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

To: Celtjew Libertarian

"Was it porn that twisted the mind? Or was it porn that the person used to try to divert an already twisted mind?"

It's probably a little of both.
A person who makes the decision, first of all, to view porn has made a decision to look at something twisted.
It is not real - it is a distorted and twisted image.
The image reinforces the desire - and maybe to "graduate" to a greater degree of depravity.

A man may stop here (viewing adult women) - or he may decide to view teenage girls. He may stop there or go on to view children.

It doesn't matter to the victims who are raped, kidnapped, or killed though.
They don't get the luxury of considering the first amendment right of their attacker or of the porn industry.

And as long as their are people out there who think this stuff is harmless - there will continue to be a steady flow of innocent victims.



39 posted on 04/01/2006 7:28:24 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: Scotswife
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?

They don't get the luxury of considering the first amendment right of their attacker or of the porn industry.

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.

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.

47 posted on 04/01/2006 7:42:37 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: Scotswife

You are making the same argument gun controllers use to disarm the people. Because some extreme nutballs claim porn made them commit sex crimes, you assume every man that looks at girly pictures on the net is a sex criminal. Argue against the stuff based on what it is, filth and smut. Argue that a man who is genuinely loved and adored by his woman shouldn't need to use pornography. There you'd be entirely correct.

If a normal man is left alone with internet porn it quickly becomes downright boring after a while, much like somebody eating too much ice cream when they'd rather have a steak. Smut isn't a real woman, just pictures and movies. No smell, no touch, nothing real. Making it illegal creates curiosity, desire, and demand. Most of the stuff on the net is pretty benign, not nearly as racy as the hardcore stuff of my boyhood. People scream about all kinds of weirdness out there but that's not what most adult websites produce. Looking at one of them is pretty much like looking at any other. It's boring.

People have a right to view adult materials in their home. I think much of daytime television and the dopey soap operas, full of implied sex are quite vulgar. That doesn't mean they should be banned. Men will be men. And teenaged boys will do the same. That's who looks at adult stuff. Women tend toward the romance novels and soaps.

Porn on the net is a good deal safer than the seedy bookstores in crime infested areas of my youth. We went to some places that were absolute horror houses. Inside people's homes is the best possible place for looking at filth. It's a darn sight better than thirty years ago when adult shops, bookstores, theatres, and arcades were everywhere.

Keep it legal and private. Then teach our sons and grandsons the rights and wrongs of sex and relationships. Neither of my grown sons use the stuff. Porn is off our streets and in the homes of users. That's the best place for it.


249 posted on 04/02/2006 10:48:35 PM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

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