes. Progressive morality is still in it's infancy and is having toothing pains. They are breaking away from religious conservative views and having trouble finding an alternative. Simplified ideologies like libertarianism and "everything is ok as long as [inadequate rule]" are too common. As we shrug of our puritanical heritage and open our eyes to the light we must learn to see and judge and discriminate.
Are you against coal mining? What about factory work? Construction? What is the fundamental difference between such labor intensive occupations and porn? You have mocked the assertion but you have not actually refuted it.
...
There are laws against false advertising and regulatory agencies in place to enforce them. I support those efforts.
:book2: What's the fundamental difference between misleading and false? You see you understood the principle all along.
You chose to start a thread proposing banning an activity based on nothing but, yes, your personal opinion. You have not supported that opinion with any facts. You have not even bothered to define what you consider 'hardcore' porn versus what you would keep legal. Basing law on subjective conceptions of dignity and morality is wrong headed in my opinion, because those conceptions differ greatly between people.
Yeah in your personal opinion
Why the extreme authoritarianism?
A law banning the sale (but not production or distribution) of hardcore pornography is "extreme authoritarianism"? Of course not.
If you ban a young lady from making money doing porn and she ends up working for minimum wage in a factory and stripping on the weekends, have you really helped her?
Yes obviously. Are you going to be like "you haven't given any facts" again?
On the contrary, the reason I am bothering to argue this is because I relate to these people. Both the gay community and the gun community are important to me, and I constantly witness moralists from both sides of the ideological aisle try to tell these people what is best for them and force their own conceptions of morality on them through the law. It's all done under the veil of compassion for their own good and it is all pretty disgusting.
Your feelings about other things are bleeding over into this argument. We have many laws aimed at preventing exploitation of workers. The fact that this is something religious moralists are against is irrelevant. What if some porn companies go out of business because of laws requiring std testing? Are we going to go "what about the poor woman who has to work stocking shelves instead" over that too?
edit: Ok, because I can see us going around in circles again...
My reaction to the initial "acting in hardcore porn is no different than stocking shelves, I would be upset if my daughter did but I also would if she stocked shelves" response was ":freak: I'm not going to bother arguing with that". You said something about trying to convince people, yeah, I really don't have to convince the public at large on that one.The only reason we are still arguing is that for a while you were going the "it would be wrong to ban the sale of it even if acting in hardcore porn was that much worse than stocking shelves like you say, because it's government oppression" route, which you seem to have ditched now, the only thing left is all the distractions about freedom and tyranny and personal opinions of morality.
Sure, absolutely. But it does not follow that any single group's morality or any single religion's morality is formative in American law. We're a nation of comrpomises. And practical, empirical considerations almost always win in the end (okay, so the War on Drugs puts lie to my argument, but I believe even that festering sore will some day be lanced).
Using force to stop immoral behavior is often more immoral than allowing it. That is the basis for societies becoming more liberal. Cheating on your wife? Wrong, but arresting people for it is worse. It is still considered immoral by law however (at least in some places) in things like divorce law.
The problem here is that some people are ignoring the justification for liberalism and taking as their new moral principle "it is wrong for the government to ever try and do this kind of stuff"...and then when other people make moral arguments for why the government should they hypocritically try and disqualify that. It is a much more puritanical morality, it is puritanical about ideology.
A single groups morality should be enshrined in law if that group is correct. For example, the abolitionists.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-30-2012, 09:21
listen...we have an industry in which (regardless of what the norm is) people are frequently exploited...there are homeless people, naive 18 year olds, women in abusive relationships who's boyfriends want to make a bit of cash, drug addicts, people desperate for a bit of cash in general...there is currently a market for (ever increasing?) extremity in the acts depicted...it's something which has no redeeming social value, a negative social value even considering that stupid people watch the stuff...and it's quite simple to cut the money out of it while leaving people free to make it if they wish and free to distribute it, so that the legal market isn't replaced by a black market...
And you want to sit there and say that the people in this thread who have, for example, reacted sympathetically to the homeless guys in the OP or to stories about women who were raped on the porn set, that they are "disgusting...forcing others to adhere to their conception of dignity under a veil of compassion...moralist authoritarianism dressed up as a solemn concern for humanity"??? And yet all the actual people who get screwed over are "anecdote" to you. It's their choice so "it's no business of yours unless it affects you". Your main concern is about not opening the door to more "Santorum-esque government activism."
It's 100% selfishness on your part. The argument reminds of you some religious homophobic stuff that you hate and you worry that if it was accepted it would lend them support. You can't be bothered to develop a more robust and nuanced ideology that can handle a minimal amount of limits on the degree to which people can be exploited. Instead you churn out paragraph after paragraph about how oppressive the idea is and how acting in porn is no more exploitative than stocking shelves. Give me a break.
@ Sasaki
Here's where I think there's a big disconnect and disagreement; the topic of "exploitation". My personal perception is that the actual exploitation and coercion of women (and men?) in the porn industry is pretty much minimal. Sure it happens, but it's very rare. I *think* Lemur indicated his experiences are also along this line, but I can't/won't speak for him and he'll probably rip me a new one if I'm wrong.
So, here's a question for you. I understand you believe strongly in the exploitation aspect. Do you have any impartial studies or references to provide that we can look at to support your position, that might change our minds?
I *think* Lemur indicated his experiences are also along this line
That's exactly what I was saying. When I was young and good looking (about seventy years ago) I knew a number of people who got involved in some aspect of sex work. Stripping, phone sex, that sort of thing. None of them were damaged by it in any measurable or tangible way, all of them made buckets of cash more than they would in a traditional low-skill job, and several of them have gone on to stellar lives and careers.
I know that anecdotes are not data, but personal experience should count for something. Doing a quick mental count, I have known six people who worked in some aspect of the sex business for more than a month. Dated two of 'em. They made good money, they generally had fun, and then they got out.
But as per usual with Sasaki, I have no idea if I'm even addressing his point.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-30-2012, 17:17
@ Sasaki
Here's where I think there's a big disconnect and disagreement; the topic of "exploitation". My personal perception is that the actual exploitation and coercion of women (and men?) in the porn industry is pretty much minimal. Sure it happens, but it's very rare. I *think* Lemur indicated his experiences are also along this line, but I can't/won't speak for him and he'll probably rip me a new one if I'm wrong.
So, here's a question for you. I understand you believe strongly in the exploitation aspect. Do you have any impartial studies or references to provide that we can look at to support your position, that might change our minds?
I doubt anyone has been able to study it. But "It happens and it's going to happen again, but most of the time it doesn't happen" isn't a reason for keeping the status quo. And we aren't talking about stripping and phone sex anyway.
I struggle to see how people start with the conception of the porn industry as some regular industry like any other.
I know that anecdotes are not data, but personal experience should count for something. Doing a quick mental count, I have known six people who worked in some aspect of the sex business for more than a month. Dated two of 'em. They made good money, they generally had fun, and then they got out.
I do think your personal experience counts for something. I would count it as evidence that when well adjusted people go into sex work they do stripping and phone sex, have fun, make money, and get out. The non well adjusted people on the other hand...
a completely inoffensive name
03-31-2012, 05:09
In the interest of settling this argument, I will head down to LA tomorrow and break into the porn industry. If I blink 3 times in a row in one of my pornos, it means I am being abused. Links to my work will be given via PM as under the rules of the backroom.
The Stranger
04-02-2012, 23:28
what do you ppl think of this?
http://christwire.org/2012/01/has-your-daughter-or-wife-been-caught-into-reddits-gonewild-imgur-trafficking-underworld/
at first I thought it was rather funny, seeing the title and that it was posted on a christian site... but in the end (while many things were definitly hilarious) some things such as about the karma is quite interesting.
the big question now is ofcourse, IS THE DEVIL ON REDDIT?
keep it fapping y'all
a completely inoffensive name
04-03-2012, 01:26
here is also an ‘image inbox’ entitled IMGUR (I
nside M
y G
enitalia U
pon R
equest)
Wut?
One of the most awkward messages I received was from a gamer who claimed he took a break from playing Skyrim (a new release for World of Warcraft)
Christian evangelicals are funny, they can't even do research into video games.
a completely inoffensive name
04-03-2012, 01:29
what do you ppl think of this?
http://christwire.org/2012/01/has-your-daughter-or-wife-been-caught-into-reddits-gonewild-imgur-trafficking-underworld/
at first I thought it was rather funny, seeing the title and that it was posted on a christian site... but in the end (while many things were definitly hilarious) some things such as about the karma is quite interesting.
the big question now is ofcourse, IS THE DEVIL ON REDDIT?
keep it fapping y'all
Devil has been on Reddit for a while now. The whole site been dying since 2008 when Ron Paul brigade invaded the internet, then last year when Digg killed itself and finally now that every university student knows it as "that place where my uni meme images come from".
Sasaki Kojiro
04-03-2012, 01:37
Christian evangelicals are funny, they can't even do research into video games.
:holiday:
How good are they at researching whether a website is a satirical or not?
a completely inoffensive name
04-03-2012, 01:43
:holiday:
How good are they at researching whether a website is a satirical or not?
You know, I figured as much, but I thought in this instance Poe's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law) applied. Looks like I have egg on my face, since I guessed wrong.
There is a Christian baptist forum that is satirical as well that is good for an occasional laugh. I forget the name of it though.
EDIT: Landover baptist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church). That's the website.
The Stranger
04-04-2012, 16:25
:holiday:
How good are they at researching whether a website is a satirical or not?
why do you have to spoil all the fun...
Major Robert Dump
04-10-2012, 02:52
"I don't want to hear examples, I want to see studies and facts!"
"All the BS studies, I know better than facts and statistics."
I guess there is no winning this, is there?
My point is that the "all porn stars were abused" argument has been getting used by professors and religious leaders for decades now and I have yet to see and actual, up-to-date study or statistic proving this. Just because some of them have drug problems or commit suicide at a higher rate than, say, taxi drivers, does not mean there is an epidemic. I refer you to Wall Street and their coke and suicide habits.
I am pouring through this thread and looking for consistent facts, not onesy and twosie stories of people who had a bad time of it. If I am missing a post somewhere, by all means point it out.
I think the easiest thing to do here is just set up a collection. We'll get Sasaki a year's subscription to Brazzers and see how it turns out. Who's in?
spankythehippo
04-10-2012, 07:47
I think the easiest thing to do here is just set up a collection. We'll get Sasaki a year's subscription to Brazzers and see how it turns out. Who's in?
Public username & password, and I'm in.
Public username & password, and I'm in.
the "canHeScore" series alone will convert anyone.
.......or so I hear..
spankythehippo
04-11-2012, 11:28
the "canHeScore" series alone will convert anyone.
.......or so I hear..
*bookmarked*. Thanks. https://th163.photobucket.com/albums/t292/smiliegirl2007/th_emot-fappery.gif
Greyblades
04-11-2012, 11:42
Personally I think anyone who still pays for porn either is an idiot or woefully unaware of the millions of sites on the web dedicated to streaming professional porn for free... Not that I know anything about that sort of thing. :shiftyeyes:
spankythehippo
04-11-2012, 11:51
Personally I think anyone who still pays for porn either is an idiot or woefully unaware of the millions of sites on the web dedicated to streaming professional porn for free... Not that I know anything about that sort of thing. :shiftyeyes:
Youjizz is my saviour.
Greyblades
04-11-2012, 12:29
Ugh, you know I really wish that porn websites didnt have such awfull names, if someone finds something called youjizz in your bookmark folder you are screwed without them even opening them. It should be something dignified like "The Scarlet Brocade" "Elysium bliss" or "The Ephemeral Joy", not blunt, crass things like "Bangbros", "youjizz", or *shudder* "Cliti"
Montmorency
04-11-2012, 12:39
Met Art.
Ugh, you know I really wish that porn websites didnt have such awfull names, if someone finds something called youjizz in your bookmark folder you are screwed without them even opening them. It should be something dignified like "The Scarlet Brocade" "Elysium bliss" or "The Ephemeral Joy", not blunt, crass things like "Bangbros", "youjizz", or *shudder* "Cliti"
You can rename bookmarks in every sensible browser.
That's all I know on the topic I'm afraid.
spankythehippo
04-11-2012, 12:43
Ugh, you know I really wish that porn websites didnt have such awfull names, if someone finds something called youjizz in your bookmark folder you are screwed without them even opening them. It should be something dignified like "The Scarlet Brocade" "Elysium bliss" or "The Ephemeral Joy", not blunt, crass things like "Bangbros", "youjizz", or *shudder* "Cliti"
Youjizz had a hilarious logo. I don't mind the names. I just go to jerk off. And I haven't bookmarked Youjizz. I remember it very well.
Greyblades
04-11-2012, 13:05
You can rename bookmarks in every sensible browser.
I know, but you cant change the little picture thats displayed beside it.
That's all I know on the topic I'm afraid.
Sure.
Youjizz had a hilarious logo. I don't mind the names. Yeah, but society has allready brainwashed me to be very uncomfortable about pornography, I dont need the sites to feel like they were made by 14 year olds on top of that.
I just go to jerk off.
Gah! TMI!
spankythehippo
04-11-2012, 13:20
Yeah, but society has allready brainwashed me to be very uncomfortable about pornography, I dont need the sites to feel like they were made by 14 year olds on top of that.
Now that you mention that, I'm actually starting to notice that. My Youjizz is very mature. :yes:
Gah! TMI!
Hey man. Masturbation is totally natural. I just need a release. Just undertaking some daily maintenance.
Ugh, you know I really wish that porn websites didnt have such awfull names, if someone finds something called youjizz in your bookmark folder you are screwed without them even opening them. It should be something dignified like "The Scarlet Brocade" "Elysium bliss" or "The Ephemeral Joy", not blunt, crass things like "Bangbros", "youjizz", or *shudder* "Cliti"
7theaven.info
Google it if ye doubt the claim!
Ugh, you know I really wish that porn websites didnt have such awfull names, if someone finds something called youjizz in your bookmark folder you are screwed without them even opening them. It should be something dignified like "The Scarlet Brocade" "Elysium bliss" or "The Ephemeral Joy", not blunt, crass things like "Bangbros", "youjizz", or *shudder* "Cliti"
7theaven.info
Google it if ye doubt the claim!
rory_20_uk
04-12-2012, 19:57
Failure to release seminal fluids at least several times a week has been linked to increased incidence of prostate pathology.
~:smoking:
Failure to release seminal fluids at least several times a week has been linked to increased incidence of prostate pathology.
~:smoking:
Then get a wife with a similar appetite.
Then get a wife with a similar appetite.
You are obviously not married. ~D
a completely inoffensive name
04-13-2012, 02:53
You are obviously not married. ~DSex is a big part of sharing yourself and bonding with your significant other. A lack of sex is a problem, not a status quo.
Sex is a big part of sharing yourself and bonding with your significant other. A lack of sex is a problem, not a status quo.
You are obviously not married.
a completely inoffensive name
04-13-2012, 03:30
You are obviously not married.Cool story bro, stay miserable. Sounds like a successful marriage, yuk yuk yuk.
Cool story bro, stay miserable. Sounds like a successful marriage, yuk yuk yuk.
You are obviously not married.
a completely inoffensive name
04-13-2012, 06:04
You are obviously not married.
What if I was?
Papewaio
04-13-2012, 06:05
Cool story bro, stay miserable. Sounds like a successful marriage, yuk yuk yuk.
Simple biology. Woman have monthly cycles of when they feel like sex. Does that track with your own rate of sexual interest?
Most men as a matter of maintenance will get several erections while they sleep. Sperm cycle is in the order of days.
So you have a monthly vs daily cycle. Add in modern pressures such as work and extended time apart. Simple maths says that the two sets of cycles are not in sync.
a completely inoffensive name
04-13-2012, 06:30
Simple biology. Woman have monthly cycles of when they feel like sex. Does that track with your own rate of sexual interest?
Most men as a matter of maintenance will get several erections while they sleep. Sperm cycle is in the order of days.
So you have a monthly vs daily cycle. Add in modern pressures such as work and extended time apart. Simple maths says that the two sets of cycles are not in sync.
This is not what I was contesting. Vuk talked about having a wife ready to do the horizontal monster mash a lot. Drone replied you obviously have never been married. Which I interpreted as women just decide to stop having sex with their significant other once they have a ring on their finger.
Not trying to argue that people don't have busy lives, trying to argue that married couples shouldn't operate like Al and Peggy Bundy from "Married With Children".
You are obviously not married. ~D
No, but I know women who have a sex drive that would make anyone on this board seem like monks. It is not impossible to find a woman as 'passionate' as yourself...just rare.
No, but I know women who have a sex drive that would make anyone on this board seem like monks. It is not impossible to find a woman as 'passionate' as yourself...just rare.
hence..the majority of the population will have to find an alternative.
hence..the majority of the population will have to find an alternative.
Surely being married to a woman who doesn't live for sex is not that bad of an alternative.
Strike For The South
04-13-2012, 15:42
No, but I know women who have a sex drive that would make anyone on this board seem like monks. It is not impossible to find a woman as 'passionate' as yourself...just rare.
Lies, The idea that women shy away from sex more than men is a falsehood
Surely being married to a woman who doesn't live for sex is not that bad of an alternative.
compromise is death.
The Stranger
04-13-2012, 18:53
Lies, The idea that women shy away from sex more than men is a falsehood
falsehood, maybe, but common facade. and women frown upon it more than men do if another woman does not uphold that facade (atleast to the outside world, perhaps not in the bedroom or at the hairsalon)
Strike For The South
04-13-2012, 19:05
falsehood, maybe, but common facade. and women frown upon it more than men do if another woman does not uphold that facade (atleast to the outside world, perhaps not in the bedroom or at the hairsalon)
Of course their are societial pressures for women to maintain their "virtue", it doesn't make their sex drive any different
The Stranger
04-13-2012, 19:13
i did not disagree with you there :P
allthough i can imagine that this societial pressure can also actually diminish a womans sexual drive (atleast mentally)
and i base that on absolutely nothing
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.