Pornography Is Anything But A Victimless Crime

Concerned Women For America ^ | Dec. 8, 2004 | Cheri Pierson Yecke

[Modernman]

All laws are legislated morality. Sex has a moral component to it.

Sure, all laws legislate morality, but not all morality can properly be turned into legislation.

Or are you in favor of outlawing the worship of false idols?

So if someone can find themselves some consenting 14 year olds then hey, that's cool.

Strawman. As you must surely know, minors are legally presumed to be unable to consent to certain things. We're talking about pornography involving only consenting adults.

[najida]

It was on an EP of CSI: Miami :)

[Politicalities]

You want to unravel society? The level of porn that is pervasive today is a good start. Don't care about society? Enjoy your porn.

What's the deal, here? Does anyone know what a logical fallacy is anymore? Is the art of debate at long last dead?

[Chances Are]

What I want to know is, if Ted Bundy, as the article states, fished porn out of his neighbor's trash, and consequently went on one of his murderous rampages, whatever happened to his neighbor?

CA....

[Innisfree]

Indeed, hedonism does not lead one to a glorious utopia but straight to Hell.

[Chad Fairbanks]

His neighbor was The Green River Killer, I guess. But they didn't catch him as soon, because Bundy had all the guy's porn.

[Melas]

Sad thing is the comparison would be lost on them. They'd just become incensed at the idea, and not recognize the underlying truth of the matter.

[tutstar]

Thanks! It's actually hubby's idea. I'd love to see it happen!! The porn heads can do their thing and we don't have to guard against it so diligently.

[ecurbh]

Jud Fry -- one of the characters in the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical Oklahoma! lives in a shack that is papered with pornographic images. He is a loner, lacks social skills, and is feared by his neighbors. He is clearly capable of murder. This insight into the character of a porn addict hit the Broadway stage in 1943.

The problem here is that correlation does not prove causation. Was he a murderous antisocial loner because he had porn on his walls, or did he have porn on his walls because he was a murderous antisocial loner?

[najida]

Chicken or the egg, which came first.

[TChris]

Excusing the foul actions of others because "porn made them do it" is not a conservative position.

I never said anything about excusing anyone. I am pro-gun and drive an SUV too. :-)

However, my approach to porn is similar to the way our society is beginning to approach drunk driving. We must recognize the cause and effect relationship involved with the problem, as well as holding criminals responsible for their actions. Just as drunk driving carries a high risk of causing death and injury to the driver and others, consumption of pornography increases the likelyhood of harm to others around him. Not necessarily physical harm, but very real harm nonetheless.

[Modernman]

Uh..it's called LYING...doh!..something your friendly neighborhood porn merchant probably doesn't lose sleep over.

The mainstream porn companies, such as Vivid (which is traded on the NYSE, by the way), Playboy, Hustler etc. are scrupulous about employing only women over the age of 18. These are big corporations with too much to lose.

No legit porn producer is going to hire a performer who might be underage. It's just not worth the risk since there are so many 18+ old girls willing to do porn.

The only way you're going to end up watching kiddie porn is if you go looking for it.

[tx_eggman]

People like yourself scare me...would you outlaw bikinis? Skirts? Mandate that women wear slacks? Because basically, what you are arguing is that impure thoughts should be banned, which is just absurd.

The religion of peace solved this problem with burkas ...

[Melas]

You make me snide.

Oh grow up. I have a 12 year old and a 10 year old at home. I get the "He made me hit him" bravo seirra enough at home that I don't need to hear it from allegedly adult freepers. I didn't make you do a damned thing. You're grown and in control of your own actions.

[Politicalities]

All your rebuttals focus on the consumer of the pornography. The more obvious victims in the cycle are those around the consumer: his wife, children and (in the case of a rapist or pedophile) his victims. Those hurt most are not typically consumers themselves, futher burying the idea that nobody's rights are harmed by pornography. The pornography user's victims had no choice in the matter!

By that logic, we can ban smoking, because a man's wife and children will be hurt if he dies of lung cancer. We can ban Big Macs, because society will bear the brunt of the bills for unclogging the consumer's arteries. We can, in fact, ban anything that's even remotely risky... which, in practice, is everything.

Your life belongs to you. Not to the government, not to your wife, not to your children, and definitely not to "society". You are the only one who is responsible for your own choices, and you are the only one who can decide what risks to assume.

[fr_freak]

"The Declaration of Degradation. Our founders fought to protect our God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of smut. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are weak, base, self-indulgent and vile."

Written by a man who used slaves to finance his lavish lifestyle and either used them for sex or allowed his family members to do so.

You seem to have a great dislike for the Founding Fathers. I understand that it is fairly well documented that Jefferson had a child with one of his slaves, but I have not heard that it was documented that he "used" her for sex (as opposed to actual feelings of affection) or that he handed his slaves out as sex toys.

While I don't believe it to be impossible that he did do these things, I think it is a fallacy to judge past men's characters by standards of today. Slavery was not only legal but common then. Jefferson grew up with slaves. To blame him for slavery as a whole, or some of the accepted behavior toward slaves is silly. Jefferson may well have reached a point in his life where he realized slavery was wrong, but think of the independent thinking and rebellious spirit it would take to arrive at that conclusion in the midst of a society which still promotes slavery.

More importantly, however, one should not dismiss a man's ideas and contributions to humankind based on modern interpretations of past societal values. Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers produced one of the greatest revolutions of political thought ever seen in human history. Even if Jefferson and some others were flawed in some ways, such as weak sexual mores and the like, to dismiss their works and ideas based on your modern interpretation of their historical values is assinine. It would be equivalent to someone in a more puritannical future dismissing every idea you've had because they discover that you once championed the rights of pornographers.

[Theophilus]

I think that anything that is addictive is unhealthy for the addicted person. I think that anything that is degrading is unhealthy for the degraded person. In pornography both the addict and the object are cruelly victimizing each other and are being victimized by all of the panderers and abusers who facilitate the activity. Some say that porn can be non-addictive or non-degrading, like alcohol, but I just can't wrap my brain around that concept. It's just pure denial. And if you admit that it is addictive and/or degrading, then you have to confess that it is evil.

[Modernman]

Whether viewed on a billboard or in a million, other private homes, it is not a private activity, by any definition of the word.

How can an activity that only occurs in private ever be considered public?

[ContemptofCourt]

What I find fascinating is that the author of the article is basing her support on the rantings of Ted Bundy. I guess I go wack 30 people, I'll become an expert in porn's social affects as well....

[Melas]

As a geezerette, I am noting an escalation in mis-informed expectations and downright cluelessness. But I haven't done a double blind study with a signification statistical population starting with lab rats and progressing to couples in 4237 cities running for 5 years :)

Well, if you ever find the grant money, I'm willing to look at back issues of Playboy for hours at a time for the right price.