A Global Issue

[Cameron]

I know this is going to touch off some strong feelings, but I would like to examine the worldwide implications of the pornography industry and its on-going effects on people.

In 2003 the size of the pornography industry was $57 Billion - $12 Billion US

http://www.familysafemedia.com/pornography...statistics.html

The industry has been around for ages, from the brothels of the middle ages to internet porn and DVD's.

Every year there is PORNCON, the international exhibition of pornography in Las Vegas, which attracts thousands of people and big name porn-stars.

Empires have been build around pornography (Playboy, Hustler, Club, etc)

Playmates there to help troops boost moral and keepem' fighting

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/02/...8962766885.html

So, I an mature manner, let's discuss this topic. What implications come from porn, should it be allowed, should more restrictions be implemented? Is it a freedom of speech? (Movie: The People vs. Larry Flynt).

[Elder]

I personally am very much against pornography. It's as addicting as any drug. You become desensitized, and then need to see more. Eventually, you stop thinking of women as free thinking people and see them as, to put it bluntly, meat! No, I'm not a woman, nor am I gay, but it does bother me to see that happen. I think women are very beautiful both physically and mentally, and it bothers me to see every aspect of them besides the body cast to the wind. This is my personal opinion on the matter.

Now should it be restricted or done away with? It certainly wouldn't bother me if it were, but if someone wants to call that freedom of expression, things can get very complicated. I'm willing to bet though that the consumers in the porn industry aren't buying it for it's artistic value. They are buying it our of pure lust. I think it's prudent to at least have restrictions, at least as far as age goes. Let's keep it away from kids (the industry might have a problem with this, as I'm sure they make a lot of money of teenagers.) We don't consider underage kid's to be sexually responsible yet, so let's not go arousing those feelings in them. As for adults, that is a touchy issue, and I'll wait to see what some of the other arguements are before I put in my comments. It has the same effects on adults that it does on kids, but many will say that a willing adult is sexually responsible, and should have the choice. I hate the stuff, and like I said, it wouldn't bother me if it were completely banned, but that's just me. I'm wouldn't be incredibly surprised if there are a significant number of people who want to keep it. They have their rights. With adults I'm kind of caught between my respect for their rights and my utter loathing of the industry.

[udawg]

Way to go Elder, getting right to the heart of the matter. Is this another case of decreasing individual rights, for the better good? [think: US terror laws]

(And before Craig goes off on another anti-leftist rant, I approve of most of the procedures dealing with terror suspects.)

The obvious question is, though, is banning pornography a better good? See Elder's post for my views on this.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Elder,

I concur that porn is inherently evil, as it goes far beyond art. Artistic expression is the most common defence for pornographers, pedophiles, etc. (Not defending anyone nor making comparisons) The issue of freedom of speech (in a relatively new 'church and state separate' nation) such as the US, is touchy because 50% will condemn you for attacking freedom for banning it, and the other 50% will attack you (for doing nothing) for promoting porn.

Lots of other nations have views of sexuality that are much more liberal than the US. (added this just for perspective)

The bottom line is that porn was the first business to become and remain profitable on the internet. It is hugely popular (even amongst those unwilling to publicly admit it) and produces huge profits. All good by the standards the US has morally set.

Banning porn would be un-american. It might be the right thing to do, however.

A question, though. Would those that use porn 'as fantasy fulfillment substitute' become a greater danger to the rest of us?

[Elder]

Funny, I'm not seeing too much objection to the banning of Pornography. I was hoping for a bit more debate on the subject. I can't say I'd blame anyone though, as stepping forward could very easily imply that you are pedophile or some other type of pervert. Not saying that that would be the case, but it probably is a factor.

Thelonius, to answer your question, I can very easily see the rising number of porn-users as a threat. What could happen if the courts rule that pornography is only just a form of artistic expression, and all of the sudden it's given full access to teens, and children, or allowed to be blatantly advertised on Bill-boards. Should I have to blindfold my children?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Elder,

If I may, I would like to rephrase my question.

Would banning pornography lead to an increase in sex-based crimes if no other outlet (such as pornography) was available for the fulfillment of sexual fantasy?

A fine line, I should think. More porn...does it drive people to sex crimes or provide a release so that they do not try to act out what they might wish to see?

[Elder]

Thelonius, that is a very good question. I could very easily see a repeat of what happened when we tried prohibition. If it were to happen, it would have to happen incrementally, probably just like rehab off of any drug. You could go cold turkey, but it usually isn't pretty. Honestly, I don't know. I will fight to keep porn away from youth, and especially away from my family, but I don't know if I can safely take it away from the world. That is a very good question Thelonius. I hadn't really thought of that.

[KrustyKidd]

I think women are very beautiful both physically and mentally, and it bothers me to see every aspect of them besides the body cast to the wind.

I have a fine looking woman. Smart too (K'sensual Kruella is her handle) and she loves to show off for me. That's pornography in a sense. I treat her with respect and she treats me the same. She whips my butt intellectually and helps taking out the garbage and even has a semi license to go on long trips for the heck of it. I like to look at other women too but her the most. Other guys have mutts for wives and girl friends. Too bad, maybe they like to look at porn more, or less than I.

Point being, I like porn and so does she. I like to feel like an object sometimes and so does KK. If another can't put that into perspective because they are hung up on what a woman is or should be, or a guy for that matter that is a problem they would be better off adressing to a shrink rather than the legal system. Maybe, those opposed to porn should let go with their partners a bit more to feel as sexy as the ACTORS seem to be. This issue to me, is more about being hung up than free.

Like love, sex is free and exciting. Porn is a product of desire, it has been with us much longer than the Middle Ages. In ancient Egypt there were ponographic statues as well as ones that I have seen in Herculanium. Get rid of porn? Try being open and less of an anal freak and enjoy life for a change. Talk about trying to buck a tradition!

[Hugo]

Would banning pornography lead to an increase in sex-based crimes if no other outlet (such as pornography) was available for the fulfillment of sexual fantasy?

It's odd that whenever the police arrest a pedophile or rapist, a raid of their house always seems to reveal copious amounts of child porn and snuff movies. Evidently, this stuff wasn't working as a "safe" outlet for them.

Porn is, for a would-be rapist or pedophile, simply Pavlovian behavioural reinforcement. Subject gets sexual urges about children, subject watches pornography involving children, subject gets sexual excitement/gratification from the said pornography, which merely reinforces his urges towards children.

I believe this is why people believe that violence in the media encourages violence in people. It doesn't make sense that where sexual acts in the media are concerned, they would have the opposite effect.

[Elder]

Excellent post Hugo. Pornography is a form of media that can lead to disasterous behaviour.

Krusty Kidd, there is one main difference between what you have with with your wife/girlfriend, and my view of pornography. I'm sure she is a very beautiful woman, and has a figure well worth appreciating (hey, I fully believe it's a crime to not acknowledge beauty where it is). However, you also talked about her other attributes, which sound quite beautiful as well. You know her. You can see all of her wonderful traits, and I'm quite sure you love her for all of her traits, not just her beauty, and I'm sure she could say the same about you. You don't get that out of a magazine, or on some video. There are only looks there, only lust, not love, only sex. Oh, by the way, congratulations Krusty. Souds like you have a wonderful woman.

Yes, both love and sex are free and exciting, but lets not settle for counterfeits. Pornography is not free and exciting. It's addicting. Yes, physical intamacy is a wonderful part of love, and I wouldn't have it any other way, but I will not think of any woman I love as meat!

[KrustyKidd]

It's odd that whenever the police arrest a pedophile or rapist, a raid of their house always seems to reveal copious amounts of child porn and snuff movies. Evidently, this stuff wasn't working as a "safe" outlet for them.

It's not odd, it's absolutely no surprise. Probably found alcohol and lots of empty fast food wrappers too. Might even find a bible and enormous amounts of drugs, who knows?

Ever notice that when police stop sombody for speeding or a traffic infraction they look for other stuff? All things are connected and when something is found you can be sure that there is other illegal items as well. These people are not indicative of the rest of society and are the exception rather than the rule. I wonder how many normal, well ajusted people use porn vs sexual predators. That would provide a true stat for your linkage of porn to assault.

Porn is, for a would-be rapist or pedophile, simply Pavlovian behavioural reinforcement.

To these people, a talking dog is the devil, a master to be obeyed.

Porn is in many forms; written, photos, advertisements, National Geographic Magazines, a teen in tight jeans or a middle aged lady bending over in a tight skirt at the bank. You can't ban all that so what you would have is a form of controlling it. You know, this but not that, here but not there.

It's funny that you would see porn as an evil. There is another society that has the same view and even goes to extraordinary lengths to eliminate it in all the forms I spoke of by placing drop cloths over women. I see no improvement for the lot of a woman there. Matter of fact, these guys view woman as lower than cattle. It also does not eliminate rape either.

My contention is that evil will do evil reguardless of other factors. A would be rapist will not become saintly because he is not exposed to porn, just the same as a person who is not raist material will suddenly convert to become a rapist. I further contend that this is another form of placing blame on any other thing or person rather than the actual perpetrator.

[Hugo]

It's not odd, it's absolutely no surprise. Probably found alcohol and lots of empty fast food wrappers too.

You are completely missing the point.

I am not saying that porn drives people to sex crimes, what I am saying is that porn does not make an alternative, "healthy" outlet for the sexual urges of those who would commit sex crimes as shown by the fact that sex offenders almost invariably have huge porn stashes - clearly, as I said, it wasn't working as an outlet for them.

It's funny that you would see porn as an evil. There is another society that has the same view and even goes to extraordinary lengths to eliminate it in all the forms I spoke of by placing drop cloths over women.

Are you seriously telling me you see no difference between the absence of a burqa and "hardcore anal barely-legal teen sluts" and so forth? This level of argument is beneath you.

You can't ban all that so what you would have is a form of controlling it. You know, this but not that, here but not there.

Yes, just like everything else in society. You can sleep with your girlfriend but not your sister. You can masturbate at home but not on the bus. You can smoke a cigarette but you can't smoke a crack pipe. You can drive a car on the road but not the sidewalk. The law is full of "this but not that" and "here but not there" rules - do you want to strike them all down?

[KrustyKidd]

I am not saying that porn drives people to sex crimes, what I am saying is that porn does not make an alternative, "healthy" outlet for the sexual urges of those who would commit sex crimes as shown by the fact that sex offenders almost invariably have huge porn stashes - clearly, as I said, it wasn't working as an outlet for them.

Sorry, I took it to mean that you thought that it contributed in a substansive way Surely to goodness you believe that, otherwise why are we even discussing a percieved non problem? As for the point itself, yes I agreed with that, like anything else pleasurable, porn is addictive.

Are you seriously telling me you see no difference between the absence of a burqa and "hardcore anal barely-legal teen sluts" and so forth? This level of argument is beneath you.

Thank you for the compliment Hugo, I have not digressed into frivolity yet.

Really though, there is no difference in anti porn and Islamic society, they differ only by the amount of control with which they wish to apply.

Yes, just like everything else in society. You can sleep with your girlfriend but not your sister. You can masturbate at home but not on the bus. You can smoke a cigarette but you can't smoke a crack pipe. You can drive a car on the road but not the sidewalk. The law is full of "this but not that" and "here but not there" rules - do you want to strike them all down?

Most porn is legal. There are laws in place at this moment that say what is and is not permissable. What anti porn people want to do is to make much of it illegal. I used Islamic society to show what a world without porn is, and it's still evil, and still has problems that do not address the underlying issues such as treating women like objects.

I feel that they attack the symtom and not the cause. I also feel that in the hands of most of normal society porn is a choice of pleasure. Much like alcohol, good food, active discussion and music. All can be made to be evil in the wrong hands but all are a personal choice. Why would I wish to allow another to tell me what is a good or bad activity for myself in private (or on the bus LOL)?

If these people don't like the fact that pervs have a house full of porn then stop letting them out of jail, get better policing but leave us law abiding people make our own decisions.

[Hugo]

Surely to goodness you believe that, otherwise why are we even discussing a percieved non problem?

I believe porn contributes to sex crime only in as much as it encourages a deviancy that is already there by simple reinforcement. This is in much the same vein as videogames and violence i.e. that they can be a factor, but what differentiates a videogamer from a psychopath is the fact that in the latter case these media are influencing an unhinged mind.

I believe the threat to society from porn is more insidious. My thoughts are that it contributes to the sex-saturated nature of our society, that it devalues relationships and marriages and dehumanises men and women alike.

I think porn is a factor in the rise of casual sex and STDs, the fact that 14-year-old girls feel that giving oral sex is an acceptable way to make $10 (and better than babysitting), that the teen pregnancy rate refuses to fall, that one in three Canadian women will have an abortion and so on. Basically, porn teaches us that casual sex is great, that everybody can basically be reduced to genitalia that walk and talk, and reinforces the idea that if it feels good, you should do it and therefore is also a contributor to the problems of substance abuse and lives wasted in general.

Of course, porn isn't the source of all these problems. It's a result of them as well as a contributor to them. However, it's my opinion that we should be breaking as many links in this chain as we can. You might feel that, as a viewer of pornography, that you are immune to these things and that porn has not cheapened your relationship or devalued your s/o in your eyes, however, you are more intelligent than most people (not an idle compliment), and you might also want to consider that most children probably first experience the sex act and a naked body of the opposite gender (at least, in a sexual context) through pornography. If you start young, you can seriously warp a mind. Just look at the Hitler Youth or Mao's Red Guards.

Really though, there is no difference in anti porn and Islamic society, they differ only by the amount of control with which they wish to apply.

I disagree. Your language shows that you don't truly believe this, you are perfectly capable of distinguishing between pornography and dress. Porn laws are not about telling women how to dress, they are about limiting the production and distribution of material explicitly depicting sexual acts. I don't see how you equate telling women how to dress with telling them they may not sell an explicit video of them having intercourse with a bunch of men.

Why would I wish to allow another to tell me what is a good or bad activity for myself in private (or on the bus LOL)?

Fine - then you won't object if I construct a biological weapon in private, and strike up some private friendships with Al-Queda members, and privately donate lots of money to those friends.

[KrustyKidd]

I believe porn contributes to sex crime only in as much as it encourages a deviancy that is already there by simple reinforcement.

Well said! My point exactly. All things in moderation, booze, entertainment, sex, all can be distorted. Go after the criminals instead of the product by which much of society derives enjoyment. Leave the law abiding people of society alone and devote your energies to rooting out evil doers.

I believe the threat to society from porn is more insidious. My thoughts are that it contributes to the sex-saturated nature of our society, that it devalues relationships and marriages and dehumanises men and women alike.

Wow, talk about not being able to differenciate between fantasy and real life. You don't give people much credit. And what other plans do you have for society so that we can be protected from ourselves. Help us figure out how much alcohol we can drink, tell us the limit for time that we can spend away from our children when we go out, help me decide how much fattening food I can eat, tell me how to raise my child. You know that we are all too dumb to figure out things on our own. HELP!

I disagree. Your language shows that you don't truly believe this, you are perfectly capable of distinguishing between pornography and dress. Porn laws are not about telling women how to dress, they are about limiting the production and distribution of material explicitly depicting sexual acts. I don't see how you equate telling women how to dress with telling them they may not sell an explicit video of them having intercourse with a bunch of men.

No, you read something different into what I said. It is about moral control. You decide what and how much is morally acceptable. That should be clear about how I interpret your intent.

Is it just intercourse or is it masterbation videos that you are against? If so, then is suggestive pictures ok? Don't you see, you have no hard rule, only that you don't like it. Some can view their personal limit as a girl in a dress, others an ankle showing. As I said before, porn is more than what you think it is. It is strip shows, a provocatively dressed man or woman. You are simply comming in with your own interpretation of what is and is not acceptable. Thank you but I find the present laws are quite capable of defining that. If you have trouble then you might find it more productive changing societies views on porn and relationships rather than taking away a freedom that thinking people either enjoy or do not wish to enjoy. With freedom comes responsibility, if some cannot handle that responsibility then they become an identifiable problem and should be taken care of by the legal system.

Fine - then you won't object if I construct a biological weapon in private, and strike up some private friendships with Al-Queda members, and privately donate lots of money to those friends.

You might find police and secret service people with a lot of guns pointed at you and have your ass regime changed rather quickly, but on the other hand, I would be at home enjoying a legal activity.

[Hugo]

You decide what and how much is morally acceptable.

OK, KK, where do you draw the line? Heterosexual porn is evidently OK with you, so lets go down the list of pornographies:

Teenage?

S&M?

Homosexual?

Snuff?

Felching?

Rape?

Child porn?

Maybe you only watch the cleanest of porn available, but I am sure you draw a line somewhere (unless you're about to tell me that you approve of snuff and child porn). Therefore, for you to insinuate that I am an over-protective busybody is highly hypocritical of you.

Don't you see, you have no hard rule, only that you don't like it.

No, I do have a hard rule. You need a dictionary.

"Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. "

You are simply comming in with your own interpretation of what is and is not acceptable.

No, actually, you are. The things you mention are not pornography, anymore than a virgin-mary is an alcoholic drink.

You might find police and secret service people with a lot of guns pointed at you and have your ass regime changed rather quickly, but on the other hand, I would be at home enjoying a legal activity.

Please clarify this - are you retracting your earlier statement that you have no "wish to allow another to tell me what is a good or bad activity for myself in private", or are you instead saying that you believe that the police and secret service would be unjustified in "regime-changing my ass" (sounds like one of your videos to me) for privately making biological weapons?

[Moderate Centrist]

Hello All,

To try and ban porn would not work. I think we have to limit it's distribution. There is no doubt it degrades men and women but as I've said on another post on the music industry it is a problem in which the blame lies directly with the public.

Perhaps someone could correct me if I'm wrong but the porn industry has not forced anyone to watch it. It is supplying a demand.

The message has to be self control and a rejection of the celebrity lifestyle.

My thoughts on porn - if you don't like it don't support it. You do this by not purchasing the material, not shopping at stores that sell it, pushing the government for stronger regulation of distribution and not taking part in it.

This is the first step which never seems to be discussed.

[Elder]

Moderate Centrist, very good post. Despite my absolute loathing of the industry, legal action against pornography would be both impossible to execute and impractical. We'd end up with the distributors finding more creative ways to get it out. We already have this situation with child porn and drugs. Law enforcement is working on these, but they can only handle so many black-market industries at once with out us making new ones. Civil action against pornography is a far better solution. Good idea Moderate Centrist. No one can deny there has to be some limits (by the way, I like your hard rule, Hugo) but in order to get rid of it, the boycott seems to be the best stategy.

[Moderate Centrist]

Hello Elder,

Thanks for the reply. I want people to know I do not oppose some form of regulation but for once I'd like to hear the politicians, parents, teachers and others point the finger at the public and say you are the problem.

The enphasis should be put on the public first and then we should look at other options.

I think one of the keys here is distribution of pornography. Another tactic is to tie big companies who profit from pornography to the actual material itself. Label the CEOs of some of these companies as promoters of pornography.

I seem to remember the 5th Estate did a story on Bell Canada providing hard core pornography to it's viewers and taking enough heat that they pulled it.

[Hugo]

To try and ban porn would not work.

Of course it would not work, just as criminalising murder, rape and theft have not stopped the incidence of those crimes.

However, what it might do is to reduce the extent of the problem. Illegalised porn might not deter dedicated users, however, it might well deter casual users and do a better job of keeping it away from minors.

What it also does is to make a stand, in law, about what we do and do not want in our society. Our laws reflect our ideal society, if everyone were law-abiding, our society would be perfect in our eyes. Because of that I don't see why pornography should have a hallowed place in law.

Furthermore, if you believe that laws against drugs and child porn have been so unsuccessful, shall we rescind them?

[Elder]

No, we should not rescind drug laws (actually, I'm sure we're making a lot of progress with them). I'm just now sure if we should be having law enforcement agencies trying to tackle both drugs and porn at the same time. They have their hands full with drugs.

At any rate, while cutting it could and would be helpfull, and I definitely believe there should be some restrictions, I agree with Moderate Centrist that the majority of the work needs to be done with society. You mentioned earlier that the porn industry is both a result and a contibutor of sexual corruption in society. In order to completely do away with pornograpy, we will have to handle that corruption. We can (and I believe should) put some restrictions on it now, and that will be a great step, but we're going to have to get to the root of the problem to take the rest of it.

Probably the best step we can take would be an early emphasis on moral education. Keep it away from kids, and try to teach them some sexual responsibillity while they are young. This is best done by the parents in the home, but the community and schools certainly could help. I firmly believe that the problems you mentioned, rape, murder, theft, etc., can be prevented by education and moral guidance. Why not the same with pornography.

[Hugo]

I'm just now sure if we should be having law enforcement agencies trying to tackle both drugs and porn at the same time. They have their hands full with drugs.

That's a lousy excuse to avoid the problem. If something needs to be made illegal, and that law needs to be enforced, and you don't have the police resources to do it, should you 1) increase police resources to deal with it or 2) just forget it, and leave it as it is?

What if the problem were not porn but international terrorism? We need increased vigilance against terrorists, but we don't have the police to do it. According to you, then, we should just forget it and let the terrorists go about their business unhindered.

I firmly believe that the problems you mentioned, rape, murder, theft, etc., can be prevented by education and moral guidance. Why not the same with pornography.

You and Mod are forgetting that we are not living in a moral society. This culture is highly amoral, devious, manipulative and Machiavellian, for instance, people steal music from the internet not because they think theft is OK, but just because they can. Lawyers fight for huge cash settlements for their clients not because their clients deserve them, but because they'll get paid more if they do. Women have abortions not because they have considered the questions of that issue and decided that the unborn child is not a human being, but because it's legal and readily available and they want one.

Therefore, you won't get any change in outlook as long as it is legal. If you criminalise porn, people may start asking why that is, and asking moral and ethical questions about it. Until that time, nobody will bother.

[KrustyKidd]

HUGO

OK, KK, where do you draw the line? Heterosexual porn is evidently OK with you, so lets go down the list of pornographies:

Teenage?

S&M?

Homosexual?

Snuff?

Felching?

Rape?

Child porn?

Maybe you only watch the cleanest of porn available, but I am sure you draw a line somewhere (unless you're about to tell me that you approve of snuff and child porn). Therefore, for you to insinuate that I am an over-protective busybody is highly hypocritical of you.

To answer your point, first, I do not think of you or your comerades on your side as busy bodies. On the contrary, you are concerened citizens trying to do what is right for all. There is nothing evil or hateful about that. I simply think you are wrong. How wrong? I don't know yet becasue we havn't even gotten to that point where we can discuss anything yet. So far, I see all or nothing from you and me simply defending the freedom to engage in a legal act.

To answer your question as to where I currently draw the line as to what is acceptable, as long as it is legal, is done out of choice, does not harm anybody physically or take away another’s freedom it is acceptable. Clear?

No, I do have a hard rule. You need a dictionary.

"Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. "

I have one as well, almost the same but slightly different;

pornography >noun printed or visual material intended to stimulate sexual excitement.

Visual material. This includes scantily clad women, strippers, any sight that arouses a person. To some, porn is the sight of a lingerie catalogue, to others it is intercourse. You say your intent is to regulate it but forget that it is already regulated by all sorts of laws, censorship boards and government agencies. You merely want to change laws that have been thought out over years by people smarter than you or I to suit YOUR standard. To do that we then get into a cycle of constantly changing things to suit YOUR agenda or others that share your view. That is what laws are for, laws that have already taken the majority’s view into account.

"Other material" pretty much includes all aides to arousal to include strippers and people dressed in such a way that another can use it to arouse themselves. I would imagine that audible aids and forms of touch like lap dances can be there as well. I know that your dictionary didn't specify that but "other" pretty much includes all forms of arousal. I'm sure that if I came into your home in front of your kids and whoever and played a half hour tape of orgasms you would recognise it as something related to pornography.

Thanks for helping me prove my point using your dictionary, mine seems to be lacking.

No, actually, you are. The things you mention are not pornography, anymore than a virgin-mary is an alcoholic drink.

A stripper is not pornograpy? Is she not visual material? Is a woman dressed in order to sexually excite another not a form of pornograpy? Is a person who is dressed in such a way that it unknowingly excites another person pornograpy to that other person? As I said before, you do not realize how much porn there is around you. Is a grade shcool picture of a five year old used by a perv to masterbate not considered pornograpy to him? Is a room full of pictures of bikini clad children in the home of a perv considered pornograpy? Is a two thousand year old statue of a woman riding a phallic like thing considered pornograpy?

Please clarify this - are you retracting your earlier statement that you have no "wish to allow another to tell me what is a good or bad activity for myself in private", or are you instead saying that you believe that the police and secret service would be unjustified in "regime-changing my ass" (sounds like one of your videos to me) for privately making biological weapons?

OK, I’ll clarify. Read what I wrote. There is nothing confusing about it. Pay particular attention to the second last word.

KK's quote

You might find police and secret service people with a lot of guns pointed at you and have your ass regime changed rather quickly, but on the other hand, I would be at home enjoying a legal activity.

Anyhow, I've been away for a day and I just wanted to give you the courtesy of an answer to your post. I'll review the others later and then rejoin the discussion.

"regime-changing my ass" (sounds like one of your videos to me)

Cute, I take it you wish the discussion remain on an up front and civil level? I have noticed a change in your writing during this discussion from others that we have engaged in, I'm trying to figure out why.

Cheers

[Hugo]

To answer your question as to where I currently draw the line as to what is acceptable, as long as it is legal, is done out of choice, does not harm anybody physically or take away another’s freedom it is acceptable. Clear?

Not really. "As long as it is legal" basically means you'll swallow what the lawmakers say, so if I became elected PM in 2004 and banned porn, you'd go along with that because it was law? If I also passed a law outlawing private property, would you go along with that?

More to the point, let's say I legalised child porn as long as the child 'actor' had parental consent. How about that, would you approve of child porn made with the consent of the parents of the children involved, if it were legal?

Visual material. This includes scantily clad women, strippers, any sight that arouses a person... A stripper is not pornograpy? Is she not visual material?

No, she isn't visual material, she's a person. You see how porn has twisted your outlook? I do say that with my tongue in cheek, however, it's somewhat telling that you can view actual people as pornography.

I don't particularly like the idea of lap dancers either, however, for pornography to exist there must be a medium (hence: material) and in the case of provocatively dressed individuals there is none. The relationship is direct.

Is a room full of pictures of bikini clad children in the home of a perv considered pornograpy?

Read my definition again. The intent to cause arousal must be there. If the material was made with the intent of causing sexual arousal (e.g. hardcore video), it's porn. If it was not (e.g. biology textbook with illustrations of naked bodies), it isn't. If it's disputed, then put it in court in front of 12 good men and true, and see what they decide.

What the viewer of the porn finds arousing is irrelevant, the intent of the pornographers defines the nature of the material, not the reception of the audience. Some people find train crashes erotic (Sylvestre Matuschka), but footage of train accidents is not porn despite this.

OK, I’ll clarify. Read what I wrote.

So, once again, you are reiterating that whatever the lawmakers say defines your moral outlook. I think you are lying. Here's why:

Watch, the nature of a government is to continue to errode rights

You said that here.

It's not that you approve of what is legal, it's that what is legal happens to coincide with what you want. There is more than legality behind your reasoning - define it. Otherwise, you have shot down many of your previous posts here.

[KrustyKidd]

Not really. "As long as it is legal" basically means you'll swallow what the lawmakers say, so if I became elected PM in 2004 and banned porn, you'd go along with that because it was law? If I also passed a law outlawing private property, would you go along with that?

More to the point, let's say I legalised child porn as long as the child 'actor' had parental consent. How about that, would you approve of child porn made with the consent of the parents of the children involved, if it were legal?

Before we get into what I personally think is offensive let’s get off the subject of all or nothing. Currently we have what is legal, that is what I, at this time, at this point in this argument find permmissable. There is no way I will move from this position at this time and leave myself open to you by moving. You are arguing with me and using debate type skills rather than common sense to simply discuss this issue. For you to become reaonable with me, first get off your position of how all must be banned. As for you becomming PM, from your current position I would say that you would have more luck converting and moving to an Islamic country where your views are universal amongst the population in public. Having lived in two of them myself I can assure you however, that in private, Arabs are just, if not more degenerate than westerners. As for treating women any better ........

No, she isn't visual material, she's a person. You see how porn has twisted your outlook? I do say that with my tongue in cheek, however, it's somewhat telling that you can view actual people as pornography.

I don't particularly like the idea of lap dancers either, however, for pornography to exist there must be a medium (hence: material) and in the case of provocatively dressed individuals there is none. The relationship is direct.

OK then. How about “Aid for arousal?” You are ignoring the truth to protect an open wound that I would take advantage of. If you see nothing pornographic about topless dancers, waitresses then you must also think that all children can watch sexy rock videos uncensored. Here in advance of my reply to your next point, I use your own words against you:

Read my definition again. The intent to cause arousal must be there. If the material was made with the intent of causing sexual arousal (e.g. hardcore video), it's porn. If it was not (e.g. biology textbook with illustrations of naked bodies), it isn't.

So, if a person dresses in a way to cause arousal it is not porn. Then what is it? Politics? A stripper isn't running for office, either is a hooker. A teenage girl with a lift bra trying to attract attention by arousing a male is selling cupcakes or is she too promoting art?

As well, you have said that pornographers say it is art. Tell me, do you also think that porn is art when it is in a museum? Or is it just porn? Maybe a pornographer can sell an “Art” magazine entitled “Hot Babes” or whatever, then it would be permshable to all the horny art appreciators out there?

Read my definition again. The intent to cause arousal must be there. If the material was made with the intent of causing sexual arousal (e.g. hardcore video), it's porn. If it was not (e.g. biology textbook with illustrations of naked bodies), it isn't. If it's disputed, then put it in court in front of 12 good men and true, and see what they decide.

12 good men? They already have and you don’t accept it. That’s the point. What are your plans, to go back to the same 12 men time after time until they rule your way? What is legal is what we have now, BTW, this point is my last stand, if I have to make one, but it is one of your first hurdles.

OK, I’ll clarify. Read what I wrote.

So, once again, you are reiterating that whatever the lawmakers say defines your moral outlook. I think you are lying. Here's why:

QUOTE

Watch, the nature of a government is to continue to errode rights

You said that here.

It's not that you approve of what is legal, it's that what is legal happens to coincide with what you want. There is more than legality behind your reasoning - define it. Otherwise, you have shot down many of your previous posts here.

And true, the nature of a government is to erode rights. Not intentionally, but by nature. A leader must always change, innovate. Make things better ( so they think) but never go back and resind old laws or bills. They move forward, gaining approval by pleasing groups like you without compromising with groups like me. They will take away rights without giving rights back. A continual erosion. I stand by that statement and always will. I am not against change, it must happen but I question the direction, reason and speed with which it happens.

To end this post, I’ll tell you a bit about myself. I’m successful for the area I come form and the town I’m in. I work hard, play hard and enjoy a full family life. I’ve written a published book (somewhat minor affair mind you) and am working on another ( a much deeper one). I go skating with my daughter (Krazy K’tee), to the pool, movies, board games and normal stuff. I even bake cookies for crying out loud. When the lights go down, me and Kruella enjoy our togetherness. Sometimes snuggle, sometimes play and then other times downright wicked. Sometimes a wicked movie, sometimes Nicholas and Alexandra or Forrest Gump.. There’s really nothing abnormal about it. I consider us sane in an insane kind of way. I’m generous, my neighbors love me, matter of fact they seem quite fascinated by the things that I do and have done, same with the the kids in the neighborhood. Heck, I even go to church with the old couple across the street once in awhile to make my daughter happy. (They take her when I’m not in town), What I’m saying Hugo is that I’m not the devil. I don’t spend my life with porn yet once in a while I do enjoy it along with everything else. I know I am not the target of your ire yet am not ashamed to say that I use it. The target of your repression is the obvious losers of society. Those who are afraid to stand up and are ashamed to let others know they use it. Basicly, without people like me they would get walked over by people like you without ever even knowing what the heck happened.

It's freedom. Some are intimidated and some are not. Now, you want to talk compromise, let's do it!

You on the other hand are somebody that wants to remove a choice I have. You want me to let you then you had better have a damm good reason.