Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Worthless fear-mongering. The best studies I could find are "inconclusive" at the best.

Because you read into them that way, dumbass.

15 studies pointing in the same direction is a pretty good indication of a connection.

Course if you want me to find the Umich scholar who wrote the study, drive out to your house, and punch you in the face for being a moron, I will GLADLY put my efforts in that direction.

I find it pretty telling that about 99% of "arguments" use words like "depravity" and "obscene" and are written by people who CLEARLY have a huge problem with people having sex often.

I find it pretty telling you're IGNORING SCIENCE to defend your shit views.

I'm done. Morons can't be reasoned with. The APA has said "This doesn't look to be a good idea", and you're arguing they don't know what they're talking about. There's nothing more to say.

At 11/4/08 03:51 PM, poxpower wrote: hint: you're not as smart as you think.

fact: you are completely clueless about children and life in general.

At 11/4/08 03:13 PM, Drakim wrote: A little time back, the McCain camp went out critizings Obama for wanting to "teach sex to kids in kindergarten". As it turned out, the sex education in question here wasn't the whole deal, but just to teach kids about sexual predators and how to know if they are being touched in the wrong way, etc.

I gotta add my own two cents, because that's what I do. So what happens after the kindergarten teacher stresses sexual safety to children in the classroom? The kids ask questions, and unless the teacher is thoroughly prepared to face the onslaught of kindergarten curiousity with vague and incomplete answers, the notion of sexual awareness without sexual education should most definitely raise eyebrows.

Knowing basic safety tips like not getting kidnapped is better left to after-school seminars, or even better yet the parents, at home, preferably from the point their child learns how to walk until the time they can defend themselves on their own "out there".

Knowing if you're being touched the wrong way? Do they show footage of some actors portraying a sexual molestation situation? I'm skeptical that it's an advantage to teach a subject as monumental as sex in the fashion of providing incomplete knowledge coupled with limited pupil understanding.

Also, parents would probably need to be notified and offered a chance to withdraw their child.. a minor point.

But, it pointed out the underlying issue I've been trying to say here. There is a mentality that sex is bad. One could argue that random sex with strangers is indeed bad, or at least, unsafe. However, the mentality stretches further than that. Talking about sex is bad. How many thousand times have you heard complains about the "sex fixated society we live in"? Why is this a bad thing? How is it different from being, say, a fun fixated society or a honor fixated society, short of sex itself being bad and evil in the mind of the complainer?

I've the viewpoint that there's a time and a place and an age for everything. If you've got two outta three, that ain't bad either.

Teaching sex in a public school to kindergartners just doesn't seem correct to me. I know you've tried to point out that it's not really sex ed, just relative safety as per the child's sexual identity, but even that opens the doors to authority-driven approval regarding sexual curiousity. In essence, a certain "coming of age".

It just seems a PSA would do more good than institutionalizing super-pre-pubescent sexual education... and exposure to porn.

Playing on sex in an ad, for shampoo, or cars, is also frowned upon.

No it's not. It's fed upon. Sex sells, and business is great. I believe it's actually protected speech under the first amendment, as well, so fuck the frowners. It's frowned upon owning multiple firearms, but it's also protected and inalienable.

Yet again, is this so horrible?

I don't think so.

What if they played on childhood memories by playing songs from the 80ies? What if they donated 1% of the income to children in Africa and played on guilt? Nobody complains, and I don't think anybody would, because these things are not seen as inherently evil and dirty, like sex is.

Facts, though, tell a story where nostalgic music, charitable giving and personal endorsement drive the industry that is advertising. Artists complain when other artists "sell out", Malthusians complain when aid is sent overseas and I complain every time I see another political ad. Sex is unique in that it affects half the population one way, and the other on a radically different plane.

I see another facet of society bitching over how they're offended, not a conspiracy aimed at turning sex into a thing of the past.

And there is no area but sexual education that this reflect upon. Most likely because it involves children, which makes people buff up their regular opinions ten times as strong. I mean, the very fact that some of the most extreme republicans opposes sexual education makes my case alone, I think. They want "abstinence only" taught instead, which basically says "Sex is evil unless you are married".

Abusing children gets inmates killed in prison.

Does that mean it's natural and universal to value ones young over the rest?

At 11/4/08 03:47 PM, Proteas wrote:

Appeal to Ridicule, Straw man, Argumentum Ad Hominen, all as a substitute for an actual argument.

How about you actually answer my point: how is porn more detrimental that junk food?

It's telling of you that you think your points are so solid that anyone who challenges them must be trying to troll and ridicule you. Get off your cloud, Zeus.

Oh yes, those bright orange letters are so hard to look for against this dammnable grey background and off-white text. I'll let Liljim know.

hint: all the text is black when you pretty the "reply" button. So say I'm replying to a long post and you start putting links in words, then you increase the chance that I'll miss them.

And you're saying they aren't and they don't? Have you ever actually dealt with kids before?

If you pretend that kids have this infinitely malleable mind, then it should be easy for you to prove that porn makes them ultra-violent and depraved and directly causes them to assault girls with dildos.
You should ban Star Wars too because they have swords fights, chocking, exploding etc. Which, you'll agree, is all far worse than just sex.

I made a judgment about you based on your post and called you an idiot for it, oh woe is me, you really handed my ass to me didn't I?

Uh yes, in light of the fact that you claim you didn't insult me.

I haven't asked you once to prove a negative, I've asked you to prove a positive, namely; that exposing minors to porno has no potential for harm and therefore there should be restriction on it.

Lol, holy penises Batman.
"PROVE THAT X DOESN'T DO X" is proving a negative. "PROVE THAT THERE IS NO X" = proving a negative.

Photographs, videos, magazines, virtual games, and Internet pornography that depict rape and the dehumanization of females in sexual scenes constitute powerful but deforming tools of sex education.

I'm not talking about your own opinion, I'm talking about the findings of those studies. What EXACTLY did they mean when it increased the "violent behavior towards women".

I can't find that. If you can, show it to me.

has a dramatic effect on how adult consumers view women, sexual abuse, sexual relationships, and sex in general.
* developed an increased sexual callousness toward women
* developed distorted perceptions about sexuality
* developed an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (normal sex no longer seemed to do the job)
* devalued the importance of monogamy and lacked confidence in marriage as either a viable or lasting institution
* viewed nonmonogamous relationships as normal and natural behavior

These are all completely worthless points and are only arguments if you say "well the status quo should be preserved! Anything that changes it must be bad!".

Now the one actual interesting point:

* began to trivialize rape as a criminal offense or no longer considered it a crime at all

REALLY? I am EXTREMELY skeptical of that finding. How did they determine that? What questions where asked? Because all the other arguments center solely on what the researcher seems to consider moraly bad, so I am very curious as to what his criteria were for this.

Source; Cline, Pornography's Effects, 8.

I am checking in this Victor Cline fellow. He seems to check out professionally but his views are incredibely conservative and biased. Anyone who acts in a way that isn't his little "love they wife, be monogamous, don't jerk off to midget porn" bubble world of the 50s is really deviant apparently.

He treats such DANGEROUS PROBLEMS as "porn addiction". Please, anything but that! Reading further into his stuff: he words with religious people who are basically sent to him under threat of divorce, firing, prison etc.
http://www.ldsr.org/info/drcline.phtml ( courtesy of an overtly religious site, the last people on the planet who should be consulted about sexual practices ).

========
=============
================

In short: he's got one single argument that may or may not be true and may or may not have grave consequences based on what he actually means, what standards he set and how much of his morals he's mixing into his research. He's not doing hard science after all, he's just drawing conclusions by comparing their behavior with the behavior which he considers "normal" or "good".

In other words: probably bullshit.

At 11/4/08 03:49 PM, Imperator wrote:

Way to read only what benefits your case, and ignore everything (the vast majority) that doesn't.

Most of the rest are just judgments of values and opinions. Worthless.

This is scientific theory damnit. Stop being a Christian by saying "They said it's not proven, just like gravity! Doesn't count!".

Huh the fuck? IT IS not proven. There is no way to say if porn causes deviants or if deviants naturally seek out weird porn.

"Last year, the American Psychological Association put out a compelling report that described the sexualization of young girls: a process that entails being stripped of all value except the sexual use to which they might be put. Once they subscribe to that belief, say some psychologists, those girls begin to self-objectify-with consequences ranging from cognitive problems to depression and eating disorders"

That's feminazi propaganda.
Those are the exact same arguments I used to hear about Baywatch and fashion models. It's thinly veiled moral judgments by women with a severe sexism problem.
And what "cognitive problems" anyway?
And "depression"? I don't think you could fit the list of things that "cause" depression in a dictionary. And the eating disorder, well, like I said, that's been common forever. Way before the internet, way before playboy. Women were doing that shit in the 1920s.
Actually they use to sell tape worms back then to lose weight. And other such things.

To try and pass it off like porn is to blame for this is retarded. Like I said; propaganda and fear-mongering.

At 11/4/08 03:55 PM, Imperator wrote:

15 studies pointing in the same direction is a pretty good indication of a connection.

They don't point in the same direction, they all support different points of the article, which just cherry-picked results. Understandable for the sake of brevity.

Out of all of it, there were only 3 studies that related to a point that wasn't just pure moral judgments. 30-year-old studies with nebulous conclusions and methods.

At 11/4/08 03:55 PM, Cornbucket wrote:

At 11/4/08 03:51 PM, poxpower wrote: hint: you're not as smart as you think.

fact: you are completely clueless about children and life in general.

hello there!
Here's the attention you so crave!
REPLY
REPLY
REPLY

There you go.

Questions for Proteas and anyone else:

Is it wrong to:

- Slap a girl if she asks for it during sex?
- Have sex with many women at once?
- Have sex with a midget? The midget is also gay. He has a mustache, but it has no soup stains.
- Put peanut butter on your crotch so you dog licks it off
- Mistake your ass for a crisper and lose a cucumber or two in it
- Give a blowjob to a guy in a locker room. He's clean.
- For a girl to hit a guy during sex? He's got bruises after but she totally thinks it's cute
- Two girls to finger each other while saying dirty things like "Jesus was a dark skinned man"
- A guy to make a robot goat for the express purpose of fucking the shit out of it
- Own more than 20 didos and/or 10 different penis pumps
- Buy a real doll

At 11/4/08 04:15 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 11/4/08 03:13 PM, Drakim wrote:

I gotta add my own two cents, because that's what I do. So what happens after the kindergarten teacher stresses sexual safety to children in the classroom? The kids ask questions, and unless the teacher is thoroughly prepared to face the onslaught of kindergarten curiousity with vague and incomplete answers, the notion of sexual awareness without sexual education should most definitely raise eyebrows.

Knowing basic safety tips like not getting kidnapped is better left to after-school seminars, or even better yet the parents, at home, preferably from the point their child learns how to walk until the time they can defend themselves on their own "out there".

Knowing if you're being touched the wrong way? Do they show footage of some actors portraying a sexual molestation situation? I'm skeptical that it's an advantage to teach a subject as monumental as sex in the fashion of providing incomplete knowledge coupled with limited pupil understanding.

Also, parents would probably need to be notified and offered a chance to withdraw their child.. a minor point.

...okay? Not really related. I only dug up this issue to make a point on the views of some people, not talk about the issue itself.

But, it pointed out the underlying issue I've been trying to say here. There is a mentality that sex is bad. One could argue that random sex with strangers is indeed bad, or at least, unsafe. However, the mentality stretches further than that. Talking about sex is bad. How many thousand times have you heard complains about the "sex fixated society we live in"? Why is this a bad thing? How is it different from being, say, a fun fixated society or a honor fixated society, short of sex itself being bad and evil in the mind of the complainer?

I've the viewpoint that there's a time and a place and an age for everything. If you've got two outta three, that ain't bad either.

Teaching sex in a public school to kindergartners just doesn't seem correct to me. I know you've tried to point out that it's not really sex ed, just relative safety as per the child's sexual identity, but even that opens the doors to authority-driven approval regarding sexual curiousity. In essence, a certain "coming of age".

What exactly do you mean by authority-driven approval regarding sexual curiosity? Because, (but I'm probably in the wrong), it sounds to me like you are saying, "but by doing this, the government doesn't have a neutral stance anymore when it comes to sex", which is the exact thing I was talking about earlier. There is no "neutral stance" within sex, because that would require there to be two equal positions regarding sex, like, "sex is bad" and "sex is good", which is ridiculous.

It's like requiring the government to have a neutral position on friendship. You know, in case some people think friendship is evil and wicked.

My point was, sex is a natural thing, and there is nothing wrong with it. It has a time and place, just as you say, but that is not how I see it's treatment. Many people don't act as if sex is simply taken to places it doesn't fit, but they act as if it's inheritly evil and should be hid away. How dare you have sexual suggestive themes on TV? Such a stance can only exist if you actually think sex is a bad thing.

It just seems a PSA would do more good than institutionalizing super-pre-pubescent sexual education... and exposure to porn.

Wut? How does exposure to porn relate to sexual education? Especially the kind where the focus is letting children know about sexual predators? It's not like they are being taught about condoms and how to use them.

Playing on sex in an ad, for shampoo, or cars, is also frowned upon.

No it's not. It's fed upon. Sex sells, and business is great. I believe it's actually protected speech under the first amendment, as well, so fuck the frowners. It's frowned upon owning multiple firearms, but it's also protected and inalienable.

It's a highly successful strategy for your ads yes, but I believe that if you asked people, I think you'll get a general "it's not good" response. But, I agree, fuck the frowners.

Yet again, is this so horrible?

I don't think so.

What if they played on childhood memories by playing songs from the 80ies? What if they donated 1% of the income to children in Africa and played on guilt? Nobody complains, and I don't think anybody would, because these things are not seen as inherently evil and dirty, like sex is.

And there is no area but sexual education that this reflect upon. Most likely because it involves children, which makes people buff up their regular opinions ten times as strong. I mean, the very fact that some of the most extreme republicans opposes sexual education makes my case alone, I think. They want "abstinence only" taught instead, which basically says "Sex is evil unless you are married".

Abusing children gets inmates killed in prison.

Does that mean it's natural and universal to value ones young over the rest?

I dunno really. It's simply how our society works today, at least. Maybe they didn't have such a view on children when half of them died before they turned a year old.

At 11/4/08 04:44 PM, poxpower wrote: Questions for Proteas and anyone else:

Is it wrong to:

- Slap a girl if she asks for it during sex?
- Have sex with many women at once?
- Have sex with a midget? The midget is also gay. He has a mustache, but it has no soup stains.
- Put peanut butter on your crotch so you dog licks it off
- Mistake your ass for a crisper and lose a cucumber or two in it
- Give a blowjob to a guy in a locker room. He's clean.
- For a girl to hit a guy during sex? He's got bruises after but she totally thinks it's cute
- Two girls to finger each other while saying dirty things like "Jesus was a dark skinned man"
- A guy to make a robot goat for the express purpose of fucking the shit out of it
- Own more than 20 didos and/or 10 different penis pumps
- Buy a real doll

Actually, this is a good point, despite being shaped in a way that will past over people's heads.

It's sort of when somebody says "Jews hurts America!". You probably agree that he has the right to say this, but it doesn't change the fact that you think what he says is bad and wrong.

Most people would read this list and think "whatever floats your boat", in a sort of "you are allowed to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home". But, I personally think, that deep down inside, many people think several of the things on this list to be wrong, but feel that's it's not their duty to do anything about it.

At 11/4/08 04:34 PM, poxpower wrote: How about you actually answer my point: how is porn more detrimental that junk food?

Porno has the potential to desensitize you to sexual activities, as well as cause you to objectify and abuse women if used to excess (as was stated in the study I cited in my last post). Junk food has the potential to cause obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.

The difference, and why I don't consider them an equal analogy?

Porno can cause a person to harm other, junk food only harms self.

hint: all the text is black when you pretty the "reply" button.

So you reply to people's posts before you fully read them on the bbs first? And you're calling us nimrods?

Uh yes, in light of the fact that you claim you didn't insult me.

I didn't make personal insults about you that did not pertain to the discussion at hand. I'm calling you an idiot based on what you post, I don't know you in real life and can't make that kind of judgment call to know whether or not you're actually an idiot or just trolling everyone.

"PROVE THAT X DOESN'T DO X" is proving a negative. "PROVE THAT THERE IS NO X" = proving a negative.

Fine, I'm asking you to prove a negative, and you really can't prove your case because you can't defend the validity of your points when they're refuted, if you would bother to defend them instead of acting like everyone else is an idiot for disagreeing with you. You lose.

These are all completely worthless points and are only arguments if you say "well the status quo should be preserved! Anything that changes it must be bad!".

So you're for the abuse and objectification of women, then? My aren't we holding society's best interests at heart.

How did they determine that? What questions where asked?

They subject the participants in the study to pornography on a regular basis for a set period of time, it was spelled out in the post I made.

In other words: probably bullshit.

Okay, what are your credentials to make such a statement then? I mean, besides the fact that the guy is a conservative who happens to hold a different political viewpoint than your own?

At 11/4/08 04:44 PM, poxpower wrote: - Slap a girl if she asks for it during sex?
- Have sex with many women at once?
- Have sex with a midget? The midget is also gay. He has a mustache, but it has no soup stains.

Only if proper consent is not given, then it's sexual assault or rape. Although I'd be curious to know how one man can gang rape a bunch of women all at once.... he'd have to have a huge stockpile of duct tape and chloroform....

- Put peanut butter on your crotch so you dog licks it off

Potential case of animal abuse... but I'd think it would be a gray area as the dog is willing to lick the peanut butter.

- Mistake your ass for a crisper and lose a cucumber or two in it

Idiocy is not a crime, unfortunately.

- Give a blowjob to a guy in a locker room. He's clean.

Again, it's an issue of consent.

- For a girl to hit a guy during sex? He's got bruises after but she totally thinks it's cute

Potential case for spousal/domestic abuse.

- Two girls to finger each other while saying dirty things like "Jesus was a dark skinned man"

Again, issue of consent. And Jesus was from what is now the Palestinian West Bank, so he would have been a medium to dark skinned Arab anyway.

- A guy to make a robot goat for the express purpose of fucking the shit out of it

Robot =/= living sentient human being, therefore no moral issue involved.

- Own more than 20 didos and/or 10 different penis pumps
- Buy a real doll

Nothing inherently wrong with it, but if you have enough money to buy a real doll then there's something really sad to be said about your social skills that you can't get laid with a REAL human being.

Are you going anywhere with this, or do you intend to actually defend your points about exposing children to porno anytime soon? This is getting boring.

At 11/4/08 04:44 PM, poxpower wrote: Questions for Proteas and anyone else:

Is it wrong to:

- Slap a girl if she asks for it during sex?

If she gives you explicit permision, I don't see why not.

- Have sex with many women at once?

If they want it, why not?

- Have sex with a midget? The midget is also gay. He has a mustache, but it has no soup stains.

If he wants it, go get 'em, trooper.

- Put peanut butter on your crotch so you dog licks it off

No. That's just wrong, plus illegal.

- Mistake your ass for a crisper and lose a cucumber or two in it

...WHAT?

- Give a blowjob to a guy in a locker room. He's clean.

I dunno...are there people around?

- For a girl to hit a guy during sex? He's got bruises after but she totally thinks it's cute

Not unless he wants to be hit during sex.

- Two girls to finger each other while saying dirty things like "Jesus was a dark skinned man"

As long as I don't see it, you can do whatever you want.

- A guy to make a robot goat for the express purpose of fucking the shit out of it

His business, not mine.

- Own more than 20 didos and/or 10 different penis pumps

See my previous answer.

- Buy a real doll

Why? Are there fake dolls?

However, what does all this have to do with exposing children to pornography and sex? I'm seeing no corelation.

At 11/4/08 05:04 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 11/4/08 04:15 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 11/4/08 03:13 PM, Drakim wrote:

I gotta add my own two cents, because that's what I do.

...okay? Not really related. I only dug up this issue to make a point on the views of some people, not talk about the issue itself.

No prob.

But, it pointed out the underlying issue I've been trying to say here. There is a mentality that sex is bad. : :

I've the viewpoint that there's a time and a place and an age for everything. If you've got two outta three, that ain't bad either.

What exactly do you mean by authority-driven approval regarding sexual curiosity? Because, (but I'm probably in the wrong), it sounds to me like you are saying, "but by doing this, the government doesn't have a neutral stance anymore when it comes to sex", which is the exact thing I was talking about earlier.

It was more in the context that small children like kindergartners are entrusted to adults who are qualified to supervise groups of them. Once you start dabbling in the realms of sexual identity and worst-case-scenario bahavior, and kids are going to be curious and want to know more. More details, more what-ifs, more everything. What's more to know about not getting sexually abused by creeps who could fuckin snatch 'em up in a blink regardless without trusted adult supervision? How much would teachers be allowed to discuss and explain when the kids ask questions? Couldn't it wait until regular 3-5th sex ed? I don't see the advantage.

I suppose the school could hold a beginning-of-the-year lyceum where they all gather in the auditorium and hear a speaker give an informative, professional presentation regarding sexual abuse. I'd be A-okay with that. Hell, it'd probably do some real good.. maybe.

That wouldn't be the same as a homeroom kindergarten teacher, although it might be close enough not to matter.

There is no "neutral stance" within sex, because that would require there to be two equal positions regarding sex, like, "sex is bad" and "sex is good", which is ridiculous.

Some sex is illegal.

It's like requiring the government to have a neutral position on friendship. You know, in case some people think friendship is evil and wicked.

Friendships never resulted in the creation of a new taxpayer without sex.

My point was, sex is a natural thing, and there is nothing wrong with it. It has a time and place, just as you say, but that is not how I see it's treatment. Many people don't act as if sex is simply taken to places it doesn't fit, but they act as if it's inheritly evil and should be hid away. How dare you have sexual suggestive themes on TV? Such a stance can only exist if you actually think sex is a bad thing.

I just don't see it I guess, sorry.

I mean, damn.. did you see how shocked Janet Jackson was when she unwittingly had her tit showcased, without her consent, to the largest audience on television at the time? Even she recognized the power of sexuality and the unintended consequences that careless sexual behavior enables.

Not a big point, just an observation.

It just seems a PSA would do more good than institutionalizing super-pre-pubescent sexual education... and exposure to porn.

Wut? How does exposure to porn relate to sexual education? Especially the kind where the focus is letting children know about sexual predators? It's not like they are being taught about condoms and how to use them.

The topic is about porn, too, so I thought I'd toss that in with the PSA suggestion.

And there is no area but sexual education that this reflect upon. Most likely because it involves children, which makes people buff up their regular opinions ten times as strong.

Abusing children gets inmates killed in prison. Does that mean it's natural and universal to value ones young over the rest?

I dunno really. It's simply how our society works today, at least. Maybe they didn't have such a view on children when half of them died before they turned a year old.

Our kids are raised on the notion that they should grow up in a world that's arbitrarily "better" than the one their parents inhabited.

It's a true recipe for war, and the cycle, if I've ever heard one.

Okay heres why porn is bad for children.

In todays society Women are given fear of sex, anything sexual and shit like that. So basically they are told by society to be prudes and never act on any sexual urges they gain but both adults and peers. If Males children get into porn, their body will want more sexual attention, thinking its having a real sex life. The child will eventually want the real thing, the girl will be a prude and be all like "NO! NO!" and bam! The child is sent to jail for rape and the prude goes on to lead an extremely pressured and stressful life.

At 11/4/08 05:19 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Why? Are there fake dolls?

RealDoll.com NSFW. Basically they are life-size life-like sex dolls that run up into the thousands. The website says they are great for photography purposes and people needing a dummy to model clothes on, but honestly... who's going to spend $5k on a fully anatomically correct doll and not have sex with it a few times?

However, what does all this have to do with exposing children to pornography and sex? I'm seeing no corelation.

Nothing, he's just trying to see who will respond unfavorably so he can poke fun at them for being uptight religious fundamentalists whom he won't take seriously in this debate. I was raised in a conservative household and he knows it, despite the fact that I have shown in the past that I am not one to tow a party line, however I've never discussed my opinions of kinky sex.

At 11/4/08 05:14 PM, Proteas wrote:

Porno can cause a person to harm other

So far there is no study that shows that deviants are deviant because of porn or by being exposed to porn at a young age.

In fact I doubt you could even do such a study ethically. Hence why I say the proof is not there.

I didn't make personal insults about you that did not pertain to the discussion at hand. I'm calling you an idiot based on what you post, I don't know you in real life and can't make that kind of judgment call to know whether or not you're actually an idiot or just trolling everyone.

Now it's getting sad.
Btw your mom's weight is cause for concern. She is so corpulent that vast schools of krill scurry away when she approaches a body of salt water.

Fine, I'm asking you to prove a negative, and you really can't prove your case

No shit, you're committing a logical fallacy. If you consider fallacies as legitimate arguments, then no one on this planet can win against you or prove you wrong.

I don't see the studies. All I see is wild speculation.
I see pretty much the same sorts of argument you'd hear against video games like GTA or for pushing violent movies away from kids. No one can prove anything but they see fit to assume that since kids are influencable, they'll actually be significantly changed by movies or games or porn or whatever.
I think it's just fear-mongering by people who feel like their traditional values are being challenged and who want to make sure nothing changes because they're afraid of the "moral decay".

So you're for the abuse and objectification of women, then?

Huh there was nothing about abuse of women in the points I isolated.
And what the fuck is "objectification of women". From what I gather, it's a feminist buzzword from the 60s and 70s that really means "men just want sex and then they don't talk to us boohoo".

What is it, really? And why is it so damn bad? So what if I just want to fuck some girl? Girls can just fuck guys, but guys can't fuck girls?
What about gay porn? Does that "objectify gay males"?

They subject the participants in the study to pornography on a regular basis for a set period of time, it was spelled out in the post I made.

No, I am asking you the specific of how he came to the conclusion that porn makes people think rape is "not criminal".
I haven't heard anything about that. It sure sounds like bullshit to me, mainly because it's oddly specific and bizarre.

Okay, what are your credentials to make such a statement then?

Skepticism.
He seems to be heavily promoted by religious sites and sites made by mothers to "protect the children".
His main area of "helping people" is "porn addiction", which frankly, sounds made up. I'll go look it up right now.
A quick sweep of wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography _addiction#Skeptics_of_Addiction
Reveals that this sounds DANGEROUSLY like a made-up disease that is just blamed for troubles caused in marriages and in individual's lives when their moral code or that of their peers clash with their newfound love of porn.

And seriously, it sounds retarded as fuck. Just think about it for 5 seconds. Porn addiction? Why isn't there a tv addiction? Where's that group? Why not a video game addiction? How can you even be addicted to porn? What does that mean? You have to watch porn?
Who gives a shit if you have to watch porn? I smell a shitload of placebo effect in there and a lot of misplaced guilt. From reading the whole paper, it sounds like everyone is dumping all these bad vibes on the patient, making him feel like he's BAD and FUCKED UP for wanting porn and that HE MUST STOP AT ALL COSTS!

Well let's hope they find a cure for porn addiction one day! And let's hope it's not genetic either! hahaha

Although I'd be curious to know how one man can gang rape

rape? I never mentioned rape. I didn't even imply it. Or even think about it when I posted that.
:o
I wonder why you associated these weird sex situations with rape so fast. Maybe I should devote a whole paragraph to psychoanalyze you and then say how I'm just insulting you based on your arguments, so it's actually alright.

Robot =/= living sentient human being, therefore no moral issue involved.

Yes but the goat is very realistic. It even poops if you fill it up with grass.

Are you going anywhere with this

refer to Drakim.

At 11/4/08 05:49 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/4/08 05:19 PM, KeithHybrid wrote:

Nothing, he's just trying to see who will respond unfavorably so he can poke fun at them for being uptight religious fundamentalists whom he won't take seriously in this debate.

I didn't think there was. I still believe this is an extremely elaborate hoax. I mean, seriously, there is no way a mod can be nearly that stupid...

i fucking love porn! as a kid i loved it too! i dont get it either. when i was 12 to now it is a factor in my happiness....i think it kids were introduced to it at a younger age they would be happy and not be such little pricks

At 11/4/08 04:44 PM, poxpower wrote: Is it wrong to:

Morally or practically?
That's the distinction you REFUSE to make.

Because no one, NO ONE has argued that these things are morally reprehensible in any way. What we've CONSISTENTLY argued, and PROVIDED STRONG EVIDENCE in support of which is that these things are not indicative of a person who has a healthy attitude to sex.

The argument isn't why porn is morally wrong to show to children, the argument is why YOU think it's fine in a practical sense despite the obvious problems it can cause.

Notice how everyone who says "no porn to kids" is STILL showing favor towards sex ed? That's because we're not narrow-sighted nimrods who don't read people's posts.

You're essentially arguing that porn should be allowed to kids because it's somehow educational. This is what's bullshit.

Equating porn to sound sex education is like equating driver's ed to destruction derbys. "Same diff" right? Loser.....

Here's what I think happened:

You made this thread thinking the only objections you'd face would be "this isn't right because my religion says so".

When you got only responses that had to do with what is sexually healthy, the adolescence of children, and the observed desensitization that occurs with porn use, you threw a hissy-fit.

You keep trying this "is this right or wrong" thing to bring it back to ethics, when it's clear that practically speaking: Kids are NOT mature enough to handle porn.

Hence the regulation.
And it's the same for cars, guns, voting, tobacco, and alcohol.

And neither you nor (apparently) Drakim can seem to get it through your heads that NOBODY GIVES A SHIT about the ethics behind it; We care about the FACT that porn can have negative effects on the health and normative development of children due to their immaturity.

Actually, this is a good point, despite being shaped in a way that will past over people's heads.

No, it's a stupid point, because morals have nothing to do with this.

No, there's nothing wrong with the list ethically. Nobody cares.

But that list CLEARLY represents someone who does not have a healthy or normal understanding of sex and intimacy.

A better question would be this:

Do you consider someone to:

- Slap a girl if she asks for it during sex?
- Have sex with many women at once?
- Have sex with a midget? The midget is also gay. He has a mustache, but it has no soup stains.
- Put peanut butter on your crotch so you dog licks it off
- Mistake your ass for a crisper and lose a cucumber or two in it
- Give a blowjob to a guy in a locker room. He's clean.
- For a girl to hit a guy during sex? He's got bruises after but she totally thinks it's cute
- Two girls to finger each other while saying dirty things like "Jesus was a dark skinned man"
- A guy to make a robot goat for the express purpose of fucking the shit out of it
- Own more than 20 didos and/or 10 different penis pumps
- Buy a real doll

have a NORMAL, HEALTHY, and POSITIVE outlook on sex and sexuality?

Because frankly, I can GUARANTEE that if you walked down the street and met a guy who:
Lost cucumbers in his ass
Owns 10 dildos
bought a Blow-up doll
sits inside all day watching porn

you would agree with me in that they don't have the healthiest outlook towards sex or relationships. Moreover, you'd agree with me there's something wrong with this individual.

So here's my challenge to Drakim and tamPox:

Can you STOP making references to religion and ethics and morality, and whatever shit-stained goggles you have on, and START looking at the objective facts presented on why letting kids watch porn MIGHT cause some development problems?

Or are you two just gonna sit there in your "I hate religion" corners and ignore the issue some more?

Drakim, your smart license has been revoked.

Population Control, pure and simple.

A quick sweep of wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography _addiction#Skeptics_of_Addiction

Reveals that this sounds DANGEROUSLY like a made-up disease that is just blamed for troubles caused in marriages and in individual's lives when their moral code or that of their peers clash with their newfound love of porn.

Notice how that paragraph is COMPLETELY UNSOURCED?

I clicked the "who" right next to those "statements":

Guess what I got?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:A void_weasel_words
"Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. The "who?" link is used because a Wikipedia editor feels that the preceding statement uses weasel words. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed."

If you think a completely unsourced, weasel word statement about skepticism sounds "Dangerously" like a made up disease, you go ahead and think that, based on completely unverifiable sources.

Of course, did you bother to look at what IS sourced in that article?

Yeah, didn't think so.....

You went straight to what you wanted to hear, and ignored anything that didn't fit, DESPITE wiki SPECIFICALLY saying "This is probably bullshit".

You're an idiot.

At 11/3/08 01:39 AM, poxpower wrote: I don't get any of the arguments for keeping kids away from porn.

Why?
You hear all the time how kids shouldn't see tits on tv or how it would destroy them to stumble on a porn site. But seriously, why? What the fuck are they gonna do?

What's the argument for pushing sex ed to as late as possible? As far as I remember, as a kid, me and my friends were pretty keen on seeing a nude pair of tits. It was in fact AWESOME. That is the opposite of "traumatizing".

And I also don't get the "innocence" argument and how that is tied to sex.

And for that matter, why censor certain web pages and contents for kids? Why can't a 2 year old play Mortal Kombat? What the fuck is he gonna do? Try to uppercut the head of other kids? Kids already beat the shit out of other kids, they don't need video games to get the idea. In fact it's the kids who don't play video games who beat up the ones who play the most games.

EXPLAIN THIS UNIVERSE WE LIVE IN TO ME

well the main reson is that parents are afraid teens are going to go out and have unprotected sex, witch then brings STDs and unplanned babys. Also its that some religions say that sex and porn are wrong, therefore public schools have to compincate for these beleifs due to the freedom of religion act.
The same thing goes for video games, they are trying to keep violance to a downlow, and some smart woman, not really, Hillary Clinton, came up with the idea of the rating system. Actualy if you will notice in england and other countries they dont have laws like that. they even allow porn on public tv.
i beleve these good and bad, in ways but i dont have kids, in fact i am a kid, so my veiws of the subject are going to be kinda favord to what i wanna do.
on the subject of the kids who play more video games get into less fights then those who dont, i totaly agree, as i can say first hand, as i play alot of video games, but have only gotten into one fight.
tho the reason for this is the kids who play video games are not as active and therefore not willing to fight because they do not want to get hurt, or get hit in the mouth with a mushroom in my case.
but back on the issue of porn and sex, it was also introduced to reduce child porn, not as a primary reson but more as a secondary "hey, did you know if we did this , this would also happen" type deal.

At 11/4/08 05:55 PM, poxpower wrote: So far there is no study that shows that deviants are deviant because of porn or by being exposed to porn at a young age.

Which is a logical statement as the only studies we have involve adults. But as with violent television and it's studies with teens, it's not much of a stretch of the imagination to show that teens or younger children might react the same way to pornography.

Btw your mom's weight is cause for concern. She is so corpulent that vast schools of krill scurry away when she approaches a body of salt water.

If you're trying to goad me into making an ACTUAL personal attack on you, it's not working, you'll have to try harder than that.

No shit, you're committing a logical fallacy.

And your committing an appeal to ignorance by acting like your own argument is correct because no one can prove it conclusively wrong.

I don't see the studies. All I see is wild speculation.

There are studies in those links, the problem is that you're being stubborn about recognizing their credibility, of which you certainly have NONE. Which is why I will -- and I ask that no one else -- not bring any more articles into this thread. If pox isn't willing to accept anything less than a medical journal article on the subject in what is supposed to be a casual internet debate, I suggest you not waste your time.

No one can prove anything but they see fit to assume that since kids are influencable, they'll actually be significantly changed by movies or games or porn or whatever.

They are easily influenced, they're kids, and you've shown to believe that they are as well. Or do you honestly believe that my parents didn't infect me with their "Victorian" mindset that you were joking about earlier?

Huh there was nothing about abuse of women in the points I isolated.

The study showed that the participants attitudes towards women had changed. Please don't tell me that you are unable to realize that these men would carry this attitude into the real world and apply it to their personal lives.

And what the fuck is "objectification of women".

Viewing a woman as a sexual object not deserving of basic human respect.

No, I am asking you the specific of how he came to the conclusion that porn makes people think rape is "not criminal"

Why don't you find the guy's e-mail and ASK HIM then?

Skepticism.

So being an armchair skeptic makes you more qualified than a phd who spends his time researching the subject endlessly?

Reveals that this sounds DANGEROUSLY like a made-up disease that is just blamed for troubles caused in marriages and in individual's lives when their moral code or that of their peers clash with their newfound love of porn.

When the newfound love of porn wrecks your social life, bank account, and marriage, and shows all the similar signs of alcholishm and drug abuse, what would you call it?

I wonder why you associated these weird sex situations with rape so fast.

The question was "is [this] wrong?" I said, it would only be wrong IF consent wasn't given. Forced sex without consent equals rape, or at the least, sexual assault and battery.

I like red-heads and japanese AV models, for future references.

refer to Drakim.

Ok, going with his point "many people think several of the things on this list to be wrong, but feel that's it's not their duty to do anything about it." I didn't think of this was wrong as most of it involves two consenting adults who know that their actions are.

Now, how does this relate to this topic, and do you at ANY point intend to defend your opening posts whatsoever? Or do you intend to continue this charade?

I love it tampox,

On the one hand you have this section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography _addiction#Pornography_addiction_accordi ng_to_Irons_and_Schneider

And the reference:
http://www.jenniferschneider.com/article s/diagnos.html
Notice: Scholarly article, M.D and PH.D authors

On the other hand you have this section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography _addiction#Skeptics_of_Addiction

COMPLETELY unsourced, with Wiki telling you with "who" and "citation needed" that there's weasel words and issues with verification.

and which passage did you adhere to?
The one completely unsourced, against the one written by DOCTORS.

Man of science indeed Tampox, man of science indeed..........

everthing in this world is base on a factor of right or wrong, what most people think is that there is a predetermined right, and a predetermand wrong, when in actulaty it is all based on a just or unjust system that then branches off. for example
sex is bad
personA:Yes...personB:No
there for for person A it is right and for person B it is wrong, it will then branch off into another just/unjust question, for example
sex is only bad recreationaly
(now person B yes, but we are now adding in a new group of people, personC)
personA:Yes...personB:Yes...personC:no
now person C is the group that branches off from B, beliving sex is good, but only for reproduction, not recreation. this then continues, with any subject
this is how scientists classify things, except they use other characteristics such as color, length, habbitat, density, and so on. does this help

It's not faith if the evidence points towards something more obvious, like bigotry.

At 11/4/08 06:40 PM, Proteas wrote: I like red-heads and japanese AV models, for future references.

You are my new best friend. :D

(Sorry if somebody already said this, but I didn't want to read through 4 pages)

Look, the only reason anything sexual is considered inappropriate, taboo, etc. is because sex is a basic human instinct. If we can deprive lots of people of a basic human instinct, it creates mass hysteria, which creases the need to put all your faith into something, which makes everybody easier to control.

Well, what if some kids enjoy porn even if we have to keep it away from them? What if they're really eager to get into this sort of thing?

At 11/4/08 06:34 PM, Imperator wrote:

"Weasel words are words

I guess you assumed I didn't check anywhere else first.
http://www.canada.com/topics/lifestyle/r elationships/story.html?id=3c0f656f-4d3e -411a-97e2-c63aede3a4b4

From all the sites I can read, this disease seems about as hard to pin down as ADD. Frankly, it sounds made up and it's up to the doctor to decide if he wants to treat it or not, if it counts as a disease all by itself or if it's actually just a sympton of something else. From all the evidence, it seems to me you can get addicted just as hard on Star Wars and collecting Pringles lids as you can get addicted to Porn.

in fact, maybe a diagnosable case right here?: http://gizmodo.com/357908/the-biggest-st ar-wars-collection-in-the-galaxy

Imagine if that guy came to the doctor complaining that he was so obsessed with Star Wars that he spent too much money on it, too much time away from his friends etc. ( basically all the arguments in the article with the porn addicts). I imagine the guy would try to help him, being a doctor. So if he got to treat, say, 300 of them ( wow big numbers!!!!! ) in 20 years, he'd publish a paper on "STAR WARS ADDICTION!!!!".

Hahaha. Then I imagine you'd see those papers and buzzwords recycled and circulated in whatever circles oppose Star Wars for whatever stupid personal reasons.

I know how this game works.

At 11/4/08 06:40 PM, Proteas wrote:

Which is a logical statement as the only studies we have involve adults. But as with violent television and it's studies with teens, it's not much of a stretch of the imagination to show that teens or younger children might react the same way to pornography.

Key word: your imagination.
Especially considering you've been raised in a conservative household that had conservative views about sex. Maybe you have biased opinions? Food for thought.

No shit, you're committing a logical fallacy.

And your committing an appeal to ignorance by acting like your own argument is correct because no one can prove it conclusively wrong.

No I don't claim it's right, just like I don't claim there's no Sasquatch. But show him to me cause I'm a skeptic.

If pox isn't willing to accept anything less than a medical journal article on the subject in what is supposed to be a casual internet debate, I suggest you not waste your time.

Huh welcome to the real world, where you need actual proof when you make claims.
It's not an impossible demand to ask for a frickin scientific paper. There's millions in the world. There's even some referred to in the articles, but the conclusions seem twisted by the people who write the articles to serve their own ends, because, just like you, they admit it's "inconclusive" and that the link between porn and violence, pedophiles, women abuse etc. is vague at best.

They are easily influenced, they're kids, and you've shown to believe that they are as well.

I sure do, but my argument is that if they're so easy to influence, then I can start making all sorts of crazy claims about superman making them jump out of buildings and Star Wars making them choke each other with chains. I can push it as far as I want if I'm just speculating, like you.

Kids are obviously easy to influence, but to me, it's quite unclear to which degree and how permanent the effects are going to be for seeing, say, a couple porno movies.

Huh there was nothing about abuse of women in the points I isolated.

The study showed that the participants attitudes towards women had changed.

How is that "abuse"? That's not even clear at all. That's just you making wild guesses once again.
You have to be pretty damn bad to reach ABUSE and that word was NOT mentioned.

Viewing a woman as a sexual object not deserving of basic human respect.

"not deserving of basic human respect"? Where did you get that? That sounds like a lie because that would translate into making women not vote, for instance. Which was around before porn.

Please tell me the concrete effects of this. What exactly do those evil "women objectifiers" do?

Why don't you find the guy's e-mail and ASK HIM then?

Maybe I will.
Though that was 30 years ago, he's probably dead by now.

So being an armchair skeptic makes you more qualified than a phd who spends his time researching the subject endlessly?

Huh I don't have to take the word of one single guy on something like complex and controversial like that. That's not skepticism. I'm looking at as many expert statements as I can find and frankly, most of them have really nebulous conclusions on the subjects and differing opinions.

Hence I conclude that it's not in the realm of hard facts, but of moral judgments and opinions.

When the newfound love of porn wrecks your social life, bank account, and marriage, and shows all the similar signs of alcholishm and drug abuse, what would you call it?

I don't remember anything about physical withdrawal or health detriments. Under your definition, people who play Donkey Kong until they beat the world record are addicted. People who watch movies all day are addicted.

If you read the research, it's clear that the only reason he considered it an addiction was because HE and HIS PATIENTS thought it was something to be ASHAMED OF. That's not medical, that's bullshit. And if you check further, he wasn't seeking THEM out, they were SENT TO HIM! He didn't realize they needed help until they were sent to him BY PEOPLE OFTEN OTHER THAN THEM WHO ALSO THOUGHT PORN WAS DISTASTEFUL, BEGGING FOR HELP. People with clear religious and conservative persuasions at that.

Sorry, but there's a plethora of red flags there. If this was an addiction, there would be thousands of people currently addicted to porn, it would wreak many lives and you'd hear about it OUTSIDE THE BIBLE BELT and Feminist rallies.

Ok, going with his point "many people think several of the things on this list to be wrong, but feel that's it's not their duty to do anything about it." I didn't think of this was wrong as most of it involves two consenting adults who know that their actions are.

fine.

At 11/4/08 06:30 PM, Imperator wrote:

You're essentially arguing that porn should be allowed to kids because it's somehow educational. This is what's bullshit.

Equating porn to sound sex education is like equating driver's ed to destruction derbys. "Same diff" right?

;;;;;;
I believe what Imperator has wriitten here, sums up my views.
The difference between Porn & Sex education is IMO as different as night & day.
Porn is not the kind of educational material that is suitable for any child.
Sex Ed is not about porn !

Poxpower: I believe that I am right because everyone else is biased against my opinion and I can't find any research that isn't biased.

Everyone else: You can't find anything you don't think is biased because you are wrong and you can't decern between the merits of scientific studies, including their implications, and your own opinions.

Even simpler:

Poxpower: you're right, I'm wrong, stop changing the subject.

Everyone else: No pox, you're wrong.

At 11/5/08 08:09 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

Porn is not the kind of educational material that is suitable for any child.
Sex Ed is not about porn !

I never claimed porn was educational or meant to be.
He's just coming up with straw men arguments, as per usual.

At 11/5/08 11:10 AM, Brian wrote: Poxpower: I believe that I am right because everyone else is biased against my opinion and I can't find any research that isn't biased.

There is unbiased research, it just doesn't support the claim that porn is really bad for kids.

Go away