Posted on 12/18/2010 8:01:19 AM PST by IbJensen
To 193 - I did ask and his answer was that he’d throw her out of the house and get a divorce.
Porn isn’t a good thing for the people who work in it....Asbestos isn’t a good thing for the people who work in it, but it’s the only thing they can get that pays well.
Eyewash needed after looking at that horrific unfeminine battleax.
The irony about the whole Feminazi anti-porn movement is that their party line was “pornography CAUSES rape.”
However, since internet porn has become so readily available, the rape statistics have plummeted bigtime.
Very funny. Thanks for the laugh.....and for the clarification.
You presume falsely.
As far as I can see, there is nothing compelling a jurisdiction to permit the sale, distribution and operation of pornography should the people choose to bar it.
Except that the Supreme Court has ruled in numerous cases that porn is covered under First Amendment protection.
On a humorous note at a small city I once resided it was pretty well known about a guy who would don female clothes and a wig and work the streets downtown. Funny thing was he was an approx 6'5 weightlifter who looked like an NFL defensive lineman in a dress. If he fooled anyone it was only because they wanted to be.
I’m not argueing that girls/women don’t need to be smart/safe. They do.
What I’m saying is the attitude that “boys will be boys” is dangerous culturally to ALL girls/women because it exemmpts boys/men from the culutural expectation to act responsibily.
That attitude should not be promoted. It is dangerous (not to mention hypocritical).
Parents should not raise their boys to be “weak” and with a “boys will be boys” attitude.
Let’s see now ... the presence of a camera makes prostitution moral because it makes it more common/frequent, therefore it’s not moral?
Excellent statement!! It is very dangerous and I find it very concerning that pro life advocates think and promote "boys will be boys" while blaming only women for unplanned pregnancies and abortions. Unintended consequences of "that's what men do".
So if I pay a woman for sex with me it’s prostitution but if I pay her for sex with another guy it’s not prostitution?
Here’s a novel legal defense concept - Bill and Bob want to hire hookers, but don’t want to break any laws - so Bill hires a hooker to service Bob and Bob hires a hooker to service Bill, and they both film it - this somehow converts illegal prostitution into legal porn?
That doesn't look like a response to #219.
I'd be tempted to say "Come again?" but it would be in poor taste.
I think your reply should have been a continuation of #197, in which you asked:
So somehow the presence or absence of a camera alters the nature of the activity?
To which I answered "yes" -- explaining both how the frequency and purpose of the activity (sexual relations for money between adults) changed: because the essential nature of the activity is not the sexual gratification of the recipient of the sexual favors, but earning money by people paying for the opportunity to WATCH the sexual activity.
I then pointed out that in the adult film industry, there are employees ("fluffers") whose purpose is NOT to bring the participant to climax, but merely to maintain that participant's state of arousal in order that said participant be ready to resume *filming* after a break, with minimal delay.
All these things are a COMPOUNDING of the immorality, not a justification.
Cheers!
Just to show, it takes all kinds...
Certainly not an unknown phenomenon. Phil Vassar made an interesting song about a former linebacker / present day tow truck driver who showed up at the local bar / hang-out dressed as woman a while back... (*smile*)
Phil Vassar - Bobbi With An I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpuPZ73wfA
He would have hit it. He was worse than Laz.
If Bill paid Bob and the woman to have sex with each other and he had sex with neither, then it works. If they buy hookers for each other, they are still buying hookers.
So if Bill pays for Bob and Bambi to have sex with each other, then it’s legal porn, but if Bob then pays for Bill and Trixi to have sex with each other, then they’re all involved in illegal prostitution?
“No, not HER.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Who are you tryin’ to Shiite?
I hate it to break it to you... We are can’t go back to the 1950’s world nor should we..
Yes, I agree. It is properly “Thou shall not murder”, but most Christians of all eras would still interpret everyday Viking behavior as violating that commandment, which was my point.
Placemark for pingout. Didn’t get to it today.
Yeah but a pro Athelete doesn’t have anal prolapse, do they?
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.