Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lindykim
When one 'uses' porn, he/she is in fact 'using' the objectified body of another human being. The "censual argument" is nothing but a cop out.

In a free society, the question of consent is key to determining whether an activity can be banned by the government or not. By brushing it aside you put yourself in the camp of those, both on the left and right, who think that the government knows best what individuals can and cannot do with their bodies.

So your argument boils down to this: it isn't my fault when I derpersonalize/objectify another human being in order that I can slake my personal dark sexual fantasies upon that body, it's the fault of the "driverless" body {objectified human being} for consenting to allow me to do it.

No. My argument boils down to this: consenting adults can consent to do pretty much anything they want, so long as their actions do not harm the person or property of another.

Furthermore, it's my "right" {freedom of speech} to objectify/depersonalize other human beings when I feel a {sexualized} urge to do so."

Exactly. Now you get it. Freedom of speech isn't always pretty.


447 posted on 11/25/2004 8:57:48 AM PST by Modernman (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. --Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies ]


To: Modernman
In a free society, the question of consent is key to determining whether an activity can be banned by the government or not.

Except the US has *never* existed under that utopian point of view from the point of its foundation onward. If you demand examples, try prostitution, public intoxication, becoming a drug dealer, dry counties, etc....

453 posted on 11/25/2004 9:25:53 AM PST by Hacksaw (You can judge a man by the members of his bump list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies ]

To: Modernman

The "consent" argument you espouse as a 'fundamental' determiner was Created by today's version of yesterdays gnostics. Gnostics claimed to be able to garner information knowable only to themselves from their readings of the Bible. Today's version, known as 'secularist' USSC justices, claim to be able to 'see' mystical penumbras, auras, and emanations whenever they read our Constitution and Rule of Law.
And it was fromone of these 'magical' penumbras {or perhaps it was an aura?} that they claimed to "see" a hitherto completely unknown 'rights' based upon 'consent'.


Your 'consent' argument was based upon hocus-pocus. It's only purpose? To allow certain people 'license' to do things that they know they should not be doing.......and to not have to feel any guilt over doing them.


Fundamentally, a porn-user's pro-porn defense arguments are rationalizations created in an effort to escape feeling guilt for doing that which he knows is wrong.


470 posted on 11/25/2004 2:50:49 PM PST by Lindykim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson