Posted on 12/09/2004 1:16:14 PM PST by Lindykim
Well said.
To me it's all a form of pornography, the Victoria's Secret catalogue, the fashion show, Miss America, Miss Universe, and women’s beach volleyball. They're all designed to elicit prurient interest in women's bodies. While they're at it, the women's groups should protest the Victoria's Secret TV commericals. Those chicks are half naked, for goodness sake!
"Pornography appeals only to our darkest, most base appetites. There is nothing 'good' about it. It cannot be said of it that it promotes dignity, honor, trustworthiness, selfcontrol, selfrespect, decency, fidelity, commitment, or any other of the virtues."
Whatever you do -- don't post a picture of her.
Or else we'll all turn into uncontrollable criminals.
Are the Japanese reproducing themselves at replacement rates? They're not, so I rest my case.
I have no problems with self-control. I'm opposed to intrusive government control into the private activities of consenting adults.
It has been 60 years since a Broadway musical portrayed what social scientists and criminal analysis have now found to be true -- addiction to pornography can lead to violent sexual behavior
I realize it may seem like nit-picking semantics, but it really isn't. Just as the choice of the "shall" or "may" in a statute makes a major difference in just what a statute says, so does the choice between the words "can" and "will."
By your claim of "everyone" you insinuated the word "will," which is actually refuted by the article.
With all of that said, I agree with the premise of the article and the documentation being used to back it up. It's one glaring fault lies in the lack of mention, other than the word "can", of the fact the vast majority of men who crack open a Playboy magazine of occassion do not become another Ted Bundy.
Many women are no more enlightened than many men--it isn't a sex-linked trait.
But face it, men lead this stuff off, they are the patrons overwhemlingly--the women involved are weak, stupid and mostly from abused situations. A special I saw recently spoke of the number of runaways and addicts in this stuff.
And if they're not already addicted, their "producers" are happey to get them strung out to get more "product" out of them. NOT a victimless crime.
Too many of these lost, damaged women want to please the 'man'--looking for 'Daddy'--and they'll sell everything for that. Human throwaways.
Very sad but all the more reason that the good men of this world need to stand up and become the best they can be and disavow this stuff.
No, we are to conclude that, like any other studies, some are fatally flawed and others less so. We don't throw out all the studies as irrelevant because some contradict others, we root out those that are bogus and keep nailing down the truth.
You can usually spot this bunch by the stalwart defense of the notion that human beings should only have sex to procreate.
No, I havn't. I'll be the first to admit a few things, I guess, though.
1. I'm human. Male, straight, and imperfect. I find the female form very attractive (in limited instances) and that is part of the natural state of things. I was made that way for a reason.
2. I don't much care for Porn, and I don't go out of my way to view it.
With that in mind, I do have a problem with people with an agenda who basically say "If you look at the Victoria's Secret catalog, you'll end up kidnapping co-eds to rape and murder them". the "logic" used to reach that conclusion is specious, and there is an obvious agenda behind it - Control. Period.
So sue me ;0)
Heathen!
Right you are, sir! I somehow forgot that Ms. Laetitia has modeled for VS, probably since she doesn't look like an emaciated junky but rather like a healthy adult babe.
Are you sure? There wasn't a pubic hair on the can?
Wow. Jump to conclusions without any facts much?
I'm not gonna waste my time with people like you, who have zero evidence of anything, so resort to personal attacks.
Piss off.
The production of pornographic imagery does not constitute a "private activity between consenting adults."
Most of these women were abused sexually as kids.... so porn in a very real sense is a product fed by this. I don't think I have ever read an interview with a PS where she didn't mention her early 'initiation' into sex.
So when I see porn, I see the end product of sexual abuse.
I shudder to think of young men today beginning their ogling rituals with the bizarre stuff that's only a mouse click away now.
It seems impossible to sort through the haystacks of sin and assign order and cause to any one category. Yet I often wonder if outrage over some extreme--in this case, porn--isn't a rabbit trail away from the more common devastations of divorce, adultery, remarriage, fornication, etc. Where is the apocalyptic outrage over these?
Clearly more people are indulging in actual sinful relationships than in the imaginary (for the viewer, not the actors) sinful relationships of pornography. I strongly believe that pornography has risen as an ersatz sexual outlet due to the contaminating effects of divorce and family disintegration.
Into that void comes all manner of false charms to soothe, especially impressionable, vagabond children.
I admit that porn has ruined my generation of men. We expect our women to be big-busted, flat-tummied, firm-assed, clean-shaven, bisexual, stilleto and fishnet wearing nymphettes.
We're the victims here.
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.