Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

(sorry)

I think it depends on the person...is it enriching? I dunno, maybe it gives some couples some new ideas for things to spice up their sex life with, or it just provides a single person a way to get off. I think if it hurts someone's perceptions of sex, it's because that person's perceptions were damaged BEFORE they were exposed to pornography. I think the argument that porn hurts people's views of sexuality is just as groundless as the idea that violent television or video games make people into violent killers, it's a brush off by society to excuse bad parental guidance and attention (since you should be able to tell if something is seriously wrong with you're kid). Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong =).

I agree partially. But people, especially the younger guys, who don't know much about sex or women yet could have those views damaged by too much porn. So, porn can damage the views of those who know little about sex or women. However, I also agree that those who have bad views of women and have porn contribute to that, had most of those views before.

Also, the violent game isn't the same thing. If you're teaching kids to ENJOY seeing REAL people die or get hurt, then it would be more similar. The video game thing would be more of an argument to hentai or something.

Now, for the kid to like seeing real people get hurt or die, then A) They either already had issues to begin with, or B) They don't know enough about morals or people to understand that this is truly wrong, and not how people should act towards other human beings.

Similar to porn.

So, I still stand by it not being "helpful" to our society. But, once again, I don't really care.

Nice debating with you. ^_^

At 7/26/03 01:36 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 7/21/03 02:31 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

Could you provide me with a link or something to the study you're talking about? You'll forgive me, but I've seen enough times where somebody does a study and "proves" they're points...but when you go back and review the methods of the study, you realize how flawed and ill-conceived it was, so if you could provide a link or something where I could find it, that would be super =).

Links? Why is the only sources people think of come from the internet? OK. I learned this on the Discovery channel (lol), from two culture magazines, and we had to learn about it one of my college classes. Which was very fun, let me tell you. @_o'

If you want to learn about it from internet sources only, then just go ahead and look it up yourself. lol. Sorry to be straight foward, but not a lot of my information comes from the internet, and yet I've had a lot of people demand these sources from me. So, I previously had to search the internet myself to find MORE sources on it just to satisfy these lazy people (and you know who you are).

But, here, let me put it this way. It's common knowledge that showing some guy smacking his hoe and calling women bitches, hores, sluts, etc. etc. which is so common (especially on the internet), and portraying women as loose and wanting sex from any random stranger, whenever.......and then having guys get off on that, well. It does affect how they view women.

However, I DO think that it depends on the guy. Like, a normal guy with more real relationships with women would understand that women don't like to have sex with random strangers. And he won't let the porno propoganda of them being "sluts" and "hores" affect him.

However.....there are many men who may not get this. And, they are freaks, granted that. In fact, many men who rape I've heard say on TV that "they don't think there was anything wrong with what they did" or say that "she came on to me, so I thought she wanted me to rape her." And other freaky stuff like that. @_o' But, these particular guys only have their views of women warped more depending on how much porn they get hooked on, and, more importantly, how much they let that image become their reality.

So, I'm not for making porn illegal, really. But it does propell violence towards women in our society (more men are succeptable to that sort of thing than you may think).

Especially with a society that "shushes" all information about sex to a man, and then slams him with this weird vision of how it's "supposed to be like."

But, I say that, considering this, maybe we should cut back on the porn and then have more "romantic" or "real" sex in movies and what not.

I would say it is not the responsibility of movies or any form of media to teach children about sex, but rather the parents. I would also suggest to you that sex is a varied thing, and that different people have different tastes, desires, and fetishes, and there's really no uniform way to go about it. I'm not a big believer in taboos, I think we need some (like against marrying or being otherwise sexually involved with family members), but a lot of hang ups about pornography, prostitution, I don't think it's helping us any. When you outlaw something like that, you don't make it go away, you just make it go underground and into the hands of criminals, making it an unsafe practice for those involved. So I don't think porn is harmful to society if parents are doing they're jobs in educating kids about sex.

lol. You think I'm against sex on TV? No. I'm against having ONLY freaky sex, like in porn, on TV. I think we should have LESS porno sex, and MORE real sex. That way, a lot of people won't be as prude nor would we have the opposite effect, with people thinking that porno is a reality.

I'm not going off on that defense, but don't bash porn based on some "well, I think it harms the children" or "It sends the wrong message about women" because those arguments seem just as tired and unprovable to me.

......Um. So, it gives the right message about women? lol. Well, if not. Then tell me what sort of message it gives? Now, it's not the biggest deal, but sense it's true, I wouldn't call it a "tired" argument, just because you may not want to believe in it enough to look up info on it yourself. ^_^

As for that child thing. Children shouldn't be watching it anyway, so I don't consider that a good argument either.

Well, see my above point about it being a neccessary evil, if pop ups are so problematic for you however, I recommend you get a pop up blocker, I use one from panic ware and I only very rarely get a pop up from this site, or other pop up heavy sites I visit (and when I do, it's a clean pop up for something like reunion.com or something like that). So you have options to get that sort of thing out of you're face aside from simply leaving this site. Which I really do hate to see anybody do.

It's not the popups. It's the ads. Anyway, I don't think it's a "nessasary" evil if the site does something constructive or popular. lol. I'm sure that NG would still be just as productive without the porn.

I dunno, I have a friend that's married, watches porn with her husband on occassion, and has two healthy, beautiful girls. She has a fine and healthy attitude towards sex, and we joke about it quite a bit. So I really can't see you're point here at all, sorry.

So, because she has a healthy attitude towards sex, then you say she "got that from porn itself?" That's a falacy. lol. She probably already had a healthy view of sex before she started watching porn. It wasn't porn that "gave her a healthy view of sex." Or, I should say, you don't know where she adapted her healthy view towards sex. So, you can't say, well she watches porn, therefore, she must have gotten it from porn.

Also, I'm sure you realize that using that SAME logic, for example, I could give many examples of rapists who watch porn a lot. Should I then also assume that they "must have gotten their views of sex from porn?" lol. No. Although I'm sure it contributed, I'm sure he had problems with women before that.

Point is. There is no relationship there. Not until you can get a study or a person's history, etc. and THEN find out where porn fit it.

At 7/26/03 11:36 AM, TheShrike wrote:

At 7/26/03 03:13 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

Sad? Why? Why is it sad? Hmm.. or is it not sad? Are you sad? Or am I sad? I don't feel sad. Or is my dignity sad? I don't see what's wrong with me doing that for money. Please elaborate. Specifically: I want to know why the fact that I'd do it makes me sad.

Oh, and if you want to kick TheShrike in TheButt, it'll cost you a bit more than $10.

Um. Because you're saying that your own body is worth some green pieces of paper for getting some inanimate objects with. So, you're lowering your body to the equivilant of another worthless object, like whatever you'd buy with the doe you'd get. lol.

I "bend over" for no one. ^_- Screw them. If someone wants to hurt my body they better be prepared to stare down the barrel fo a gun. lol. ^_- (JK, by the way, I don't believe in guns. Heh heh, but you get my point).

Uhh... Ok? Are you saying no woman would want to hunt a nakked me for cash? =[

.......Why the hell would I wanna shoot a naked guy running around (no matter how handsome he was)? @_o' And pay for it? Forget that. I want flowers and dinner. ^_- lol.

You sexist pig. How dare you insult the dignity of men like that, then make some half-assed attempt to cover for it. Shame on you!!

lol. Yeah yeah. All men are "evil" because a few of them rape. lol.

What are you talking about here? You lost me on that one. And you couldn't possibly be saying that women are the weaker sex, could you?

Um. I'm not saying that either are "weaker." I'm saying that most women simply wouldn't desire going out and raping random men or hurting them for sexual pleasure or spying on them naked or stalking them, etc, due to hormones. And the few that do want to try that won't be very much of a physical threat to most men, now would they? lol.

My point is, a woman has more to worry about walking down a dark ally at night these days than a man does (when we're talking about being attacked by the opposite sex). As a woman, you're more likely to be sexually attacked by a man, than a man is likely to be sexually attacked by a woman.

So, although I still think it's wrong to hurt someone for sexual pleasure, having a woman hunt you not only probably wouldn't bring in big business lol., but it doesn't provide the same threats to other men in the aftermath, as the opposite provides to women.

Ok, but I fail to see how it's your descision, not theirs.

Um. Again, you're failing to see my point. I'm NOT talking about the women doing it. Screw them. I'm talking about how it affects these men and later, affects how they treat OTHER women.

It's just like how the whole upskirting internet fetish sparked many more waves of men to start filming up girls dresses themselves (as weird as that sounds), or how the voyear internet fetish sparked many more waves of men to start hiding cameras in places where girls went (to change, go to the bathroom, etc).

Again, this was all done before, but after men started getting hooked sexually on it (and I agree that there must be something wrong with these particular men already), then it got worse.

My point is, mixing violence towards women and sexual pleasure in some freak's brain isn't exactly a good idea. When you get off on hurting women....how do you suppose you start viewing women? Probably like that guy who compared women to deers, to say that neither should wear protection. lol.

But seriously, when a guy learns to get off of hurting a woman, it affects how he views women and how he'll treat them for the rest of his life (and I'm not just talking about spouses). Now, once again, a guy has to already have problems like empowerment needs or maybe past female problems to even enjoy this in the first place. However, violent sex fetishes such as this one obviously make things worse.

So, please explain to me how it's the choice of a random woman not in the game to have a guy who is hooked on violent sex fetishes try to be sexually "violent" to her later in his life?

And yes, it does happen. More than you think. Especially if that's how the guy learns to enjoy his "sex."

Ok, so you're saying it's ok to run around naked and be shot at for fun/profit. But when you add actual violence, it's wrong? Sounds good to me. But.... Umm... I wasn't aware that these women are treated like american hostages in an Al Qaida camp after they are caught.

Um.....you've never been paintballing have you? You can DIE without protection if you are hit in eye or if you are hit in a "soft spot" and get some internal bleeding. At that speed, it's like shooting a small rock at someone. Owch! Point is, paintballing ALWAYS bruises you when you are hit if you don't wear protection. So.....it's not OK to bruise a woman by hand, but it's OK as long as you use some sort of weapon or tool to do it, like a gun? @_o'

Also, the deal is that after you "get" these women, you are allowed to go over and fondle them and crap all you want. @_o' Gross, but whatever. That's not so much what I'm worried about.

Well, I agree with that whole statement, well most of it. I fail to see how the whole hunting bambi situation is drilling a desire to hurt women into my head. Maybe I missed it, though. Perhaps it's already there, waiting for me...

Um. It's not going to do this to guy who "just hears of it." If you really really want to go out and bruise up women with a gun because doing that turns you one, then yes, you do have a problem with women. This does affect the guys who do it and the ones who are getting off watching the videos of the real women getting shot at.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go play a Britney Spears Assassin game(s) here on Newgrounds.

Go ahead. Is that a point? Are you trying to compare a computer game with a cartoon character blowing up to bruising a real woman with a gun? lol. Oh, yeah. You really must have a problem towards women now. lol. I bet war computer games were the reason why the Columbine kids thought it was "OK to do that," too. lol. Um. I'm pretty sure there's a difference between a mentality capable of hurting a cartoon character and one capable of hurting a human being. lol.

At 7/26/03 11:42 AM, Vaswellick wrote: I don't think he did it. He can fuck any woman he wants, why would he rape someone?

For the same reason the Max Factor guy decided to drug women and rape them.....who knows?

But seriously, just because they're rich and famous doesn't mean that they stop being themselves. If he was violent to women before, then he's going to continue that regardless whether or not he "has to" anymore. "Not being able to get women" has nothing to do with why a man rapes. He just does. It's in his character.

However, they could be calling this rape because I heard he also had sex with like a 14 or 15 year old or something. @_o' I don't know about the other stuff, though.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I now present to you the funnies review for the George Bush Show ever written. My friends and I saw this while they were over today, and we've been laughing our heads off ever since. From now on, our catch phrase is saying that we are "smarter than 90% of the world" everytime we make a mistake. LOL ^_^ The guy's from Texas, too.
------------
"you mother f!$@#$ yankee"

Presented by "Rekrak"

"I hate yankees and this is one reason why. Just because you can't pay for 3 hot dogs doesn't mean that the economy is bad and ya'll think that bush is an idiot because he's from Texas. Well f you because he saved your ass from people like Sadam Houssein and don't go thinking i'm just a minupulated trailor trash illiterate for taking up for him because I'm smarter than 90% of the world."
--------------
Hope you got as much of a kick out of this as we did. ^_-

If you ever see this Rekrak, let me tell you that if you are smarter than 90% of the world, then it just so happens that I've met exactly 10%. ^_-

I also don't get that hot dog thing. @_o' Not to mention that a "yankee" was what someone was called "way back when" when they were for America's freedom. lol. Don't get how that's an insult. Unless I'm missing something, of course.

I've seen the rest of this guy's reviews, and they're just as good. I wanna get on his waiting list. ^_-

At 7/25/03 08:58 AM, misterx2000 wrote:

At 7/24/03 06:02 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

I don't think they get the entire sum, the pimp gets a big cut, and many are routinely abused. Clients may not use condoms and they can't do a thing.

We're talking about the prostitutes in porno films. And how they're doing something that would be illegal under any other cercumstances, and yet make as much as doctors (supposedly) for it.

^_-

At 7/24/03 06:02 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 7/24/03 04:59 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

For the same reason that we pay those shitty rap artists MILLIONS for doing whatever they pretend to be doing.

I don't get that. Is what they're "pretending to be doing" illegal until it's taped and sold?

I don't see the comparison to what I said.

At 7/25/03 04:55 PM, Kenney333 wrote:

At 7/25/03 08:17 AM, -PZY- wrote:

But 9/11 happened because the US army has been deployed deployed in Saudi Arabia for a fairly long time now, to the US aremy its just a forward base, to the Saudi Government its a way to get friends in the west, but to the Saudi people, its an occupation. So Osama is angry his home country is being occupied and creates a "terrorist" group whose purpose is to end that occupation. They blow up some buildings in New York, everyone is told its a crazy religious thing, thus dehumanizing the attacks, and told that we arnt safe,and allowing the US military to do whatever they want.

That'll all true except for one thing. The terrorist group, Al Queda, and the Taliban were already in existance (though I don't know about their names)....AND, believe it or not, they were originally pro-American. @_o' In fact, they were put in power by America (and Saudi Arabia, and one other country) to fight the Zuraki government (anti-American) in Afgahnistan at that time. In fact, Bush Sr. as head of the CIA funded them with money and weapons to train Al Queada (and what not) to do so.

They wanted a pro-American Afgahnistan at that time partially so they would be more open to negotiations for that oil pipeline into Russian controlled oil in Central Asia (Bush W. also tried to continue those negotiations even after 9/11, when they became our enemy. @_o' So much for his, "we will not negotiate with terrorists speech.").

However, once the US began screwing with Saudia Arabia (and Palenstine) as you said (where most of the Taliban members are from) this ticked them off big time (and the pro-Americanism went down the hole almost as soon as it began, unfortunately). Osama took advantage of this, and decided it was a good time to take power......And it worked.

Well, once he was settled at the head of the Taliban, we had one attempted attack on the US by them, which didn't work (but no one did anything about it) and then we had 9/11, which succeeded, unfortunately.

I don't know if the first attempted attack happened when Clinton was in office.

------

All in all, though. The US needs to stop funding, creating, and ticking off our own terrorists. Then maybe stuff like this wouldn't happen.

No more nationalism. We need isolationism for once. Afterall, we gotta start working on our own problems from the inside. If we started the "war on terror" there, we would have been more prepared for a terrorist attack in the first place.

At 7/25/03 10:52 PM, TheShrike wrote:

AM I A SICK PERSON, NINJA?

lol. Not "sick," just sad. You'd really let someone physically hurt you just for cash? Well, if that's what your dignity's worth to you, then that's just sad, not sick. By the way, would you bend over and let me kick you in the ass for a 10 bucks, too? ^_- lol.

Also, I doubt that these women have the same testosterone driven desire for sexual dominance as many men have. lol. That's why there are so many more male stalkers, spyers, sexual abusers, rapists, etc. than female ones. Just hormones, what can I say? *shrugs*

*sigh* And again, I'm obviously not saying that "all men are like this. ooooo." It just happens among that sex more.

However, even if they did, do you really think that these women are going to become a physical threat to men? lol. No. A) Their hormones don't work the same way, and B) there is obviously a strength difference there, as well.

Point is. You've seem to forgotten what my concerns about this are. It's not because, "OG forbid, these people are sick, blah blah blah" or it being "morally wrong." It's how it affects the people who get into it (just as previous violent sex fetishes have), and how it affects many women in our society as a result.

If it didn't involve hurting women, then I wouldn't care. Don't you get that? You could run around naked and get shot at harmlessly all you want for sexual fun. I wouldn't think that it was "immorally wrong." But when you start mixing violence towards women with sexual satisfaction and empowerment....you start getting some not-to-good results later on. It has nothing to do with it being "sick."

In fact, might I also add, I don't even really care about prostitution all that much. I'm just saying we shouldn't give men the opportunity to hurt women for their sexual pleasure, for money. Basically, when you drill this into their desires, it can wind up making them treat women worse later on. And that's true, unfortunately.

That's all.

At 7/24/03 05:37 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

OK. I like him as an actor and all, but that guy didn't even finish school. And has no history in politics other than marrying Maria Kennedy. @_o' Not to mention that he can barely speak English.

Not to mention that actors are allowed certain "liberties" that politicians aren't. Afterall, punching a camera man is fine for an actor, but if Arnold goes and does that when he's the governor, people might take it the wrong way. ^_-

PS. I forgot to add this. But it is absolutely not true that you need any qualifications to be president other than being born in the USA and being at least 25 years old. @_o' It even says so in the Constitution. lol.

And a good example of someone not needing intelligence or a history in politics to get a governmental position is happening in my state right now (CA). Guess who might be running for governor on the Republican's side?

Arnold Swartzenagger (forgive me, but I just can't spell that @_o').

OK. I like him as an actor and all, but that guy didn't even finish school. And has no history in politics other than marrying Maria Kennedy. @_o' Not to mention that he can barely speak English.

So, yeah. All it matters is who you know, each time.

I'd love to hear that guy's speeches.

At 7/24/03 02:29 AM, sinistercat wrote: I'm trying not ro piss anyone off anymore and yes I am new, but thank you for your concern. George Bush is a good president I mean come on not just anyone can get to be the president you have to be extremely intellegent and have years of experience in politics....

Or be an actor or have a rich father or be in big business. Sound like any previous presidents, you know? lol.

Also, if that was the case, then you'd have to agree that ALL presidents were good, intelligent men.....but, history wishes to prove otherwise.

No one has to be intelligent to be president. Unfortunately. Read my quote.
-----------------
Also, and I'm not saying this cause I'm "liberal" (note, I said I didn't like Clinton, either), but Gore actually WAS really intelligent (you should read some of that guy's books. @_o' Few.).....but unfortunately, that actually led to his downfall.

While he was very smart, he didn't act like a "people person" or "average joe" in the process. He was more of a "nerd." That's why there were so many jokes about him being a "robot." While he was up there talking about his "lock box" theories and his business theories and such, Bush was just sitting there acting like a dope and asking his staff for help. If I can say so. lol.

However, Bush had the "average joe from Texas" thing down to a T. So, people related to him more than Gore and thought that he would protect the "average citizens" more so than Gore.

However, few of them seemed to realize that Bush was far from the "average" citizen, he was a billionare with a rich political/big business family. @_o'

So, you can see what he's been protecting recently with all his new "big business protection" and "upper class protection" laws.....not to mention all these suspicious wars revolving around oil. @_o'

None of this is surprising, however. You can usually see how a presidential term will turn out due to the president's past. Almost every time. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and it's father was a duck.....then it's going to wind up being a duck and favoring other ducks. What can I say?

At 7/24/03 02:22 AM, BWS wrote:

At 7/24/03 02:17 AM, sinistercat wrote: I can understand your dislike for president Bush he does need to work on his public image...alot, but he is the president and therefore should be respected. Now a president that didn't deserve respect is Clinton

.....Um. I don't like Clinton, either, but he didn't do nearly as bad stuff in his past as Bush did. @_o'

Also, my best friend is also Republican, and she hates Bush, too. ^_^
------------

All in all, sense we understand the messages behind the videos by a man who also understands the past of Bush, then we can laugh at the inside jokes without "losing our individual thinking." lol.

At 7/24/03 08:53 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

The best porn stars make 6-figure salaries. They record porn just like normal films, there's just a lot of sex. It can get quite fustrating, I believe when the director calls 'cut' and you're almst 'there' as it were. I'm not talking about the girls who dall small-time. I'm talking about the big guns.

Hmm. Where did you learn all that? On a show I saw, they had dozens of (at the time) very popular porn stars that wound up with "barely nothing" in the end. And they were all saying that they had big decent houses. But that they didn't really make all that much.

And I also learned that a lot of porn stars try to get into the entertainment business afterwards (like, singing, etc. You know what I mean.). However, about none of them make it. And I think it's weird that they would try to become singers or whatnot if they were already as wealthy as you say.

All in all, if that was true, then why are we paying prostitutes as much as doctors, anyway? And porn stars ARE prostitutes. Sex with a stranger for money. Just cause it's filmed, then that has something to do with them not being prostitutes anymore? That's just stupid.

I think they should get paid much less. I mean, after you do that once, you're sorta stuck in that business anyway. So, it's not like you can afford to be picky about your wages. lol.

So, the prostitutes get 6 figs for having sex (skillfully. lol), and make as much as doctors? That's capitalism for you.

At 7/24/03 02:55 PM, mcdog620 wrote:

At 7/20/03 05:51 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

At 7/20/03 04:41 PM, THE_HULKSTER wrote:

Snopes.com is much more believable than any news station. By the way, today all the major news stations announced that they were tricked and it was a hoax. Do a search on google for a better article.
http://www.msnbc.com/local/KVBC/M311820.asp?0LA=abq9n&cp1=1

Um. So, snopes.com says that they think it's fake. And the link you gave me says that they don't even know, either. But then the guy admits that it was fake at first, but then became real after a couple of guys he sold the video to wanted to do it themselves. And then CNN says that it may be a ploy to sell the hunting videos, though you can't actually buy the hunting itself. And then they conclude with that they don't know for sure though.
......so that proves it's fake?

No where on that site did they "announce that it was a hoax." In fact, they just said that they didn't know.

At 7/24/03 08:08 AM, TheTio wrote: Ok, so what im reading here is, that your not really worried about men in general, your apparently not sexist (even tho that guy you quoted is pretty damn suspect) but your stressing over the tiny minority that you constantly claim sources tell you is growing exponentially...goddamn

*sigh* I don't really fear that it'll happen to me. But it'll happen to other women. And so, I just want it to be illegal for their sake. I'm not stressing over it.

Personally I am worried about the idea of a tiny comet the size of a brick hitting me in the head thru my living room ceiling

Yeah, well A) you're a guy, and B) I'm not worried about me. I'm concerned about other women.

And, it could happen to me. I have to also realize that.

At 7/24/03 04:25 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: Thanks Ninja. Anyway, this raises the question (even though the origional post was crap) of what do we do with homeless people.

I honestly don't believe in "charity" that much. I mean, I don't think it works. Especially in the "poor African villages" which you see on TV all the time.

I say, "give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for life."

Instead of just giving these people just food and clothes, we should be giving them the stuff to actually live good lives. In the "African villages," let's give them seeds, farming supplies, and something to help them clean their water, and the ability to produce exports for money, etc. Not cans of food.

And let's clean these "hobos" up and go ahead and put them to work at McDonalds or something. Of course, I believe in providing them with shelter, first. Sense, you can't get a home right after working at McDonalds for a while. lol.

However, it IS true, though this is controversial, that many homeless people do have....."mental problems" or, sometimes, drug problems (though not as much as is often suspected, to correct a common myth). So, this isn't always easy to do. That's why second chances for them are more difficult. They can't keep a job as easily, and may not have families who can financially support the care needed for them. However, they're rarely dangerous, which a lot of people think sometimes.

One reason a lot of these people wind up on the streets is because governmental funding to some of the public wards that are free to these people is being cut. About 50 or so years ago, there was a massive bujdet cut to these programs and waves of "ill" people were sent to the streets. That's where the age old stereotype of homeless people being "crazy" came from. This, of course, isn't always true, although it can be often the cause for these people to not be able to hold down work, and, without a family or a willing one, these people these people do often wind homeless. Sad.

At 7/24/03 04:19 AM, bumcheekycity wrote:

Woah, Ninja, you don't go halves on the posts do you? Anyway, the difference between porn stars and drugges prostitutes is prostitutes live in slums. Porn stars live in huge houses and don't do drugs, usually. They also take away huge salaries.

Actually, porn stars don't make as much as you'd think. Though it is pretty decent. Also, a LOT of them do do drugs. Heck, even regular movie stars do drugs. ^_- But, the sad thing is, so I've heard, a lot of the women wind up doing it sometimes to "get through" the stuff. In fact, that's notorious for how strippers get started on drugs. Letting some strange guy "do you" who calls you a "skank" or "bitch" or "slut" or whatnot, isn't as easy as it sounds. And I'm sure it sounds easy. ^_-

At 7/24/03 03:48 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: What the hell is a hobo?

A poor person with no home.

At 7/24/03 12:44 AM, Bravo-D-miner wrote: I'm hear to say that hobos are a waist of space and a few of the lucky bastereds win the lottery and screw you over so you think shooting 20 or so would help things and not put you in jail. All they're good for is sneeking children into R and X rated movies.

Yeah. I agree with that. Afterall, people with less dollar bills aren't as human as those with more. So, we should just shoot em. The less money you have, the less you can feel, anyway.

At 7/24/03 02:41 AM, PreacherJ wrote:

At 7/21/03 02:31 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

At 7/20/03 07:36 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 7/20/03 07:00 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

Well, the difference is, they BOTH get paid by a third party to watch and film the act for proper distribution through the legal channels for the enjoyment of the masturbating public. Some stars get a percentage of the profits, as well. I certainly understand how one could constrew that as such, however.

A quote about prostitution from my ex-girlfriend-

"I don't get it; selling is legal, and fucking is legal, so why isn't selling fucking legal?"

Quote from me: "Selling is legal, and children are legal, so why isn't selling children legal?"

lol. That logic could be used for anything. ^_- Course, I'm sure you meant that as a joke, anyway.
-------------
Well, prostitutes get paid for having sex with a stranger. Porno stars get paid for having sex with a stranger. The only difference is that it's filmed and sold. @_o' Beats me how that no longer makes it prostitution.
-----------------------
But, whatever. At least the people who act in porn already have their careers more or less ruined for the future (youth and looks don't last forever, and once they go.....who's going to hire a porn star to flip burgers? lol. Well, you know what I mean).

What's MORE upsetting are the cases where a nerdy little guy takes his mama's video camera and films drunk girls at parties.....and then becomes a millionare for it without paying these girls anything......I'm of course, talking about the disturbing "Girls Gone Wild" thing. @_o' That's capitalism for you. lol. ^_-

I don't approve of that, sense most of the girls are either too drunk or too young to realize what they're doing (especially when they're being coerced by a "rap star," yay. Pffft), and how they'll feel about it later. However, real porn isn't that big of a deal, because they know fully what they're doing and most of those people don't have their "whole live ahead of them" anyway, and they already know how they'll feel about it later. Also, most importantly, they're being paid for contributing to the profit of the people who sell the videos. Unlike the nerdy cheapo who did Girls Gone Wild. lol.

PS. I hate Snoop Dog after that. Well, I already hated him for being so stuck up, but, man, what a sleez. @_o' Get a girlfriend instead of trying to use your fame to get a little college girl to flash you at spring break. lol.
-------------
PPS. Also, is it just me, or is it kinda sad when you see an actually pretty girl in a porn commercial or add....or porn (I don't know, I don't see it @_o')?----when you're not getting off of her to anyone who might get smart-----I keep feeling like, jeez, these girls don't have to resort to this crap. They're young and can get whatever man they want, and now they've just sorta ruined that.

I mean, not a lot of guys would wanna date a girl who had sex with about 200 previous men for money, for a living, even if she was cute. Also, the cute girls could always be models and make good money while keeping their dignity and future......and now.

Oh, well. It just makes me feel bad for them, ya know? Like, "You're already pretty and guys will like you. So, why do you feel you have to get so many more men 'liking you' by resorting to that? Especially when you can get some good ones." Sheesh. Well, whatever. I know that just because someone's pretty doesn't mean they can't be insecure. lol. Maybe they don't have anything aside from their looks, so they feel pressured to just go with that then.
---------------
Well, that's my thoughts on that. All in all, I just don't think a healthy person would want to give up their bodies and affections to complete strangers, and have other complete strangers watch just for money.....for a living. @_o' I mean, that's not exactly a "hope for the future" or something to "see what you can do with your life and skills/wits, etc."

To me, being in porn just sorta seems like giving up on hopes and the future.

While doing something like that may turn some people on once in a while, or something. I just don't think that making a living off it is still "expressing your sexuality." Because, after that's the only way you start making money, you can no longer start or stop "expressing yourself" when you want to. @_o' You're body's already given to the industry. So much for that.

And I honestly don't think that women really enjoy being in porn after a while. When I hear those who claim to still "like it," I also remember that there are many drugged out strippers and beat up prostitutes who stubbornly say the same thing. @_o' But, who knows? I still don't think it's healthy and seems like giving up on yourself to me.

At 7/23/03 07:46 AM, -PZY- wrote: To Ninja (remember that I am just having fun, I hang at the politics in my spare time):

1: Numbers are better than letters, since they are infinite.

I don't talk THAT much.

2: You seriously seem to skip parts you don't want to see. I said it should be illegal, not that it is OK! But since the problem is not very big, there is no need to assign special forces to prevent this.

......Well, I did read where you said that. But you seem to make up parts you DO want to see. I never said that we should assign special "skirt protection" forces for it. @_o' I was just apting for it being illegal.

I didn't care about you wanting it to be illegal. I was more concerned with your views about how the women should handle it and about how "it's not a problem if the women don't know about it."

3: I did not say that it was OK if the woman figured out, if you had cared too read the posts you quoted yourself, I said that it is OK as long as the woman never find out about, and no one else either, that it was her. Her face should be hidden etc.

Um. I know that. You said that it's only a crime if the woman finds out she's been sexually assaulted. That's why I used the example of drugged rape/molestation. A crime is still a crime, whether the woman knows about it or not. That doesn't mean that a guy should feel good about himself and think that he didn't do anything wrong for raping a woman if he drugged her first. Good boy.

I got an idea. Maybe her panties should be hidden as well.

4: Because some women find out about it, it should be total illegal.

But if women never found out, then it would be OK on the guys' end for them to do it? So, if we lived in a world where women could never find out for certain if they were drug raped or drug molested, then......it would no longer become a crime?

@_o'

5: To see it from your point of view: I would not give a shit if someone placed pics of me in my underwear on the net, as long as I would never no, and no ppl in the world would know it was me, not even the one that took the footage! And I wouldn't care much if I was nude either, really.

Well, good thing you're not me. One person would know it was you.....the guy who did it. Remember that? He doesn't just have "panty vision." He can see the rest of you, and, for all you know, he could live in your neighborhood. Also, they don't just show a pic of the panties. They show the whole film where the guy is going through the crowd as the camera goes under the dresses of the women. That's how they find out it's you.

Personally, as a women, I would care if even a single pervert I didn't know was spying on me naked. If a strange perverted guy you don't know goes up to you, pulls up your dress ("even if you're naked") or something, and then runs away.....believe me. You don't pull your dress back down and go, "Oh, well. At least he doesn't know my name." You care. Even if he doesn't "know your name." That doesn't exactly make you feel better.

6: Women is physically weaker than men. You can not protest this, as it is natural, it is in our genes etc. Personally I think men are stronger mentally too. How many times have you seen a man cry or beeing very sad if someone did anything hurtful? Compare that number towards womans beeing that.
Is that not to show a weakness, and that you are more feeble? Now you are hating me, yes, I know, so you don't have to say that in your next post.

So I do agree that any harrasment towards women is worse than towards a man. And it should be fought.
I say that a man getting stabbed with almost to death with a knife, is still better than rape of a woman. And men cannot be raped (exept by other men).

Women is beeing smarter than men, too, apparently. lol. ^_- Actually, although women cry more often than men, it has already been proven that men let their emotions control them more so. lol (actually, in another study, I found out the reason women feel other people's emotions or recognize emotions better, like in movies, is a maternal instict).

And I'm talking about men's sexual emotions, their violent emotions, and even their sadness. For example, way more teenage boys commit suicide than girls, and, might I add, most of the time it's over a lost girlfriend. Romance is something you'd think the girls would kill themselves over more, but they rarely ever do that. Also, in cases of a lost romantic partner, men are way more likely not to let the relationship go (and, of course, I'm talking about stalking, etc. There are fewer female stalkers than men, although it does happen.).

However, I don't think that this makes men "mentally weaker" than women, nor that it's a problem except in the cases of when men let their violence and hormones take over their logic (it is also shown that men murder and commit crimes more so than women, so much for judgement ruling emotions. lol.). Once, again, though. I don't think that this makes men "weak" or "bad." Just the ones that can't handle their violent or sexual tendacies to that point.

7: Since the male cromosone is a bit weaker than the female one, in about 50 million years or so, only 5% of the humans will be men. So be calm now, and realise that the problem will be solved then. You can even keep them as slaves, only to produce sperm, so the world will go on (or the male race will unite and the roles would switch, but as most males can't cooperate, it is not likely. On that point women is far better).
So please let us rage around as we can. :-}

All I have to wait is 50 million more years? Few. That'll solve everything. lol.

Sheesh. I don't "hate men" ya know. @_o'

8: That was the end of today's rant. :-P

At 7/23/03 01:35 AM, TheTio wrote: Oh and I was wondering, your accusing many of the guys on this forum of having warped views toward women, I am surprised the question hasnt been put back toward you...you seem to think men are maleable and weak, can be formed into anything with but a nudge and that we have no spine

These seem like pretty warped views to me, would you mind explaining where this view has come from

Who me? lol. I never said that all men "want to rape" or that all men would be suceptable to the affects of this game. I said that there ARE quite a few men out there that already have problems, like sexual issues or overpowering issues, etc. that make these games particularly dangerous when supplied to guys like this (the ones that are playing the game, not normal guys). I also said that in order to be interested in playing a game where you hurt women, you'd have to be messed up anyway. But, that these games just make these guys more dangerous by getting them attracted to hurting or preying upon women right off.

I only accused one guy of having a warped view towards women. The guy who said that women should be the ones that "shouldn't let being sexually abused bother them if 'it's not that bad." He was refering the having guys film up our dresses and then put in on the internet. And we should "just deal" with it. That IS a warped view. @_o'

At 7/23/03 07:26 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 7/23/03 04:13 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

I wouldn't blame the media...or the overall american education system for that...I'd say the girl, and maybe just the school systems she's gone through are ignorant, or staunchly pro-America, or maybe a bit of both. The school system I went through made it a point to inform us of the things America has done wrong, things like the Trail of Tears, and Manifest Destiny, Japanese Internment, the whole "Red Scare" and all many of the other things that piss people off about america. So I don't think it's fair to blame the media or the school system as merely tools, there's no massive conspiracy suppressing the information, it's just most people, quite sadly, don't care to go out and find it.

I never said it was a "conspiracy." It's just business. And, unfortunately, I don' t think Capitalism works when it comes to the news business. News shouldn't "compete." lol.

And they do gloss over some information to protect themselves from displeased pro-American viewers (they don't want their ratings to fall behind).

For example, on Fox before the war they were talking about how bad Saddam was for not providing enough medical care to all the sick children dying of these particular diseases they got from the contaminated water there, being sure to show all the sick children in the hospitals there......however, they conveniently neglected to mention that the US was the one who contaminated the water in the 1990's and caused all these kids to get sick in the first place. @_o'

"Bad bad Saddam. How dare he not protect his people from us." lol.

Things like that. Afterall, logic like that doesn't make for a good "us vs. them" or "good vs. evil" or "The US vs. Saddam" story. And they don't want to piss people off and lose ratings. I mean, people went insane when the Dixie Chicks put one single unflattering line about Bush and Texas in one of their songs. @_o' How do you think they'd handle hearing that the US is the one who killed the most Iraqi people during the reign of Saddam, and not the evil Saddam himself?

At 7/23/03 10:59 AM, dudeitsallama wrote:

At 7/22/03 09:04 PM, BWS wrote:

I understand what you're saying and I agree to an extent. I know that it isn't just Americans that are gullible. But the people of some countries are more naive than others. Americans trust their government more than some other people because our government is a lot nicer to us compared with how other governments....

lol. I think it's more due to being more of an isolationist country. All our forms of learning about so called world history is made here, hence, there's often a biased spin on the US's involvment in past and present incidents. Whereas, in a country such as Germany, much of their reading material and even some media comes from the surrounding countries, such as France. This, I feel, gives them a better perspective of their country.

For example, a few years ago, a girl in my senior high school class announced that she didn't understand why a country would hate the US, "Doen't the US go around and help everyone and stuff?" And this was an 18 year old, to boot. @_o' Our media keeps us in the dark about our past and even present often to sustain the "good guy vs. bad guy" image, which became so popular during the days of Captain America. ^_- This is of course, good for ratings.

Also, in addition to being an isolated country, the US's "main export" is actually entertainment and media. Our television stations compete way more so than the other television stations in other countries. So does our news. Key there. When news stations begin to compete as seriously as ours, it becomes more about getting ratings than actual news. Hence, a lot of the truth is lost in this glossing over of news in attempt to "give the people what they want to hear," and increase ratings, and, more importantly, to avoid conflict or angering those who are very pro-American (and there are many) and lose them as "consumers," involving not getting as many ratings as the "Jones's" as a result.

I can understand that. Sometimes when I mention a single bad thing the US administration has done in the past, I've had a few people accusing me of "hating America" and one told me "well, if you don't like it then move." @_o' Some freedom. Sheesh. Also, it doesn't even make any sense. If you really love your country, then wouldn't you want to actually help it or fix it's problems? Oh, but, in order to do that, you'd unfortunatly have to realize that they exist. ^_-

--------------

Also, the US government and culture isn't as great to it's citizens as one might think. God forbid I say so. lol. In fact, we are STILL on the list of the most racist, homophobic, and sexist countries.

For example, let me ask you this, do any of you think that if a black man ran for president now, he'd win? What about a gay man? What about a Jewish man? Or what about even a woman? Well, in Europe they already have female presidents and such (though I don't know about the others). Homosexuals are embraced as simply a different "culture type." Black men recieve the same wages as White men. Etc, etc.

However, for example, in our country African-Americans are still paid much less than White folks, and even women are paid much less than men. In our judicial systems, African Americans get harsher punishments for their crimes than White folks, and women get harsher punishments for their crimes than men. In fact, when a woman kills her abusive husband by hiring a man to do so because she fears he's going to kill her soon (which happens a lot @_o'), she usually gets about 40 years in prison, however, if a man kills his wife by his own hand for no reason, he usually only gets 4 years in prison. Yikes. Gays are often poked fun at by our culture, made to be shamed of their lifestyle, sometimes beaten, rejected from our churches, and are still being condemed by our judicial system. Etc. etc.

Now, once again, I'm not saying I hate America, because there are obviously a lot worse countries to be. However, I'm just saying to all those who deem American values to be "perfect" over all to reasonably think again. ^_^

Hey, have you noticed lately that the few people who have come foward to take a "fall" for Bush in the WMD incident are being protected by him (as in, having their jobs and such protected, even though they supposedly screwed up so badly)? @_o'

Just recently, one man (Hadley) from Bush's administration came foward and said that, "Oh, yeah. I found out the information in the speech was fake about a week before.....but, just 'forgot' to tell Bush before he made his speech." That's sorta weird. @_o' Especially sense this guy is deputy national security adviser (how could you "forget" something that important, if it's your sole job, and an entire war with your country is at stake?) But, maybe it could happen, right?

However, the man went to supposedly resign for humiliating Bush like that and supposedly causing the whole world to go to war for no reason.....but then Bush suspiciously "refused to let him resign" as the story goes. @_o'

It's weird, because why would Bush protect the jobs of the certain people who are taking a fall for him after they admitted that they were so unreliable to him that they screwed up this badly, made him look like a fool, and caused the deaths of so many of our civilians for, as it turns out, no reason?

And why would you protect a man who is so unreliable as head of that top political position that he would just "plum forget" something of that magnitude (something that was the bases for the country going to war)? Not exactly the wise presidential decision one could make.

And, of course, it's obviously suspicious that these people are admitting their "grave mistakes" now that the war's over and Bush looks bad.

If they had admitted it before the war started and before so much was waisted, it would have been less of a problem. Bush could have just said, "we report that one piece of information I got was false, etc."

So why wait until you know it'll be a problem? Why "wait" for so long, knowing that the false information would be proven false eventually, and then suddenly decide to "come clean" right when it would be the worst for you to do so right at that point?

And, of course, if you'd really literally lie about something that long as head of your political position, something of such magnitude, something that would cause a worthless war and the deaths of our sons, and something that would make the president look so bad.......tell me again why he'd want to keep you around for "betraying" him? @_o'

It makes me think that Bush is promising to protect the jobs of those who are agreeing to take a fall for him. @_o' I wonder why. I mean, it's making it all sound rather suspicious, now.

Just want to know what you all think.

http://channels.netscape.com/n...m&sc=1151&floc=NW_5-L3

At 7/22/03 12:46 PM, -PZY- wrote:

At 7/20/03 07:11 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

At 7/20/03 06:56 PM, -PZY- wrote:

Bach! You clearly can't see my point, can you? Raping is totally differnt, as the woman is well aware of it and is beeing touched and gets traumaus afterwards.
But the upskirting is in such a minor scale so wasting huge resourches on it would be really dumb.
The woman does not know it, she is not touched, and she does not get any problems later on, as long as her identety is remained secret. But if the identety is reviald, it is almost as bad as a rape. And since the problem is very small, woman don't need to live in fear for it.

A) That was a joke to counter your idea that if anything is done by a minor group then it "isn't a problem." lol.

B) You consider making it illegal "wasting huge resources?"

C) Many women do find out and are mortified by it for life. Again, I suggest you check out the links. And you seem to not understand it from a woman's point of view. @_o' Having something like this happen to you could make you fear wearing dresses or skirts in crowds, or going to public bathrooms, etc. for the rest of your life. It can also damage your view of men, especially if you're young.

D) The problem isn't small. And it's getting bigger. Once again, it "being small" wouldn't be a point anyway. It's like saying that the chances for rape are small, therefore, why should women fear it? Well, the answer is that they still do. And more importantly, that they shouldn't have to fear it to begin with.

F) Also, just because a woman "doesn't know she's being sexually abused" or "her identity is kept a secret" is no excuse for what is done. In fact, many women are drugged and molested (sometimes raped) and then the pictures are put on the internet without her knowing. Fortunately, many girls wake up knowing that something happened and wind up figuring it out. However, unfortunately, many women don't realize that they were molested or raped, especially considering that, contrary to popular belief, their "trusted" friends are usually the ones who do this to them, and not strangers.

But because she doesn't know about it, being raped or molested like this isn't a big deal then, and she should just "take the punch," right? Afterall, if she doesn't know about it, then it's like it never happened, right? So those men should have more consideration in the court for their crimes for "kindly" not letting her know that they raped her or molested her, right? Sheesh.

So... what you are saying is that woman are completely nevrotic and weak which can't take a punch at all. And ofcourse it should be illegal, but I think the problem is beeing taken way too serious by certain ppl.

So....Now it's the woman's fault for "being too weak" to let being sexually abused bother her? @_o' She should just be able to "take that punch?" She's taking being sexually abused "way to seriously?" Sheesh.

Yes, but why on earth should you care if it was a normal tree?

So......taking pictures up a woman's dress is "normal?" @_o'

It is basiacly how the world works, if not, it would have been a much better place.

Yes. And knowing how "the world works," we should do do something to help the women living in it so that they don't have to live in fear.

They can do what they want, but if it is a threat, and they are so afraid, why don't wear pants? And no one is telling you it is illgal to wear pants.

*sigh* My point was they shouldn't have to fear wearing certain clothes at all. We should make it so that women don't have to be in fear of this OR resort to wearing pants. Right now, they CAN'T "do what they want" for fear of being "abused" in the process.

That's something you seem to miss.

So, we should put the blame and weight of sexual assault on the shoulders of the female victims and put no concerns on the men who do it? We should make the victims deal with sexual assault, not the criminals who do it?

"Well, if you fear getting abused, then YOU should wear pants, it's not the molesters' fault if you're not scared enough of them to wear pants." @_o' Honestly, that sounds like you're blaming the victims. We shouldn't inconvenience the victims to protect the molesters. We should just make it illegal, so that the women don't have to fear wearing skirts, period.

You just can't put the responsibility of getting raped or molested in any way on the victims (and none on the actual criminals), especially when they shouldn't have to have that weight on their shoulders in the first place.

At 7/22/03 11:26 AM, TheTio wrote:

At 7/21/03 03:20 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

At 7/21/03 02:07 AM, TheTio wrote:

At 7/20/03 06:47 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

At 7/20/03 06:23 PM, -PZY- wrote:

What the fuck, I pointed out the basis and weakness of your whole argument with a hypothetical, then you explained away the hypothetical and did it again, do you even pay attention to other peoples points or just pick apart their posts into how many times Ninja Scientist can win at the "I'm Right" game

lol. Jeez, man. Calm down. I'm not trying to play a "I'm Right" game. I'm just trying to argue my point of view, and get your fresher feedback on it. Is that OK?

In any case, I think my point about your comparison to Columbine being weak was a good one. I was just asking for a better one.

...I think that a man who isnt fucked in the head already, and isnt easily influenced, stable and all played this game (why he would I dont know), he would play it, get over it and that is that. I can agree to the fact that if there is a man who is already fucked up, has a warped view of women and will ultimately turn violent &/or degrading toward them then this may act as a catalyst, but so would prostitution, pornography, sex video games, and their own imagination...you cant kill a hydra by cutting off its heads

Well, my point was that don't you think anything that acts as a "catylist" for violence towards women isn't something that our society needs? It's true that pornography, prositution, etc. has been proven to propel violence towards women as well. I agree. However, I was just saying that this game goes one step further by more imediately propelling the violence by starting them off with learning to enjoy hurting women in the first place. Therefore, out of all the forms of "prostitution" today, I find these kind to be the most dangerous. And, therefore, I feel we should at least have these violent types of prostitution illegal. I had no regards to the other types. Afterall, the only thing that bothers me about this isn't even the prostitution or sexual abuse involved. It's the teaching of the physicaly hurting women.

That's all.

I still stick by the number of people committing a crime wouldnt dramattically rise as the punishment falls, although you could have a point in the people who would already commit the crime doing it more, but thats not really proving your right, thats just a side effect of not having to hide the fact they do it, or them being in prison and unable to commit these wrongs

Well, if you even agree that it would cause even a little more cases, then shouldn't it be illegal anyway? It's not going to do any damage by not being illegal. But if you agree that it'll do at least some help by being illegal, then we might as well make it that way. At it'll at least be good for punishing and "rehabilitating" the criminals who do it.

But, I think that was your point in this case, right?

But, as I am running the risk of sounding pro hunting naked women to then proceed with the groping...I am as against this game as I am pain prostitution, and even more against rape and unwilling sexual dominance

There, hope thats cleared up

No prob.^_^

At 7/22/03 09:23 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

At 7/22/03 06:56 PM, BootlegJones wrote: ummm... that makes him a racist? how? He was talking about women, not black people. And so what if he did say "white people".I don't exactly WHY he would say that? Mabye he said "white women". I would understand the public giving him a hard time about that.

BootlegJones, just leave, i'm not going to argue against your stupidity.

I will. He said, "there are no women or WHITE PEOPLE on the list, right?" Is that clear enough for you?

You understand the public giving him a hard time about white women in particularly? What "public" are you from?

At 7/20/03 09:33 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Look at it solely from the US's point of view. It was in the US's best interests to do what they did.....

Actually, it wasn't really in the US's interests as far as safety or protection goes. If that was the case, then we wouldn't have banged up a weak country while at the same time letting a stronger country (who was already the greater threat to begin with) get stronger (Korea). @_o'

However, it WAS in the US's interest as far as finances goes. If we get control over Iraq's oil, we'll be literally the largest pivoting oil tycoon in the world, and "OPEC may completely disappear" to quote Harpers.

Actually, that IS usually the main reason the US has ever gone to war, excluding WWI and II. Even Vietnam and the Korean wars were more about finances (Communism = financial and trade problems for the US).

Also, I tell you that it was in the interest of Bush, himself, as well. ^_-