Pornography poll

[Alceste]

Oh how the tides have turned.

I am actually quite surprised, I never knew some of our more bleeding heart "liberals" were actually so conservative.

Aware of the facts. That's all. Not living in a lunatic fantasy world where nobody you're seeing on the screen while you wank is either having a really bad time or perpetuating self-destructive behavior learned in really bad times past.

I actually don't get why you guys are determined to ignore the facts. Is it harder to wank to when you realize you're looking at actual human beings - people who are almost exclusively the products of childhood abuse, usually incest - with normal human feelings?

It frankly amazes me that being aware of a few basic facts about prostitution is enough to get you labeled a prude.

 

[Alceste]

Oh, so you are okay with children maybe being exploited by their parents to do movies, bcause it is not as bad as rape?

Or is it just that you have a double standard, and only want to know dfinetely if there was no ill conduct on the things that should be allowable to watch when there is sex?

The thing is, I could imagine any youtube video to have been made by people held hostage to make their videos or die and then they were raped and then stabbed and what not, and I would have no way of realising if that was the case or not.

Still, I simply wont assume it was just cause I dont know.

Oh, for Pete's sake. Is having your picture taken the same thing as having your picture taken while somebody shoves a massive HIV infected **** up your ***, potentially causing internal bleeding?

If your answer is no, then please drop this debate strategy. It's ridiculous.

 

[Alceste]

There is nothing inherently hurtful about having sex for money, or being filmed while on it.

As I said, I know nothing of the porn industry , I am merely arguing that porn in itself is not inherently hurtful to its actors and actresses.

If you know nothing about the porn industry, perhaps you should learn something before forming an opinion on the subject. Do you think that's fair?

 

[Me Myself]

So you're ok with the fact that 85% of women in prostitution (of which porn is sub-category) are adult victims of childhood sexual abuse and 68% have PTSD?

So, lets say for a matter of argument that victims of sexual abuse shouldnt be allowed to give a service with their bodies in eschange for money on a mutually consented manner.

Why should you also ban the women who didnt have this problem? Why should u ban the men who didnt have this problem to act on earn their living on this manner?

We wont make it just a ban for the vixtims of course, on that I assume we agree, but there is no reason to ban this for e people above. You are limiting their freedoms to do stuff that wont hurt anyone and will earn them a living.

Banning a victim of some kind of assault for a job not because said victim is less able to do the job because of the assault, but because you are making a judgement of whether they "should" or not is wrong anyways.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

So you're ok with the fact that 85% of women in prostitution (of which porn is sub-category) are adult victims of childhood sexual abuse and 68% have PTSD?

Sure, they're not hurting anybody. Because prostitutes aren't people, right? They can't get hurt. They can't hurt themselves. Johns and pimps and pornographers never hurt them. They never get raped or murdered or suffer from internal bleeding, broken bones, physical or psychological abuse, or any other unpalatable thing.

Dream on.

This is why I don't even call myself a liberal but a feminist, there's a difference, to me anyway.

 

[Me Myself]

If you know nothing about the porn industry, perhaps you should learn something before forming an opinion on the subject. Do you think that's fair?

I am not making an oppinion on the porn industry as it is handled today.

I am making an opinion of porn in itself.

Thus, I am not saying the porn industry handles the thing fairly, I am saying there is no reason to think it couldnt.

 

[Apex]

Aware of the facts. That's all. Not living in a lunatic fantasy world where nobody you're seeing on the screen while you wank is either having a really bad time or perpetuating self-destructive behavior learned in really bad times past.

I actually don't get why you guys are determined to ignore the facts. Is it harder to wank to when you realize you're looking at actual human beings - people who are almost exclusively the products of childhood abuse, usually incest - with normal human feelings?

It frankly amazes me that being aware of a few basic facts about prostitution is enough to get you labeled a prude.

Oh, of course.

 

[Alceste]

So, lets say for a matter of argument that victims of sexual abuse shouldnt be allowed to give a service with their bodies in eschange for money on a mutually consented manner.

Why should you also ban the women who didnt have this problem? Why should u ban the men who didnt have this problem to act on earn their living on this manner?

We wont make it just a ban for the vixtims of course, on that I assume we agree, but there is no reason to ban this for e people above. You are limiting their freedoms to do stuff that wont hurt anyone and will earn them a living.

Banning a victim of some kind of assault for a job not because said victim is less able to do the job because of the assault, but because you are making a judgement of whether they "should" or not is wrong anyways.

Perhaps you misunderstood my position. I am not in the "should be banned" camp. I'm attempting to convince you lads that IN GENERAL, the industry exploits women. By this I mean prostitution is an inherently unfair arrangement where the benefits mainly accrue to the exploiter as opposed to the exploitee. The exploiter might be a pimp who recruits a 12 year old girl and systematically abuses her into total dependence and submission, forcing her to bring home the proceeds of 10 or more tricks a night and give 100% of the money to him, or it might be a john who hires an independent escort who is trying to pay her way through college and has completely harmless, protected, vanilla sex. The latter doesn't bother me at all. The former should bother everybody. Somewhere in between the two there is a line where the purchase of sex is not too exploitative to stomach. For me, porn falls on the other side of it.

Whether or not a ban would help reduce the prevalence of porn is an entirely separate question. I think it would be pointless. I believe education, mental health and drug addiction services and expanded economic opportunities for marginalized women would do a much better job. Address the demand (uneducated consumers) and the supply (economically desperate abused women), and abusive pornographers just make a little less money every year until TA-DA - we have only people who are genuinely kinky exhibitionists filming themselves having psychologically healthy and physically safe sex with their actual partners. Maybe even making a few bucks on the side.

 

[Me Myself]

Perhaps you misunderstood my position. I am not in the "should be banned" camp. I'm attempting to convince you lads that IN GENERAL, the industry exploits women. By this I mean prostitution is an inherently unfair arrangement where the benefits mainly accrue to the exploiter as opposed to the exploitee. The exploiter might be a pimp who recruits a 12 year old girl and systematically abuses her into total dependence and submission, forcing her to bring home the proceeds of 10 or more tricks a night and give 100% of the money to him, or it might be a john who hires an independent escort who is trying to pay her way through college and has completely harmless, protected, vanilla sex. The latter doesn't bother me at all. The former should bother everybody. Somewhere in between the two there is a line where the purchase of sex is not too exploitative to stomach. For me, porn falls on the other side of it.

Whether or not a ban would help reduce the prevalence of porn is an entirely separate question. I think it would be pointless. I believe education, mental health and drug addiction services and expanded economic opportunities for marginalized women would do a much better job. Address the demand (uneducated consumers) and the supply (economically desperate abused women), and abusive pornographers just make a little less money every year until TA-DA - we have only people who are genuinely kinky exhibitionists filming themselves having psychologically healthy and physically safe sex with their actual partners. Maybe even making a few bucks on the side.

You asked Revolt if he was okk with the current state of porn industry because he said he was ok with porn existing.

My apologies if that made me misunderstand your position

 

[Alceste]

This is why I don't even call myself a liberal but a feminist, there's a difference, to me anyway.

I call myself a libertarian socialist, which confuses the heck out of Revoltingest.

I am that and also a feminist.

I am definitely not a Liberal. That's a centre-right political party in my country. I prefer the NDP.

 

[Father Heathen]

They're not hurting anyone? Seriously? What about themselves?

People make personal choices to do unhealthy or risky things all of the time, and by making such choices they accept the potential risks and consequences.

 

[Me Myself]

They're not hurting anyone? Seriously? What about themselves?

People have the right to hurt themselves if they so choose, as long as they are not hurting non consenting others in the process.

 

[Alceste]

People make personal choices to do unhealthy or risky things all of the time, and by making such choices they accept the potential risks and consequences.

You don't think it would be preferable to provide mental health services to the victims of childhood abuse than to jerk off to images of them perpetuating their resulting self-destructive habits?

 

[oldbadger]

25 pages...........!! .
:snoopy:
:beach:
opcorn:

I've just been reading......... up until now.

Nearly every month (in England) the media reports about people getting arrested, charged and convicted for downloading and storing pictures (videos?) of minors being subjected to sexual abuse or worse.

Personally, I don't think of making, transmitting, uploading, downloading, storing or printing such pictures as pornography, but rather as serious sexual offences.

The sentences often involve prison sentences, and every convict is automatically included onto the sexual offender's register, and the list of those who can apply to check up on an area or individual is expanding now.

My point is this.............. over recent months on this site I have read posts which decry Governmental intervention onto the internet, or any kind of surveillance, or law enforcement. I hear the (written) cry of 'Freedom' everywhere!!

And so I ask, are you all in favour of governmental internet (IT) surveillance and law enforcement? If not, how do you hope to destroy the filming, and transmitting, etc of sexual abuse upon minors?

For me, this is the first target; there might be other targets that are serious, but..... you get what I mean? Please don't tell me that they can't police it so shouldn't bother...... all too negative.

For myself, I've always found pornograhy to be boring........ maybe that's why they make pictures about the stuff you guys have described, to try and spin up new interest. But then, I get turned on by swimming costumes before bikinis....... with women inside them, of course! :drool:

 

[Me Myself]

You don't think it would be preferable to provide mental health services to the victims of childhood abuse than to jerk off to images of them perpetuating their resulting self-destructive habits?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[Alceste]

25 pages...........!! .
:snoopy:
:beach:
opcorn:

I've just been reading......... up until now.

Nearly every month (in England) the media reports about people getting arrested, charged and convicted for downloading and storing pictures (videos?) of minors being subjected to sexual abuse or worse.

Personally, I don't think of making, transmitting, uploading, downloading, storing or printing such pictures as pornography, but rather as serious sexual offences.

The sentences often involve prison sentences, and every convict is automatically included onto the sexual offender's register, and the list of those who can apply to check up on an area or individual is expanding now.

My point is this.............. over recent months on this site I have read posts which decry Governmental intervention onto the internet, or any kind of surveillance, or law enforcement. I hear the (written) cry of 'Freedom' everywhere!!

And so I ask, are you all in favour of governmental internet (IT) surveillance and law enforcement? If not, how do you hope to destroy the filming, and transmitting, etc of sexual abuse upon minors?

For me, this is the first target; there might be other targets that are serious, but..... you get what I mean? Please don't tell me that they can't police it so shouldn't bother...... all too negative.

For myself, I've always found pornograhy to be boring........ maybe that's why they make pictures about the stuff you guys have described, to try and sin up new interest. But then, I get turned on by swimming costumes before bikinis....... with women inside them, of course! :drool:

The trouble is, governments trying to monitor and control our internet use isn't really about protecting children from sexual exploitation. That's just the sales pitch.

 

[Alceste]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Silly. It's a legitimate question that directly addresses FH's apparent indifference toward the experience, risks and emotions of women in prostitution.

How can we have an honest discussion about it if we try to bury the fact that the women you're watching were sexually abused as children, are regularly raped, beaten and murdered by their pimps and / or johns, and riddled with sexually transmitted diseases?

My position is that mental health services is a better idea than giving them jobs having things stuck into them for your wanking pleasure.

 

[Flankerl]

But child pornography has nothing to do with normal pornography.


Child Pornography: not consenting minors = illegal
Pornography: Consenting adults = legal

Real rape flicks are already banned so they have nothing to do with porn.

 

[oldbadger]

The trouble is, governments trying to monitor and control our internet use isn't really about protecting children from sexual exploitation. That's just the sales pitch.

I can't answer that because I haven't got a clue whether you are right or not.

But our convictions for serious offences (like attempted terrorism, these pictures and masses of other crimes and attempted crimes) are being picked up by internet and mobile phone surveillance.

Example:- We are said to have the highest density of (public area) CCTV surveillance in the world. Twenty years ago folks were raging about their lost privacy....... some, but not many do now. The chances are very high that if you are the victim of a serious crime in the UK that the criminal will be filmed somewhere between travelling to, at, and departing from the area.

I do believe that we need to support government surveillance of IT. If we don't trust our governments we need to get up, go out and do some canvassing, voting etc. We have to trust (or change) our systems.

 

[oldbadger]

But child pornography has nothing to do with normal pornography.


Child Pornography: not consenting minors = illegal
Pornography: Consenting adults = legal

Real rape flicks are already banned so they have nothing to do with porn.

I agree...

Earlier I wrote:- Personally, I don't think of making, transmitting, uploading, downloading, storing or printing such pictures as pornography, but rather as serious sexual offences.

But I think it has a right to enter this thread...... serious sexual offences against minors. In fact, I think it should come first.