Posted on 04/11/2006 7:39:19 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Well, I happened to see two young persons watching a DVD in the backseat of the family van when I stopped at Wal-Mart the other day. The flashing pictures of two females in 'action' didn't appear to be the sort of DVD a mother would leave in the van for her kids to entertain themselves with (it was an 'exercise' vid with very scantily clad females of voluptuous proportions). I've actually seen A DVD porn on a screen in a vehicle I passed on the interstate.
coffee spit on screen alert!!!
:)
 |
|
A very great man once said something to the effect of, "Men will sin, but woe be to the one who helps them sin." The porn "industry" needs both suppliers and users. Both are guilty.
Good point and I agree. However, I have to ask the rhetorical question: "guilty of what?" Maybe nature is guilty of giving us sexual urges. If porn caused the release of endorphins that made us sick instead of giving us a "good" feeling then there wouldn't be any complaint about porn. BUT, pictures of naked women would still be pictures of naked women. |
"If 1950's Playboy was pornography what the hell do we call the statue of David?"
Wishful thinking???
Heheh.
I have yet to decide whether the Beatles were a symptom of postwar liberalism, or the cause itself. I have always assumed the latter (of course speaking mainly of Paul and John) - that they crafted their communism knowing that people would buy it wholesale. But I could be wrong, perhaps folks wanted such tripe from anyone who would sell it to them.
Anyway, you're right. Hefner was not alone, it was an entire culture of Russ Meyers/Ed Wood/ and many others who built empires by paying women to eagerly exploit themselves.
As an aside- I hold the view that sex will be done anyway, except that people will lie about it. I would personally prefer that this sadness is documented on film in order to educate the hordes of naive men and women who always fall victim to life's cheaters, players, and sluts by their own denial and ignorance. Many who are anti-porn seem to think these are angels who would keep their legs closed, if not for the camera and a paycheck. That is a laughable notion... completely foolish.
It appears like your theory is all screwed up.......
I don't like abortion but I don't see how you can link that to pornography - and like I said I don't even think you can call Playboy 'pornography'.
Actually, Hugh can have a deathbed conversion and still be redeemed, according to some interpretations. Not that I'm suggesting that as a plan.
"We were at the LONG BEACH GRAND PRIX Sunday and Hefner was there celebrating his 80th birthday. We didn't see him. We did see Paul Newman though!"
Paul Newman ... I wouldn't give a nickel to see that A-Hole. Another hollywood lib shooting his mouth off. He can take his "Newman's Own" product line and stick it where the sun don't shine.
The most evil and misogynistic societies on earth (those ruled in accordance with the dictates of the Religion of Peace[tm]) are also the ones guided by Colson's notion that allowing men to view female bodies will cause them to misbehave.
Partly I agree, but I do know that passons can be inflamed and they can be suppressed.
Shalom.
There are stories on FR about incidents of this
Equating what Hugh Hefner did in the 1950s with modern-day pornography, much less even something like Larry Flynt's Hustler Magazine, is absurd.
If anything, Hef is similar to Jann Wenner of "Rolling Stone" magazine fame. A long time ago it was a breakthrough of sorts, but it has long since stopped being relevant to Zeitgeist. Plus, today's Playmates are Photoshopped and siliconed to ridiculous levels.
|
| Statistics actually refute your main argument, that porn has led to increased violence against women. While I agree 100% with your statistics and I certainly believe them to be correct, you cannot make the conclusion that porn does not increase instances of rape. Rape may have decreased by 40% instead of 20% if porn did not exist. One simply cannot come to the conclusion that either one is responsible for the other. |
You specifically said "better place." There are lots of men's magazines and will be lots more. What made Playboy different was not the articles, liberal or otherwise, nor the style nor the culture, but the "tasteful" photos. If they had simply been photos of beautiful women, you would not feel the need to qualify them as "tasteful." You have to add that qualifier because the unique addition of Playboy was the nudity.
So I am back to my question. How does the publication of photos of nude women, tasteful or otherwise, make the world a better place?
Shalom.
As for porn, I think the worst thing that has happened to it, is its mainstreaming. Porn will never be !PORN! again, if ya catch my drift...
Used to live in Shreveport. I remember the old drive in on Hearne (Sunset Drive In?) Used to be fun to drive south going home from church.
parsy, who tries to stay pure.
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.