The Road to Perversion Is Paved With Pornography

Concerned Women for America ^ | 4/13/06 | Jan LaRue

[mountainfolk]

You have stated a hard truth. We are what we think. Recreational sex and pornography have been draped with the mantle of sophistication. The word itself has been diluted to be deceptive to any who might be put off by harsh reality . We are told there is hard porn and soft porn. Diluted porn is still porn. So we now have little girls dressing to sexually attract males and countless babies being aborted or born out of wedlock because morality is not even in the sexual equation. I often wonder if our nation has hit the moral bottom yet.

[domenad]

Excuse me madam but I am the final arbiter of the state of my conscience. NOT you. It is clear.

[Ken H]

I am one who does see a cause and effect relationship between porn and sex crimes/sinful behavior (consenting adults be danged) being on the rise.

"Since 1993, rape/sexual assault has fallen by over 64%."

--http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html

[Oztrich Boy]

Look, I am not pro-porn, but the logic here is terrible. Therefore stratight guys looking at porn are responsbile for pedophiles?

Well I blame volley-ball.

[twippo]

Isn't it interesting that adult bookstore owners seem to know definitively what pornography is, but not the members of the SCOTUS?

[nickcarraway]

I'm not saying it's not their decision, just that the rest of us pay for his irresponsibility. If everyone acts irresponsibly, freedom will not survive.

[LongsforReagan]

"- Yet another knee-jerk Libertarian strawman because you're unable to grasps simple concepts such as supply-and-demand and personal responsibility".

Exactly.

[70times7]

This is just so much nonsense. The Christian church is eaten up with guys who use the stuff. Ask any pastor. There have been stories posted here about how seminary students are huge porn viewers.

That is true. The difference is that Christians, for the most part, know just how difficult and dangerous a problem this is. Golly gee, how much easier it is to say it is normal and/or natural and/or none of anyone else's business! Have you read or listened to the James Dobson interview w/ Ted Bundy?

So many are ignorant. Who is in more trouble? The heroin addict who knows there is a problem but is trapped, or the one who thinks there is no problem because they enjoy their natural, normal outlet and can walk away any time?

Those of you who think this is just about those who are "predisposed", please grab your popcorn and sit back to watch. The things that that are happening way to often now that many excuse as what "happened but was simply not reported" in the old days - those things are going to explode on us all with a frequency that will make NAMBLA members giggle with delight. We will be longing for the good old days prior to 2010 when the USA was safer for our kids.

Or is my memory foggy? Did we have gay and lesbian "families" lining up at the white house for the egg hunt 30 years ago? No? We were so stilted in our forward thinking back then...

[brytlea]

Well, thank you for an honest answer.
susie

[rzeznikj at stout]

Yes it is.

And the sadder thing is that SCOTUS has had numerous cases over the past 100 years to figure it out...

[redgolum]

Jude, the damage of looking a pictures of pretty naked women is, in my view, at least twofold: (1) Those are real women someplace on this earth, and they, too, have souls. (2) The Christian men who look are testifying that the Lord is not sufficient for them....and in that they grieve the Spirit and affirm a lingering idolatry.

Great points, and ones often missed. Most of these women that pose for this stuff are lost.

[TradicalRC]

Thing-prohibition has been tried time and time again and is always a failure with consequences worse than any harm remedied by them.

Untrue. Abortion and porn were prohibited right up until the seventies and we also had blue laws not too long ago. I don't see anything that shows the consequences of those restrictions were worse than what we have now.

[TradicalRC]

No kidding. I mean, these girls are not even pre-teens, for crying out loud. They're eight and nine year olds wearing low-riders and explicit shirts.

No kidding. But I'm sure THAT has Nothing To Do with our Culture of Pornography.

[Wycowboy]

This story is baloney. There is NO PORN on the Internet.

You don't know what you are talking about!!! It is spelled BALOGNA!!!

[TradicalRC]

"Since 1993, rape/sexual assault has fallen by over 64%." --http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html

True, along with most other crime. Stephen Leavitt talks about the decrease in violent crime in Freakonomics. The reason? Criminals are being aborted. However, there is more to the statistics from that site: i.e.

"Because of the methodology of the National Crime Victimization Survey, these figures do not include victims 12 or younger. While there are no reliable annual surveys of sexual assaults on children, (pdf) the Justice Department has estimated that one of six victims are under age 12."

[John O]

It is one sticky problem. Basically, I guess kids don't really need to be on the internet really. But they teach computers to second graders so that's not very practical.

www.truevine.net

Server-side family friendly internet. (14.95/month if bought 1 year at a time) They block all porn from ever getting to your house. Being server-side filtered there is no way for the kids to defeat the filtering (as they could on a client-side filtering solution) They also block access to all known 'free' internet providers so the kids can't get around the protection without a credit card.

I've found I can get access to anything I want that is family friendly. If it's not family friendly then why would I want to go there anyway.

[Aliska]

Thank you for that. It is good to know. I don't need it, but some of my family members with children should look into it.

I never was too sold on filters on the user end that they would actually work the way I intended. Some bad stuff could slip through and good stuff blocked unintentially.

[mjwise]

Class V: Sick and Twisted:....inanimate objects....

(Sorry for replying so "late" but I just now found this thread from Part II)

A woman using a dildo is considered sick and twisted? Ruh roh. Better go hide all the broomsticks....bbl. ;)

Also, where do images of masturbation fall under? And what if it's a guy who took pictures of himself with intent to spread them to other guys? Would that automatically make them gay by context or is it only gay if there are two+ men or women involved? What about anal sex? Is that always Class V or is still considered Class IV when it's between a man and a woman? Is an orgy always Class V even if women only interact with men and vice versa (i.e. no same-sex activity) So many questions - and I bring them up for a reason. I don't think you've thought your idea through clearly.