  |
|
 |
The War on Porn |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
PO Info |
 |
Shino
Fade into this fantasy, caught in the web of time
Age: 49
Gender: 
Joined: 15 Sep 2002 |
 Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 11:11 am Post subject: |
This article is a great read... funny.
However I would like to make the warning that it is obvious the writer is not a fan of Bush in general.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/huffpost/20050922/cm_huffpost/007704
Scrummy... question...
| ScrumYummy wrote: | | The sets that were removed, the sets that have been targeted, were bondage sets. In fact, one of my favorite sets was included in this catagory ("Bondage Fairy"), and the only thing that set the pictures apart from pictures you would find in a Playboy magazine was that the model featured was wearing fairy wings and electrical tape over her nipples. |
These sets that were removed... where they subscription (over 18 ) only? In otherwords, was there any way to see them if I (not a member) just went and looked for free? |
_________________
So many games... so little time
Last edited by Shino on Thu Sep 29, 2005 11:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
 |
 |
Wins 190 - Losses 169
Level 21 |
EXP: 11590
HP: 3150
 |
STR: 1050
END: 1050
ACC: 1200
AGI: 1200
|
Bianco & Nero (Sabers)
(500 - 600) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hoth
Guitarist
Gender:
Joined: 10 Oct 2002 |
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:56 pm Post subject: |
| Quote: |
These sets that were removed... where they subscription (over 18 ) only? In otherwords, was there any way to see them if I (not a member) just went and looked for free?
|
Hehe.. sounds like somebody doesn't want to pay for his porn or rip it like the rest o the world 
j/k |
_________________
Guitar - http://www.myspace.com/hothguitar
Band - http://www.myspace.com/brokenred |
|
|
|
 |
Wins 39 - Losses 40
Level 10 |
EXP: 1931
HP: 2150
|
STR: 950
END: 600
ACC: 900
AGI: 950
|
Illantier (Sword)
(280 - 490) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ScrumYummy
bunnyhunches of scrums
Gender: 
Joined: 29 Jun 2005 |
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 1:50 pm Post subject: |
| Shino wrote: | | These sets that were removed... where they subscription (over 18 ) only? In otherwords, was there any way to see them if I (not a member) just went and looked for free? |
Absolutely not. (Yes, they were subscription only). SG is a locked-down website--no free previews, except for the banner ads, which rarely reveal anything (if you click on one of the girl's sets, it will sometimes show them bare-chested, which is not illegal). You have to pay by check or credit card, and they varify with your account holders that you are over 18.
So in other words, you can browse a "locked" version of the site, but you can't look at any photo sets until you are a subscribed member.
| Shino wrote: | | Zzyxx wrote: | | Lets face it, playboy makes you prove in some way shape or form that you are 18 (or that you are clever enough to get a fake). Most sites don't. Hit those sites, not the ones that are doing what they should be doing legally. |
Agreed.
However, this isn't something that the federal government should be wasting their time with I don't think. We have other organizations that can handle this. |
The federal government has been hunting those sites for years. However, it was low on their list of priorities (although above serial killers--scary, neh?).
| KenseiKurisuchan wrote: | | The biggest difference between online porn and magazines would be the actual purchasing. I guarantee that it's a lot easier for some kid to go online and find some porn than go to the local store and buy a magazine. I don't know how secure the membership at SG or other sites like it is, either, since you could probably just use a parent's paypal account or something to 'verify' that you're 18. |
It's very easy to view porn on the internet, being as you can base a porn website in a country where it is legal to view pornography over the internet. America isn't the only country in the world.
And if Johnny is using daddy's credit card to purchase online porn without daddy's consent, then daddy need to look at his credit card bill and ask the question "now why did I get a charge from PB Online, inc.? And who are they?" (most porn sites using something like that for your credit card statement) and it should be his responsibilty to see that Johnny is disciplined.
| KenseiKurisuchan wrote: | Parents would be a good idea to stop this, but that's a rare case. Many parents that know their kids look at porn consider it normal and don't do crap about it. I know most people here will say that it's the right anyway, but geez, people, where in the Constitution is our right to view porn? I don't care what you say about it, fact is, it demoralizes women. Porn addicts are far more likely to grow up into womanizers that often view women as objects. And why not? That's what they were in magazines or computers for most of the guy's life. You can't honestly say there's no defects involved with viewing porn, especially if it's started at a younger age.
|
It depends on how old the kid is on whether or not it's normal (and with all the hormones in the meat and milk nowadays, it's starting to be "normal" for younger and younger kids to be interested in sex--but that's a topic for another day). Ten-year-olds interested in porn, that's not normal. Seventeen or even sixteen-year-olds interested in porn, that's perfectly healthy. A guy's sexual interest is strongest when he is a teenager. Now that is a scientific fact.
And by the way, I do not feel that porn "demoralizes" women. Hell, it puts us in a position of power! When was the last time you saw a women getting raped in pornography? Very taboo! If that was the standard, then yes, I would say that porn demoralizes women. However, you are more likely to find a "sexy seductress" than a "helpess, powerless female." To me, that is a strengthening factor.
And I hardly believe that rape is encouraged by porn. I actually went to a ya*i (note: why is that censored??) panel here recently, and someone brought up the question "What if people get bored with their fantasies and decide to act on them?" And the college professor that was leading the panel brought up a very good point--people that create fantasies, then get bored with them, usually go on to new fantasies, rather than carrying out a fantasy. The people that do decide to act on their fantasies are sick in the head, because they can't distinguish the difference between fantasy and reality.
And that's a fact =)
| KenseiKurisuchan wrote: | Good for what Bush's intentions are, not so sure what the effects will be. Everyone is saying this is a waste of money, but does anyone really know how much it costs? And I'm sure the random targeting is really a scare tactic, trying to shut down smaller sites without even having to target them because they're afraid of government issues.
|
1. Everyone's already said this, but I am going to reiterate--there are better things that the money could be spent on, such as Gulf Restoration, or getting the troops out of Iraq.
2. You are correct about the random targeting--they want the smaller sites to fold without having to deal with them.
| KenseiKurisuchan wrote: | | I hope this has some impact at least. I know I wouldn't want my kids growing up in an environment where pr0n could be so easily found. And trust me, it can still be found with parental controls, so locking the computer really is pretty much the only option. But that only keeps it safe within your own home. I'd hate to have to keep my kids away from a friend's house because they don't have a protected computer over there. |
Are you going to cut all of the underwear ads out of the newspaper before your kids get up in the morning, too? Slice all of the cucumbers and carrots as soon as you get home so that your daughter doesn't get a hold of them? Tie your son's hands together in boxing gloves so that he can't masturbate at night?
My point is, if a teenager is interested in sex, they will find ways around your restrictions. A better thing to do, rather than restrict, is teach. Be open with your children about what sex is. Sheltering them from it isn't going to keep them from finding out about it, it's only going to ensure that they are going to go behind your back and look at pornography.
| Excel Zero wrote: | | See that I don't quite get. Demoralizing women isn't so much the issue here. I personally think it comes to what the actual rights are as opposed to oppinions. You're right that the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with pornography. It doesn't actually give anyone the right to make pornography but it also doesn't cease it either. The problem isn't so much the law, it's that you have a few people trying to decide for all. Some women think that it demoralizes them, some men think it demoralizes both. In your post you say that the 'fact is, it demoralizes women.' How is that a fact? If you meet one person in the world who thinks it doesn't demoralize women then it's no longer a fact. Truth is I have met one woman who believes that, then quite a few more. |
It doesn't say line for line that a person has the "right" to make pornography; however, it does say that a person has the right to the freedom of speach and expression, and it also says this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Therefor, if pornography is not illegal, and there are no laws approved by the people for government-approved pornography (damn, that sounds communist) then the government has no right to go in and say "you company, you are not mainstream, therefore you cannot make porn."
| GAAZ wrote: | | The reason is because the school starts to teach you that America is great because of its government...It's not, it's great because of its people. Our country houses the hardest working people in the world who are also the most generous. Granted we also harbor many evil people because we are a melting pot. |
Really? Because when I was in school, I heard nothing but how great the American government and the American way was, and that foreigners were not important, in fact most of them were evil.
My mother is a foreigner and I was picked on a lot in school because I was "weird" and "different." And I couldn't help but notice how egotistical America can be about America. And just to point out, I AM AMERICAN.
| GAAZ wrote: | | Right now as it standsAmerican school are no better than a babysitters parents send their kids to so they can go to work to make their next payment on their 2 brand new cars and a house that's too big for them. |
I agree with you on this point, although I would like to add in that schools have, for the most part, lost their power as far as discipline is concerned, because of parents (and people wonder why kids have so little discipline now adays??)
| Excel Zero wrote: | | Case in point, the military. I am not sure if anyone knows what the Uniform Code Of Military Justice is, but it's sort of a second law book for military members. One on the Articles in Section IX tells me that as a military man, I am only allowed to have sex with my wife in the missionary position. |
O.O Okay, I'm not even going to go into what I think of that. I just want to know, why the hell is that a rule?? |
_________________
-Scrum-
..it borked. :D |
|
|
|
 |
Wins 23 - Losses 22
Level 7 |
EXP: 2313
HP: 2241
|
STR: 779
END: 731
ACC: 795
AGI: 795
|
Totem Doll (Sword)
(320 - 360) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shurikane
Dim Panties As String
Joined: 24 Sep 2002 |
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:25 pm Post subject: |
| ScrumYummy wrote: |
| Excel Zero wrote: | | Case in point, the military. I am not sure if anyone knows what the Uniform Code Of Military Justice is, but it's sort of a second law book for military members. One on the Articles in Section IX tells me that as a military man, I am only allowed to have sex with my wife in the missionary position. |
O.O Okay, I'm not even going to go into what I think of that. I just want to know, why the hell is that a rule?? |
For the same reason it's illegal in Hartford, Connecticut to kiss your wife on a Sunday. Probably the rule was a great idea at the time and those who had thought it up believe it was indispensable. Times have changed and all, but no one's bothered to update the rulebooks to reflect the new mentalities - guess no one's complained about it, and anyways those who know that rule don't care if someone breaks it. |
_________________
Gopher it.
"Remember when /b/ was good?"
"/b/ was never good." |
|
|
|
 |
Wins 24 - Losses 32
Level 8 |
EXP: 2375
HP: 2550
|
STR: 1050
END: 750
ACC: 800
AGI: 600
|
Graduate's Windbuster (Sword)
(230 - 480) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andsectoid
Router Monkey of DOOM!!!
Gender:
Joined: 18 Sep 2003 |
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:26 pm Post subject: |
I am a strong capitalist. I believe that it is not the government’s job to redistribute wealth. The rich get richer because they continue to do what allowed them to gain wealth in the first place. The poor remain poor because they continue to, once again, continue doing what they did that caused them to be or become poor.
I am not saying I am against things like unemployment. Unemployment is short-term aid run by the state. Welfare is a longer-term policy administered by the Federal Government.
But this is deviating from the topic.
I almost always support personal freedom and personal choice over federal government control. Even if they conflict with my personal views. Example: I am against abortion. I think it is wrong and should only be done in the case of rape and when it is medically necessary to save the mother. But I do not think it should be illegal even though I am strongly against it not only because of religious reasons but because I think there are better options and it is taking a “life” or a “possible life”.
IMO: The government in the US(Federal, state or local) should not use its power of law enforcement unless there is an infringement of someone’s personal rights. If something does not affect your rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness the government has no place in it. |
_________________
 
I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce. |
|
|
|
 |
Wins 27 - Losses 27
Level 8 |
EXP: 312
HP: 2300
|
STR: 800
END: 750
ACC: 750
AGI: 900
|
Forearm Blades of Death (Blades)
(270 - 440) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
