Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Battle Brews As Porn Moves Into Mainstream
Breitbrat ^ | 04/01/2006 | David Crary

Posted on 04/01/2006 5:37:42 PM PST by Panerai

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-305 next last
To: RHINO369
If drugs were legal and cheap most prostitution would disappear.

So women sell sex to buy expensive drugs?

51 posted on 04/01/2006 7:46:28 PM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369

"1) Most prostitutes are drug addicts and sell themselves to support their very expensive habit.

2) Most drugs supress a mans sex drive. Some make it impossible to have sex."

It's an interesting theory, although I doubt it - because prostitution has always existed. As long as men are willing to pay for sex, there will be women to sell it - even women who are not drug addicts.

I'm still having trouble following your logic.
You think it would be a good thing for men to drug themselves into such a stupor they are unable to hire a hooker?
And what about the harm this type of person causes to others?

Keep in mind...I live in meth country.
Drugs are cheap here - meth is readily available to the poor as well as the rich.
I live by a lab that just got busted, so I got to see alot of the traffic - some of which crashed into trees alongside our road.
I saw the vacant stares and rotting teeth.
Right now the hazmat teams are trying to see if the wells in the neighborhood were contaminated.

So - I'm not sympathetic to this idea that cheap and legal drugs are going to be a good thing.


52 posted on 04/01/2006 7:47:07 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
"Tell that to Bob Crane's two wives" - Victimization, how wonderful it is, no personal responsibility, just blame it on something else. No, it wasn't Bob Crane's fault, it was porn, how convenient.
53 posted on 04/01/2006 7:47:17 PM PST by Panerai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
2) Most drugs supress a mans sex drive. Some make it impossible to have sex.

Bob Dole would have something to say about that!


54 posted on 04/01/2006 7:50:04 PM PST by operation clinton cleanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Panerai

If he really wants to 'battle' porn than I suggest he start with the 'counter-cultural' Liberal Socialist Left, the queer lobby, etc...


55 posted on 04/01/2006 7:52:30 PM PST by the anti-liberal (Hey, Al Qaeda: Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

Liberaltarians out in full force.

They don't want to see the truth of what pornography does. For a variety of reasons.

I know a boy who got ahold of his father's porn somehow or other, and got it on with another boy who may also have seen sexual content. These were 4 and 5 yr old boys.

These are seriously screwed up kids now. If anyone thinks that children or adolescents can see hardcore porn and not be harmed by it, such a person has no moral principles. Such people also think that one night stands, sex without marriage and commitment are harmless.

When families are destroyed, which they are by adultery, pornography, pre-and extra marital sex, then gradually the entire society goes to hell. Kids are aborted, or if they manage to run the gauntlet and get born, often turn into adults that also cannot commit to marriage. What to speak of the stepfather/boyfriend molestation rates.

Saying that if you don't like porn don't watch it is like saying you can live in the middle of a garbage dump and keep your house clean with no flies or rats. The atmosphere of sexual debauchery permeates our culture and there is no evading it. Kids are affected. Even if you turn your own TV off, throw it away, get a filter on the computer - their friends' families don't, the other kids at school don't, and so on.

Sex divorced from marriage is destructive, that's its nature. It's like fire - which can cook food and warm the house, or burn down buildings and cause pain and death. Sex is one of the most powerful bodily and mental urges, and when in the confines of marital commitment, creates families of children and bonds husband and wife. When used outside of marriage commitment, it creates unwanted children, aborted children, heartbreaks, hardness of heart, and exploitation.

Anyone who disagrees with me is a fool.


56 posted on 04/01/2006 7:52:55 PM PST by little jeremiah (Tolerating evil IS evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Huck
"All things in moderation."

Suicide? Sex with an Aids carrier?

57 posted on 04/01/2006 7:53:37 PM PST by goodnesswins ( "the left can only take power through deception." (and it seems Hillary & Company are the masters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Anyone who disagrees with me is a fool.

Then I'm a fool. But I'm a free fool.

58 posted on 04/01/2006 7:54:59 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: narses

See my comment above.

In every monotheist religion in the world, and some that aren't, sex has been confined by moral law within marriage.


59 posted on 04/01/2006 7:55:03 PM PST by little jeremiah (Tolerating evil IS evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

"Because someone is inspired to commit crime by an object doesn't mean we can ban it. Mark David Chapman said he was inspired to murder John Lennon, by A Catcher in the Rye. Should we ban that?"

It takes a real leap to read A Catcher in the Rye and think "I want to kill John Lennon"

It is not as big a leap for a viewer of child porn to think "I want to have sex with a child"

"This is the equivalent of a gun-control advocate saying that shooting victims don't have the luxury of considering the second amendment rights of gun owners and manufacturers."

I don't think it is.
The second amendment was written to protect the people from the government - and from each other.

And while the first amendment gives us freedom of speech - still our society has recognized there are limits and people can be harmed.
I don't have the freedom of speech to announce my neighbor is a thief - when he isn't. This is considered harmful, and my neigbhor could take legal action.
Our society has recognized that child pornography is harmful - and it is illegal. Freedom of speech does not apply here.
It may take some time for our country to become fully aware of how harmful other forms of pornography are - and until then we will continue to see people hurting others because they are acting out sick fantasies they learned from their porn habit.

"There is no right that does not have potential negative consequences. But the effect of blocking the right, because of those consequence would be far worse.
"

easy for you to say.
I doubt the parents of a raped and murdered child would agree.


60 posted on 04/01/2006 7:55:28 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
"All things in moderation."

Suicide? Sex with an Aids carrier?

I think those are covered when he added "Including moderation."

61 posted on 04/01/2006 7:56:35 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Panerai

legalize hookers, then you can illegalize porn.


62 posted on 04/01/2006 7:57:01 PM PST by Porterville (Si Se Puede!!! We can stop businesses hiring illegals!!! Si Se Puede!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

Free?

Anyone who is a slave to their senses and the demands of the mind is not free.

You may be okay, you may not be a slave to porn, but many are. I've known a few. They are not the men they could be, they have left some ugly scenes, broke some hearts, ruined a few women. No biggie to you, I guess.

And then there's the little thing of where to draw the line, which someone asked above? Since porn is never totally satisfying, it has to get raunchier and more extreme to generate the "thrill", so there's porn out there that people couldn't even imagine a couple of generations ago. How extreme does it have to get for liberaltarians to say that it's over the line?

That's okay, it's a rhetorical question.


63 posted on 04/01/2006 7:58:29 PM PST by little jeremiah (Tolerating evil IS evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

No...He did not say "including moderation." He said "IN moderation." I used to believe the same thing.....and it ain't true!


64 posted on 04/01/2006 7:59:11 PM PST by goodnesswins ( "the left can only take power through deception." (and it seems Hillary & Company are the masters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Panerai
Victimization, how wonderful it is, no personal responsibility, just blame it on something else. No, it wasn't Bob Crane's fault, it was porn, how convenient.

Do you believe that addiction doesn't really exist?

65 posted on 04/01/2006 8:00:10 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"Anyone who disagrees with me is a fool." 'You will respect my authoritah!!' - Eric Cartman
66 posted on 04/01/2006 8:01:48 PM PST by Panerai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
Most prostitutes are drug addicts and sell themselves to support their very expensive habit.

To the former agreed. So, in other words drug-addicted women, instead of getting money for drugs through prostitution, would get it through money the government took from taxpayers. I love how every solution, means more money from taxpayers. I agree that legalizing drugs would cost the taxpayers big time, but I'm not sure it would end prostitution.

67 posted on 04/01/2006 8:03:10 PM PST by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Panerai
the actual physical harm that pornography causes

Porn causes physical injury??? If you end up injured from perusing porn, you're not doing it right.

68 posted on 04/01/2006 8:03:44 PM PST by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

"I know a boy who got ahold of his father's porn somehow or other, and got it on with another boy who may also have seen sexual content. These were 4 and 5 yr old boys."

yes - this is happening more at our local schools.
Teachers are horrified to see young children performing sexual acts.
Time after time it turns out the child saw porn at home and were only acting out what they saw.
Why would the child think it's bad? If mommy and daddy have it at home it must be allright.

"When families are destroyed, which they are by adultery, pornography, pre-and extra marital sex, then gradually the entire society goes to hell."

Agreed. People are learning to only concentrate on themselves and to look at others as a means to an end.
With this mindset it is acceptable to mistreat/degrade/humiliate another person all under the umbrella of freedom of speech.

"Saying that if you don't like porn don't watch it is like saying you can live in the middle of a garbage dump and keep your house clean with no flies or rats. The atmosphere of sexual debauchery permeates our culture and there is no evading it. Kids are affected. Even if you turn your own TV off, throw it away, get a filter on the computer - their friends' families don't, the other kids at school don't, and so on. "

Correct...it is becoming impossible to shield the kids from the stench no matter how many precautions you take.

"When used outside of marriage commitment, it creates unwanted children, aborted children, heartbreaks, hardness of heart, and exploitation. "

Agreed. Of course some might say "I am free to have a hard heart" As if that freedom is supposed to make up for the loss of honor, goodness, kindness and compassion.


69 posted on 04/01/2006 8:04:45 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Panerai
Many or all of those things have already been done on NBC's Fear Factor.

They've nailed a woman's breasts to a board on NBC? They've sewn a woman's genitals shut on Fear Factor? Would you be OK with that if they did, on prime time television? Yes or no.

Yes, I get your point. I don't think it's a good thing on Fear Factor, either. It's the same sort of mentality that drove those Bum Fight films. Just because people are stupid enough to consent to hurting themselves does not mean that it's right for other people to pay them to be stupid and hurt themselves.

If you want a real good example, look at VH1's Surviving Nugent. In one episode, he put the contestants in cold mud for hours to see who could endure it. Can you say "hypothermia"? One of the contestants had to go to the hospital. And, yes, I think he should have been charged if she had died.

70 posted on 04/01/2006 8:05:39 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
Our society has recognized that child pornography is harmful - and it is illegal. Freedom of speech does not apply here.

Because child sex is considered a non-consensual act. Note that porn with adults portraying children or fiction involving children having sex (Lolita for example) are considered free speech.

easy for you to say.
I doubt the parents of a raped and murdered child would agree.

Perhaps... But their tragedy does not give them the privilege to take away my rights.

Carolyn McCarthy has based her congressional career on opposition to the second amendment, due to her husband having been killed and son wounded by gunman on their train. Her tragedy does not make the 2nd Amendment go away.

71 posted on 04/01/2006 8:06:22 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
"Porn causes physical injury???" - It has been rumored to cause blindness and extremely hairy palms. Pee Wee Herman must be as blind as a bat.
72 posted on 04/01/2006 8:08:42 PM PST by Panerai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; GatorGirl; maryz; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; livius; ...
Liberaltarians out in full force. They don't want to see the truth of what pornography does. For a variety of reasons. I know a boy who got ahold of his father's porn somehow or other, and got it on with another boy who may also have seen sexual content. These were 4 and 5 yr old boys. These are seriously screwed up kids now. If anyone thinks that children or adolescents can see hardcore porn and not be harmed by it, such a person has no moral principles. Such people also think that one night stands, sex without marriage and commitment are harmless. When families are destroyed, which they are by adultery, pornography, pre-and extra marital sex, then gradually the entire society goes to hell. Kids are aborted, or if they manage to run the gauntlet and get born, often turn into adults that also cannot commit to marriage. What to speak of the stepfather/boyfriend molestation rates. Saying that if you don't like porn don't watch it is like saying you can live in the middle of a garbage dump and keep your house clean with no flies or rats. The atmosphere of sexual debauchery permeates our culture and there is no evading it. Kids are affected. Even if you turn your own TV off, throw it away, get a filter on the computer - their friends' families don't, the other kids at school don't, and so on. Sex divorced from marriage is destructive, that's its nature. It's like fire - which can cook food and warm the house, or burn down buildings and cause pain and death. Sex is one of the most powerful bodily and mental urges, and when in the confines of marital commitment, creates families of children and bonds husband and wife. When used outside of marriage commitment, it creates unwanted children, aborted children, heartbreaks, hardness of heart, and exploitation. Anyone who disagrees with me is a fool.
Hard to argue, well said!
73 posted on 04/01/2006 8:10:09 PM PST by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

"Anyone who is a slave to their senses and the demands of the mind is not free.

You may be okay, you may not be a slave to porn, but many are. I've known a few. They are not the men they could be, they have left some ugly scenes, broke some hearts, ruined a few women. No biggie to you, I guess.

And then there's the little thing of where to draw the line, which someone asked above? Since porn is never totally satisfying, it has to get raunchier and more extreme to generate the "thrill", so there's porn out there that people couldn't even imagine a couple of generations ago. How extreme does it have to get for liberaltarians to say that it's over the line? "

You have just described a friend of my husband's. At one time he was welcome in our home, we enjoyed his company, and he was very kind to our children.
We knew he had a porn problem. He always had it in his car, in his gym bag. And it was really raunchy.

As the years went by he confided that he was no longer aroused by real women. He could not have a real relationship with a real woman. The only way he could get aroused was to keep viewing raunchier and raunchier pornographic images.

A couple of years ago he was kicked out of a stip joint for attacking the strippers because they weren't performing to his liking.

A mutual friend informed us he now has started to view children.

He is no longer welcome in our home.
I grieve for the man he could have been, and I pray he won't hurt anyone.


74 posted on 04/01/2006 8:11:21 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
And then there's the little thing of where to draw the line, which someone asked above? Since porn is never totally satisfying, it has to get raunchier and more extreme to generate the "thrill", so there's porn out there that people couldn't even imagine a couple of generations ago. How extreme does it have to get for liberaltarians to say that it's over the line?

Porn hasn't gotten any raunchier. The raunchier types have become more accessible. Ever read Victorian porn? It's got stuff in there that makes today's stuff look tame. I haven't read De Sade, but I've heard tell that stuff was even more extreme.

I'm not as familiar with the history of visual porn -- but I've seen stuff especially from the late 19th and early 20th century that is on par with what is output these days.

75 posted on 04/01/2006 8:12:14 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
You, taking extreme examples of underground videos and equating those with porn or what some call mainstream porn, is disingenuous. Perhaps you figure that some of us are not smart enough to see through this.
76 posted on 04/01/2006 8:13:10 PM PST by Panerai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
What sort of "porn" do you have in your house? Anything particularly deviant?

By the way, I have another anecdotal story about "finding the parentss stash". When I was in second grade, a boy (I do remember his name and the incident very clearly) not only made those two naked valentine's figures that were popular in the 1970s anatomically correct but also walked around class one day, while the teach was out, exposing himself to the girls. Apparently, he had studied his parents' stash and wasn't as disinterested as your son. I didn't really understand everything he said or did until I was older (e.g., I didn't understand the public hair he drew), but I get it now. It sounds like you are a decent parent but a lot of parents out there are not and a lot of children are not as disinterested. Also, as I mentioned in another thread, a friend talked to an 11 year-old while playing an online shooter. He asked the kid if he was worried about his mother seeing curses on the screen if she walked in and he replied that he was more worried about her finding his porn collection. Do you think that's a problem (even if you think the problem is simply bad parenting)? Do you think bestiality pornography or torture pornography is OK? If you had found such pornography in your parents' stash when you were a child, what would you have thought?

77 posted on 04/01/2006 8:13:35 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

I think parenting is the key factor. Bad parenting will result in the child having problems, whether or not there is porn around. Good parenting will teach the child how to conduct their lives, even if they run across -- even if they have an premature interest in -- porn.


78 posted on 04/01/2006 8:20:05 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

"Because child sex is considered a non-consensual act. Note that porn with adults portraying children or fiction involving children having sex (Lolita for example) are considered free speech."

It is considered free speech now - but hopefully as our country grows increasingly aware of the harmful affects of pornography this will be reconsidered.

"Perhaps... But their tragedy does not give them the privilege to take away my rights."

And what about the rights of the innocent to live their lives unmolested by porn addicted perverts?

" Her tragedy does not make the 2nd Amendment go away."

No - but tragedies like hers do cause people to look at steps that can be taken to prevent criminals or mentally ill people from purchasing guns.

On the other hand, whenever we read another story of a child abduction/rape/murder we will inevitably see a common theme we have seen over and over, year after year....drugs and porn.

And here we have people here suggesting we legalize the drugs and keep the porn.

A recipe for disaster.


79 posted on 04/01/2006 8:21:10 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
The women who do porn are adults and they chose to do it.

So if they choose to be sexually tortured for pay rather than pleasure, that's OK with you?

Yes I know how easy it is for children to get porn, I'm part of the Internet generation. I'm only 20, and when I was 13 most guys I knew had computers and downloaded porn. It probably isn't the best thing for a kid but nobody I know turned out to be a sexual deviant.

How do you know? You are only 20. It doesn't necessarily happen overnight.

You can't change the biological fact that young men are driven to have sex, even when people told them they'd go blind if they masturbated, they still did it.

People have all sorts of urges. We can either encourage them to control those urges, or not.

Your never going to keep young men from porn.

Have I called for the banning of all porn? Watch the American Porn Frontline episode. I'd be pretty happy with a return to the Reagan-era standards of decency and indecency prosecutions.

We live in a free society, unless my actions directly infringe on your rights you have no business telling me what I can do.

That's the dream "free society" that libertarians want to live in. It bears little resemblance, as libertarians will freely point out when pressed, to the society we actually live in. Try telling the police officer, the next time he pulls you over doing 100 in a 55 zone that your actions don't directly infringe on anyone's rights and that he has no business telling you what you can do.

So do a good job at parenting and your kids won't be exposed.

Yes, I should restrict my liberty so you can excercise yours. That's a good deal for me how, exactly?

80 posted on 04/01/2006 8:21:25 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

I used to look at porn about 20 years ago and noticed that it definetly activates our deviant darkside. It's never satisfying and causes people to act out of the darkside to feed it's promise of good feelings that just leave more emptiness.


81 posted on 04/01/2006 8:22:40 PM PST by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Panerai
You, taking extreme examples of underground videos and equating those with porn or what some call mainstream porn, is disingenuous.

Do you believe this sort of pornography should be restricted, banned, or prosecuted or not. Please answer that question. If you do, then we are talking about where to draw a line. If you don't, then you don't have a line or have one way further out than most Americans. As for how mainstream it is, try Kazaa or the Usenet. Anyone with an ISP that provides uncensored newsgroups and a newsreader can get to it. Sounds pretty mainstream to me.

Perhaps you figure that some of us are not smart enough to see through this.

I want to see if you really believe that all pornography should be unrestricted on free speech grounds or whether you think some pornography should be banned or not. What I expect is for you to be honest enough to tell me how you really feel rather than avoiding the point because it makes you uncomfortable. If people really want to frame the pornography debate in terms of anything that's consentual is good, then let's talk about where that leads.

82 posted on 04/01/2006 8:25:48 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: fabian

"I used to look at porn about 20 years ago and noticed that it definetly activates our deviant darkside. It's never satisfying and causes people to act out of the darkside to feed it's promise of good feelings that just leave more emptiness."

Thank you for you honesty.
I grieve for this friend of ours. We only have one chance at life and his obsession with porn has ruined his life.
He has good in him, but the darkness is taking over.



83 posted on 04/01/2006 8:26:13 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
And what about the rights of the innocent to live their lives unmolested by porn addicted perverts?

Molestation is not a free speech right. A person is responsible for how they act. They can claim that they were "inspired" by something else, but that neither makes them less responsible or the creator of what inspired them more responsible.

No - but tragedies like hers do cause people to look at steps that can be taken to prevent criminals or mentally ill people from purchasing guns.

But is shouldn't have us looking at steps to prevent sane, law-abiding people from purchasing guns.

On the other hand, whenever we read another story of a child abduction/rape/murder we will inevitably see a common theme we have seen over and over, year after year....drugs and porn.

And here we have people here suggesting we legalize the drugs and keep the porn.

And alcohol. Don't forget alcohol... oh, yeah... that's legal. And when a person commits a crime while under the influence of alcohol, we punish them for the crime. However, when a person has a drink or three at home, we don't punish them.

I'm saying porn and drugs should be treated the same.

84 posted on 04/01/2006 8:27:16 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: narses
Tonight I'd like to ask you to post your thoughts and defenses of the Catholic position on pornography. Stand up for our faith and against this scourge.

Well, rather than getting myself banned if I said what I would do to these pornographers if given a chance, I will just say I agree with the traditional Catholic position.

85 posted on 04/01/2006 8:27:19 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
Fair enough about the parenting. So do you feel that all pornography is OK or do you think that some pornography crosses the line of obscenity and should be restricted? (I'll assume that you are opposed to child pornography and will accept that's a different thing because children can't give consent.)
86 posted on 04/01/2006 8:27:40 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Anyone who disagrees with me is a fool.

Careful there Little Jeremiah.

"Pride" is one of those pesky deadly sins. Your statement above exhibits it to tee.

You are now even with the guy cruising some xxx site at this moment!

87 posted on 04/01/2006 8:29:08 PM PST by bluefish (Holding out for worthy tagline...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
I think any consensual act should be allowed and should be allowed to be displayed.

Now we do have laws with regard to animals, based on the fact that they cannot show consent -- we can't be cruel to them, even if we do eat them. I think a case can be made that actual bestiality should be against the law. OTOH -- to take a relatively benign example -- some cartoon joke playing off the urban myth that Catherine the Great did it with a horse... Well, no animals were harmed in the making of the picture.

Torture is a touchier subject.... If someone is actually being tortured I could question their sanity... OTOH, there are other people who do physically grueling things that involve a lot of pain -- and some of them enjoy that. Think of the "Runner's high" some athletes get.

I think though that if you hit a level of mutilation that is permanently and seriously disfiguring or maiming, the victim has crossed a line where their sanity can be questions. And if insane, again, they are not capable of consent.

But again illustrated depictions have to be allowed -- heck much religious art is based on the depiction of people undergoing severe torture.

88 posted on 04/01/2006 8:34:49 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Do you think it's OK for a woman to be paid to be sexually tortured with needles, nails, fire, electricity, suffocation, and whips to the point of getting welts and bleeding?

Would you feel better if she did this for free?

89 posted on 04/01/2006 8:35:44 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

"To the former agreed. So, in other words drug-addicted women, instead of getting money for drugs through prostitution, would get it through money the government took from taxpayers. I love how every solution, means more money from taxpayers. I agree that legalizing drugs would cost the taxpayers big time, but I'm not sure it would end prostitution."

Yea because ending the billion dollar war on drugs, and then taxing drug sales would cost you money.


90 posted on 04/01/2006 8:37:16 PM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

"Molestation is not a free speech right."

So...let's keep the status quo and pretend there is no link between porn and violence and everytime we read another horrifying story of torture committed against an innocent child we'll just shake our heads and say "what a shame."

""But is shouldn't have us looking at steps to prevent sane, law-abiding people from purchasing guns."

A gun, in itself, does not encourage fantasies to shoot.
Should we really be surprised when a person who views child porn eventually molests a child? No.

"And alcohol. Don't forget alcohol... oh, yeah... that's legal. And when a person commits a crime while under the influence of alcohol, we punish them for the crime. However, when a person has a drink or three at home, we don't punish them."

As a person who lives in meth country I can tell you the comparison to alchohol doesn't fly.
It isn't just that certain drugs quickly turn people into addicted zombies - it's also the affect of these addictions on children and even on neighbors who have to worry about their well water becoming toxic or being robbed by the addicts next door.


"I'm saying porn and drugs should be treated the same."

Oh - I'll agree with that...I think they both should be illegal :)


91 posted on 04/01/2006 8:38:50 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions

"That's the dream "free society" that libertarians want to live in. It bears little resemblance, as libertarians will freely point out when pressed, to the society we actually live in. Try telling the police officer, the next time he pulls you over doing 100 in a 55 zone that your actions don't directly infringe on anyone's rights and that he has no business telling you what you can do.

So do a good job at parenting and your kids won't be exposed.

Yes, I should restrict my liberty so you can excercise yours. That's a good deal for me how, exactly?"

1) The roads were built and are owned by teh government, I have to follow their rules to use their roads, i accept that.

2) Uh, your trying to take away our freedoms so you have the freedom to not raise your kid? Nice try.


92 posted on 04/01/2006 8:40:14 PM PST by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Panerai

We don't think it's a lost cause," said Harmer.

"It's the most profitable industry in the world."

Who exactly has brain damage???


93 posted on 04/01/2006 8:40:37 PM PST by calljack (Sometimes your worst nightmare is just a start.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Panerai

Good luck trying to regulate supply and demand. Many have tried. All have failed.


94 posted on 04/01/2006 8:41:55 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (None genuine without my signature)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife
A gun, in itself, does not encourage fantasies to shoot.

Um.... yes, it does.... Not that I ever lived them out... but there were times that I just wished someone would try to break into my house, so I could do it legally.

As a person who lives in meth country I can tell you the comparison to alchohol doesn't fly.

As a person who spent all his life on college campuses (including 3 years at Michigan, when marijuana posession with a scoff law), I'm convinced alcohol is a more dangerous and damaging drug than marijuana. Which leads me to be suspicious of the whole WOD.

95 posted on 04/01/2006 8:43:35 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
Because child sex is considered a non-consensual act. Note that porn with adults portraying children or fiction involving children having sex (Lolita for example) are considered free speech.

By the way, if you want to see where widespread use of pornography by males lead, you should take a good look at the marriage and birth rates in Japan. I get a real kick out of people telling me that Japanese have a healthy attitude toward sex because they allow nudity on television and such but relations between the sexes are highly dysfunctional in Japan. Real women aren't the sex toys depicted in Japanese pornography and have no interested in being treated that way.

Perhaps... But their tragedy does not give them the privilege to take away my rights.

Sure it does. You'll notice that we arrest people for drunk driving because of the harm that drunk drivers often do, even if the drunk driver hasn't actually caused an accident or hurt anyone. Libertarians like to talk about the right of a person to swing their fist ending with another person's nose. It doesn't take a genius to realize that recklessly swung fists are a hit nose waiting to happen and that it makes a lot of sense to stop the swinging fists before someone gets a bloody nose (or a parent loses a child to a drunk driver).

Carolyn McCarthy has based her congressional career on opposition to the second amendment, due to her husband having been killed and son wounded by gunman on their train. Her tragedy does not make the 2nd Amendment go away.

What makes a gun different from alcohol, drugs, or sex is that unlike those activities, the gun does not directly affect the chemistry of the brain of the user. Shooting a gun doesn't cause an orgasm, a high, or mentail impariment the way alcohol, drugs, and sex do. It wasn't the gun that enabled those murders or encouraged them. Guns don't rob people of their ability to make sound and responsible judgements. Alcohol, drugs, and sometimes even sex can.

That's also why we ban child pornography and adult-child sex across the board rather than wondering whether a particular child is mature enough to make those choices for themselves (after all, Tracy Lords turned out OK, right?). We know that adults can't be trusted to no coerce children into sex and that sex can mess children up.

96 posted on 04/01/2006 8:45:38 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
We can legalize drugs, so that the government can pay for the drugs needed by drug addicts, and all their health care costs, and living expenses.

then taxing drug sales would cost you money.

I knew it "taxing." Taxes, taxes, taxes. At least you admit you are a socialist. Because if anyone who earns their money gets to keep it, you just couldn't sleep at night.

97 posted on 04/01/2006 8:48:58 PM PST by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
I think any consensual act should be allowed and should be allowed to be displayed.

Do you think payment clouds the issue of consent because some people may be coerced to do things they wouldnt' normally do out of desperation? Do you think that the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, that prohibits slavery, should be repealed for those who consent to being slaves or indentured servants in exchange for money?

Torture is a touchier subject.... If someone is actually being tortured I could question their sanity... OTOH, there are other people who do physically grueling things that involve a lot of pain -- and some of them enjoy that. Think of the "Runner's high" some athletes get.

Watch the episode of Frontline that I posted the link to. They have a description of a porn shoot that involves a woman actually getting smacked around that was so disturbing that the Frontline crew left the shoot. They also talk about how the producer convinced the woman to go along with it. Very enlightening.

I think though that if you hit a level of mutilation that is permanently and seriously disfiguring or maiming, the victim has crossed a line where their sanity can be questions. And if insane, again, they are not capable of consent.

Would you support a blanket ban of such pornography?

But again illustrated depictions have to be allowed -- heck much religious art is based on the depiction of people undergoing severe torture.

I'm not talking about illustrations nor simulations or special effects. The beating in The Passion, done as acting, as very different from actually beating an actor with a whip until they bleed.

98 posted on 04/01/2006 8:52:25 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian

"Um.... yes, it does.... Not that I ever lived them out... but there were times that I just wished someone would try to break into my house, so I could do it legally.
"

Wow. Thanks for that insight.

"As a person who spent all his life on college campuses (including 3 years at Michigan, when marijuana posession with a scoff law), I'm convinced alcohol is a more dangerous and damaging drug than marijuana. Which leads me to be suspicious of the whole WOD."

Doctors have found that alcohol in moderation is actually healthy.
There definitely is a problem with people who do not use it in moderation. These people cause havoc and they harm the rights of others.
Because they do this now - I don't think the answer is to provide MORE harmful/damaging substances to society so that there can be MORE harm done.
You are suggesting we damage our society even more because some people are already damaging it.

My eyelids are heavy.A good evening to you, and if you get the chance if you're interested - read up on the damage met is doing to many communities.


99 posted on 04/01/2006 8:52:26 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369

to keep it out of the hands of children.


100 posted on 04/01/2006 8:52:33 PM PST by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-305 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson