Posted on 02/14/2013 6:08:31 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
As far as I know, that's not new: societies have long been concerned about protecting women and children (and young males, for that matter), because of the links between "transgressive" sexual entertainment, and, well: transgression.
It will be argued that arousal/stimulation doesn't impact attitudes and behavior.
Really?
Advertizing doesn't ramp up demand?
Arousal patttern training doesn't affect arousal pattern?
All those billions of dollars to Madison Avenue are for nothing, because exciting visual stuff doesn't fuel what people consider exciting or desirable? It has no impact on what people want to have or get, or how they want to have it or get it?
A conversation-starter.
LJ, you have mail.
I am glad we have a 1st Amendment to protect us against this silliness.
A ban on not attending church would be more helpful.
Sounds like an idea worth considering
It’s in the dead of winter up there...lack of sunshine makes people do screwy things.
Do you really want the Govt controlling an Internet filter?
I definitely don’t think we should go the other way and legalize kiddie porn like pervertland Japan
In before the, “This thread is useless without pics!” comment.
Seriously, advertising works. So does porn. It serves a purpose, to entertain and stimulate. That raises several questions: Is the stimulation from porn good or bad?
If it’s bad, does government have the right to ban or control it? What if a community wants to permit it?
If government has a right to ban or control porn, how does one effectively do that without affecting other harmless information. For example, would filtering stop the picture of a nude woman? What about medical journals? Art?
Please answer my question, do you want a US Gov agency to control what we view on the internet? Kiddie porn is already illegal and should remain so.
While it is a nice thought, all it would achieve would be to create a new, profitable, black market.
Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn Porn
I dont think it’s silly.
An irrelevant debate, since it will be impossible to control access to internet pornography regardless of what laws are passed.
You must have missed that thread last week. Libertarians are all in favor of it.
The government should make laws, not carry it out. The President already has a "kill switch", so I guess this is all academic anyways.
Silly? Desperate times call for desperate measures?
I do take issue with the “poor women” tack taken with pornography by cultures that want to have their cake and eat it, too. How are the men acting in porn or the men watching it not degraded also? And how do all those poor lil’ ladies end up as adult performers? Greed couldn’t have anything to do with it...
The Bible—the most honest book on sex in the world—hardly portrays women as sexual innocents. Quite often they are the predators.
>>”Iceland is taking a very progressive approach that no other democratic country has tried,” said Professor Gail Dines, an expert on pornography
I thought it was the progressives that wanted porn in every classroom?
I’m for blocking Porn on all ISP’s, how’s that for a thought starter.
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.