|
|
|
|
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 3/9/2008 11:08:25 AM | | Tracey Lords posed as a Penthouse centerfold and began doing porn films at age 15 with a fake ID .. she was paid $1000 for each film. That was it. This, I would assume is because this sort of child porn exploitation is still going on? So what... porn actors and actress will be carded to protect children. I don't see a problem with it. | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 3/9/2008 1:43:12 PM |
IT'S ABOUT TIME FOR SOME KIND OF CONTROL IN THE PORN INDUSTRY & PORN STORES WITH DEVICES SO DAMNED REPULSIVE,MAKES ME WANT TO UP CHUCK
Is your capslock key broke?
If you have a problem with the "devices" adult stores sell, then don't go into them. Too easy. Besides, this proposed law has nothing to do with the "toys" that adult stores sell, it's all about the people acting in porn films.
A REDUCTION IN SOCIETY;S MORALS
Morals are subjective. I see nothing immoral about sex with other consenting adults, or with using adult toys. A healthy sex life is good for one's physical and emotional health (being careful to avoid STDs, of course).
As for this proposed law, I don't understand why it's needed. Is there a problem with underage people appearing in legit porn films? If there is, I haven't heard about it. The ones making child porn aren't even using servers in the USA to put them on the web, they use servers in countries where the govt does nothing about it.
Just another unnecessary intrusion into personal lives by big-brother govt. | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 3/10/2008 1:33:35 AM | | hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but congress won't enact this bill unless there's a fat spending addendum attached to it-it simply (as it is )is solely for the public good-which to the congress of the u.s. is completely unacceptable... | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 3/10/2008 3:37:00 AM |
I write erotica for a living.
Sleaze. You write sleaze. Nothing wrong with that at all, but don't try and make it something it isn't.
Anyhoo, government having a hand in pornography is rarely a good thing. | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 3/10/2008 6:43:29 AM | | H/L,government having a hand in anything is rarely a good thing.... | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 3/10/2008 7:14:25 AM | I am not sure, but usually when the government does something like this, it is the first step in the wedge that gets money from your pockets. It is a multi billion dollar industry and they want some of it. Under the guise of "cleaning up the industry".
Just my thought though. | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 3/10/2008 4:22:37 PM |
Sleaze. You write sleaze. Nothing wrong with that at all, but don't try and make it something it isn't.
Anyhoo, government having a hand in pornography is rarely a good thing.
Oh! A fan!
I love hearing from my fans.  | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 7/1/2008 5:38:46 PM | Props to someone who is proud of their craft! Although, when going through xbiz today (a news website for the porn industry) I came across what boils down to the opposite of porn control being the most recent thing to come from the courts:
http://www.xbiz.com/news/95945
Basically, it addresses the recent supreme court ruling that the right to bear arms is an individual right, not a collective right. The application of that same logic to the first amendment would, probably, greatly increase the freedoms we have related to pornography production (and thus consumption). | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 7/1/2008 6:50:26 PM | Porn adds no value whatsoever to people's lives. Like tobacco, it is stupid and damaging and out to be outlawed.
Too many young people have way too much access to it and it warps them. | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 7/1/2008 7:54:29 PM | Porn has existed since the earliest recorded artwork. It's not new and it's not exclusive to young people.
Also, get your head out of your god-hole and read some social psych research. Porn isn't necessarily bad. It can be bad, just like anything can be bad. But in and of itself, porn isn't a bad thing and has healthy and natural uses. | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 7/1/2008 11:02:40 PM | Porn needs to be controlled. There are now over forty million people in the United States of America addicted to internet pornography. These are men and women. This is simply another problem that is destroying marriages, relationships, families, and the lives of those who walk into the shadows, unaware of the dangers within.
"Research reveals many systemic effects of Internet pornography that are undermining an already vulnerable culture of marriage and family. Even more disturbing is the fact that the first Internet generations have not reached full-maturity, so the upper-limits of this impact have yet to be realized. Furthermore, the numerous negative effects research point to are extremely difficult, if not impossible, for individual citizens or families to combat on their own.
This testimony is not rooted in anecdotal accounts or personal views, but rather in findings from studies published in peer-reviewed research journals. I have submitted a review of this research to the Committee, and request that it be included in the record.
The marital relationship is a logical point of impact to examine because it is the foundational family unit and a sexual union easily destabilized by sexual influences outside the marital contract. Moreover, research indicates the majority of Internet users are married and the majority seeking help for problematic sexual behaviour online are married, heterosexual males. The research indicates pornography consumption is associated with the following six trends, among others:
Increased marital distress, and risk of separation and divorce,
Decreased marital intimacy and sexual satisfaction,
Infidelity
Increased appetite for more graphic types of pornography and sexual activity associated with abusive, illegal or unsafe practices,
Devaluation of monogamy, marriage and child rearing,
An increasing number of people struggling with compulsive and addictive sexual behaviour.
These trends reflect a cluster of symptoms that undermine the foundation upon which successful marriages and families are established.
While the marital bond may be the most vulnerable relationship to Internet pornography, children and adolescents are the most vulnerable audience.
When a child lives in a home where an adult is consuming pornography, he or she encounters the following four risks:
Decreased parental time and attention
Increased risk of encountering pornographic material
Increased risk of parental separation and divorce and
Increased risk of parental job loss and financial strain
When a child or adolescent is directly exposed the following effects have been documented:
Lasting negative or traumatic emotional responses,
Earlier onset of first sexual intercourse, thereby increasing the risk of STD’s over the lifespan,
The belief that superior sexual satisfaction is attainable without having affection for one’s partner, thereby reinforcing the commoditization of sex and the objectification of humans.
The belief that being married or having a family are unattractive prospects;
Increased risk for developing sexual compulsions and addictive behavior,
Increased risk of exposure to incorrect information about human sexuality long before a minor is able to contextualize this information in ways an adult brain could.
And, overestimating the prevalence of less common practices (e.g., group sex, bestiality, or sadomasochistic activity).
Because the United States is ranked among the top producers and consumers of pornography globally, the federal government has a unique opportunity to take a lead in addressing this issue and the related harm.
This leadership could unfold in a variety of ways. For example, through:
Educating the public about the risks of pornography consumption,
Supporting research that examines aspects of Internet pornography currently unknown,
Allocating resources to enforce laws already in place, and lastly,
Legally implement technological solutions that separate Internet content, allowing consumers to choose the type of legal content they wish to have access to.
In closing, I am convinced Internet pornography is grooming young generations of Americans in such a way that their chances of enjoying healthy and enduring relationships are handicapped. I hope this committee will carefully consider measures to reduce the harm associated with Internet pornography."
link to peer reviewed research:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/upload/85273_1.pdf
link to this article: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/tst111405a.cfm | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 7/2/2008 1:28:47 AM | Forty million people.
Let's see, at a cent a day from 1% of these addicts, I should be making $4,000.00 a day.
I'm getting ripped off! Where's my lawyer? | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 7/2/2008 4:46:07 AM | Calling a meta-analysis by a Marriage Counselor who has dedicated her career to fighting pornography and is associated with numerous anti-pornography groups isn't exactly the best way to prove a point. It's a great way to make people think you are saying something meaningful, but doesn't mean much.
Also, when you look at her degrees, she hasn't once majored in psychology or sociology. She has only done work in Communications and Marriage & Family therapy. I'd also like to point out that she received her masters degree from the Seventh Day Adventist Church and her Phd from BYU. She's never learned anything but the evils of pornography as preached by religion.
That aside, pornography addiction is a problem. The solution isn't to bad pornography. Alcohol, serial monogamy, smoking, exercising, and even drinking water all have histories and documented cases of addiction. You can't ban everything that might cause a problem if improperly used. You can however increase awareness of the problem, teach moderation, explain what makes porn so dangerous (excitation transfer theory is a bigger threat than desensitization, IMO), and treat it like we do everything else.
Conservative Christian morals are not the solution for the US government. I know that the rest of the world laughs when you say that, but we are at least theoretically a secular nation. That means you can't do something just because your religion dislikes it.
Oh, and in case someone doesn't believe me that Manning has an agenda here, I'd like to reprint some of her "key assumptions" that were necessary for the piece in question, as presented in her Appendix 2:
(B. 2)
It is assumed that marriage between a man and a woman is the most stable, healthy, and
adaptive context wherein the full scope of sexual expression may be developed and expressed.
(B. 4)
Marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental unit of society, and social
trends or policies that threaten the stability and vitality of marriage simultaneously destabilize society. (B. 5)
Internet pornography is considered a threat to the stability and success of marital and
familial relationships, and subsequently the social good. (B. 7)
Internet pornography is understood to be a potentially addictive delivery system and is therefore understood within an addiction framework as opposed to a form of speech or expression. Viewing Internet pornography as addictive is a distinction that neuroscience has helped us clarify. namely, in order for her piece to mean anything you have to already assume that Christian marital values are correct, society cannot function without those values, internet pornography is bad (which is the point of her research, if you assume A then A must be true is not sound reasoning), and internet pornography can be addictive (despite my agreement with that statement, the vast majority of researchers in the field disagree). | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 7/2/2008 7:40:01 AM |
Porn adds no value whatsoever to people's lives. Like tobacco, it is stupid and damaging and out to be outlawed.
Too many young people have way too much access to it and it warps them.
Seriously hope you have really broad shoulders! | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 40 | |
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 7/2/2008 7:47:23 AM | I always wondered however whether so-called "porn addiction" is literally an addiction or if it's just more of an out-of-control impulsive (or rather compulsive) type of behavior. Clearly they can behave , to a certain extent, like an addict but if the user / viewer were to suddenly be withdrawn from it by circumstances beyond his control he would not become ill, go through any physical withdrawal symptoms, and so forth.
He would likely miss it , for at least the first few weeks, but something tells me he'd get by just fine with his hand and his imagination if necessary. I think sometimes the "I'm an addict" angle is used as a sort of cop-out for people who are in a rut of what amount to bad habits allowed to go out-of-control (gambling, porn, prostitutes, what have you...). I think the term addiction is becoming a bit overused in some circles.
As far as porno controls in the US, no we shouldn't be "controlling" it to any major degree, IMO. Is this or is this not a free country? However, the fed'l gov't has cracked down a bit , the past few yrs , on some pornographers due mainly to the types of porn they're making.
Paul F. Little (aka, "Max Hardcore") now stands convicted of trafficking in "criminally obscene" pornography (deemed to be so by a court in Tampa, FL), and is looking at very serious time in prison come September 5th. His lawyers say he will likely serve at least 2 1/2 yrs in fed'l prison while his case goes through appeals and such (which he may or may not even win and will meanwhile spend yet another fortune on).
His porno is Hard (H capitalized on purpose). I can't stomach it personally. It's hard to view for long IMO (and no I'm hardly some Xian porn prude); it's brutally misogynistic, and the girls he seems to just destroy in his films are usually about in their late teens (but portraying even younger) while he is nearly 60.
What they nail (no pun) these kinds of pornographers on however is not child porn (because they are not making that) but using the US Postal Service (and in Little's case a multistate web host as well) to send out material such as this which is then able to be deemed "criminally obscene". I would say producers of this hardest of hardcore-type of "barely legal" and somewhat violent porno should perhaps be concerned and should watch their step as far as how their material is being sent out to the customers, and where it is being transmitted to via their web hosts. But other than that, no one else in the industry seems to be having any major problems from the fed'l gov't. | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 7/2/2008 7:50:52 AM | Has it added to how younger kids are now having sex? Has it added to marital problems with sexual issues? How many women havent been affected by their SO and porn addiction?
The thing is: who benefits? The people who produce and sell this stuff do, but them only. It's like a drug............. and certainly there is a place for drugs ........but having little or no control over porn and limiting it is pretty much the same as having wide open access to drugs.
Sure, many people have no need or wish and will not choose it.........but for some, they dont need that choice put in front of them, it should not be on the table. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 42 | |
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 7/2/2008 8:06:25 AM | QUOTE: Has it added to how younger kids are now having sex? Has it added to marital problems with sexual issues?
^^ Perhaps. But at the same time couldn't we posit as well that perhaps the whole subculture created by rap music for example has also added to how young the kids are when they start experimenting sexually, making videos of themselves dancing like "ho's", and so forth ? None of that has ever been debated for "controls" or even potential banning, not even when a lot of it clearly glamorizes or romanticizes what amounts to a ghettoized and criminal / prison subculture. And certainly marital problems due to sexual issues HAS to predate the time of widely and easily (and anonymously) accessible hardcore pornography.
I argue that it's not like a drug, because as I said above the user / viewer can be removed from it without suffering any physical illness or withdrawal or even physical craving. It's not like smoking even, which causes all of that when the user is suddenly denied access to it. IMO it is much more like a compulsive behavior which has become highly habitualized for many men and therefore become a part of their lives. Their lives may perhaps need personal restructuring (eg, a relationship, or a new relationship, or something) in some peoples' opinions if this is the case; on that kind of point I might be inclined to agree, even though it's subjective. But then again, like smokers , not all of them want to "quit". They enjoy it, and it substitutes for or greatly supplements a sex life for some of them and it MAY perhaps even prevent , in a few minority cases at least, the commission of actual sex crimes. | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 7/2/2008 8:18:14 AM | IMHO, the internet has exponential growth and some equally and great effort has to be made to keep up with it and prevent it from completely chaos, and especially to protect children from being exploited.
I trust attorneys, law makers and both parties in the game and higher authorities will have to find common ground on this very sensitive issue and complex matter, but something has to be done better sooner than later. Laws can be reviewed, corrected and amended (cry me a river for the buck involved), but an abused child's mind cannot, it is almost irreversible.
Be nice to all our children... in a near future they're the ones who will choose and pick all our nursing homes, if not poisoning our food for the sake of inheritance.
And my holly mother would say, don't breed snakes to bite you... (and I love her dearly)
 | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 7/2/2008 9:30:02 AM | Re: Stefano-
Premarital sex has been roughly constant since first studied in the 60s, we're just more open about it.
Thinking only women have been affected is a combination of being ill informed, poorly defining porn (do you include literary works for example), and sexism.
Lots of people benefit. Employees and customers. Anyone who advertises on any of their sites. The entire technology sector (porn frequently leads the industry with technology, VHS/Betamax anyone?). The telecoms and everyone who uses them because the increased data transfer rates, demand, and required costs. Credit card companies. Anyone who has used a computer to buy something. Anyone who likes digital photos and movies. And everyone who has made money from any of them. If you really want to take a stand against porn, you have to say that all those advances aren't worth the cost paid.
The logic that because some people don't want to be tempted as a justification is kinda ludicrous. Lots of people don't want to be tempted by Islam, we don't outlaw that. More people don't want to be tempted by Christians, yet we have that too.
You are welcome to live in a rock under a totalitarian regime. I'm ok with that. I'm even ok with you advocating we all join you. But I don't think your argument is too persuasive. | |
|
| Porn Control in the US
Posted: 7/24/2008 7:28:03 AM | If it wasn't for geeks wanting to trade internet porn faster, the internet would still be running at 1200 baud.
Gaming and porn are the ONLY reasons we now have warp-speed internet. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
