Posted on 05/14/2014 10:36:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Thirty years ago Congress passed protective measures regarding pornography. On May 21, 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Child Protection Act, which was supposed to protect persons younger than 18 from exploitation by pornographers. (Other measures were designed to keep those under 18 from accessing pornography.) Two months later President Reagan signed into law the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, designed to keep persons below age 21 from purchasing alcoholic beverages.
Now, visualize this scene: Herbie, 13, walks into his local tavern and asks for a vodka martini—shaken, not stirred. Tex the barkeep asks, “Are you at least 21 years old?” Herbie says, “Sure.” Tex serves him. As he sips, Herbie pulls out his iPhone and watches a pornographic scene. I suspect most of you know what’s wrong with that picture: In all 50 states Herbie would not get his martini. Tex or anyone else would card him, demanding a driver’s license or other official proof that Herbie is at least 21. But the porn? No one would interfere.
The poet Ogden Nash (1902-1971) wrote, “Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.” Today, I’d add another line with a different rhyme scheme: “Porn’s even faster but it leaves you forlorn.” I won’t go into detail here, but relatively few porn sites electronically card users. Some require use of a credit card to access much of their content, but even they are like bars at which persons of any age can get drunk.
And yet, pornography is a huge problem not only among adults but among children and teenagers as well. If you’re sending your very well-mannered children to college and the dorm Wi-Fi has no filtering mechanism, they are likely to be exposed early and often to hard-core porn—and some become addicted. Even if it does have a filter, your son and perhaps your daughter will probably see porn at some point.
Why the difference between alcohol and pornography, both products that sideswipe many teens? Thirty years ago President Reagan at the signing ceremony said he would appoint a commission to investigate pornography, and he did. Attorney General Ed Meese headed it up, citizens including James Dobson served on it—and the press ridiculed its serious conclusions. The U.S. Supreme Court also failed to take pornography seriously enough to change the almost-anything-goes attitude it had pioneered during the 1960s.
Now, as the group Enough Is Enough reports, porn makes up more than one-third of the internet industry and earns its purveyors more than $3,000 per second. Porn sites get more visitors each month than Twitter, Netflix, and Amazon combined. Most teens view pornography online, and one survey of 16- to 20-year-olds found nearly one out of four young men and one out of 10 young women admitting they tried to kick the habit but could not. Many young men expect dates and wives to perform as do actresses in the 11,000 porn films shot each year.
Need other dire stats? Witherspoon Institute conference research (proceedings published as “The Social Costs of Pornography”) showed that two-thirds of 18-to-34-year-old men visit porn sites regularly. (My hunch is that many of them go to church less often in part because they marry less often, and they marry less often in part because they access pornography more often.) Many men find it harder to relate to real women. Most divorces involve one partner compulsively using pornography.
Does this evidence mean legislators should act? Here’s the problem: A push to restrict pornography can play into the hands of those who hate Christian truth-telling. Now that influential atheists and secularists hope to restrict evangelistic efforts, our legal protection is the First Amendment proclamation of freedom for religion, speech, and the press—but since pornographers also rely on that amendment (as mistakenly interpreted), limits on it will rain on the innocent as well as the guilty.
A hard truth: Christians are a minority in America, and minorities should oppose increases in majoritarian power. A hard question: If we now should be quiescent on one issue to lessen the likelihood of a spillover to another, what hope do we have for constructive change? Not much, except what Christians have learned throughout the ages: Our hope is in the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth. He changes hearts and viewing patterns.
So, after combing through the notes: What is it that I disagree with him on - specifically?
What I wrote says that I don’t like to have my comment(s) taken out of context, that I think the post was trollish and meant purely for argument, and that I don’t care to have an opinion laid onto me that I do not believe.
What have you found in all of your careful research?
Everyone sees what they want to see. Like wearing glasses of varying colors and darkness.
But if a person is willing to give up fondly held beliefs in order to see the truth, they will see it; it’s like wearing clear glasses that don’t block out anything.
No problem, mischaracterizations of people’s posts seem to be flying around pretty freely on this thread, I can see how it could get confusing.
I saw the comment before it was pulled. He asked if they would suffer permanent harm from seeing it, even if they did not continue to view it after that.
The only statements that I've seen to the effect that it does not harm them have come from you mischaracterizing that question.
Direct quote. Doesn't say "if they don't continue to view it after that. That's your addition. You want to support pornography "use" among young people, go right ahead. Worst case is a comment might get pulled and then you can claim you didn't say it exaclty like that.
I didn’t attempt to pervert what you wrote. I simply misunderstood your intent. I didn’t realize it was a flippant comment. All you needed to do was explain what you really meant instead of getting all riled up (assuming you were indeed riled up, because I could again be mistaken). I certainly didn’t mean you any ill will.
BTW, I don’t actually disagree with your comment about feminists. I also agree I sometimes miss flippant remarks and misconstrue them to be serious debate. Text alone is a pretty poor means of communication. Again, you could have easily and politely defused it all by simply posting you were poking fun at feminists and agreed porn can be addictive.
Why don’t you guys just ask the admin what I said, or if he will reinstate the comment, that way, this issue will be cleared up.
Show me the original statement, and I'll retract. Until then I trust my own memory more than I do you.
Fine with me.
I could be wrong. Does it match what LJ is claiming is "direct quote" from your post at 28 or has that been edited?
Put it this way, if I was a betting man...I’d go with you
Who needs pr0n when you have Free Republic?
Cheers!
Satan’s second best trick, after convincing the world he didn’t exist, was getting it to call porn “adult entertainment”.
bump
Men need to rediscover masculinity combined with teasing.
Works every time, once you learn how.
You know you’re doing it right when she gives a little angry titter, and slaps your arm, saying, “Will you *quit* ?!” while her eyes shine at you.
Cheers!
I think that is true. The men in my life teased me and I loved it. I think it sort of recapitulates the teasing a father does with young daughters. A safe and giggly time.
Young teens have been getting pregnant long before the existence of Internet porn.
So you’re saying pornogragphy is okay for 13 year olds to watch, or what? Be honest with point, please.
Porn is a war on men. Women in porn are paid much more than men in porn. Or so I’ve heard.
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.