At 11/6/08 07:54 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:
25k posts and a modship can't be wong. or so i'm told.

I personally base all my arguments on things about the user's account.

How many PMs do I think they get?
When did they sign up?
How cool is their level icon?
Did they pick the right color of aura?

I call this science 'accountology".

At 11/6/08 07:58 AM, poxpower wrote: I personally base all my arguments on things about the user's account.

How many PMs do I think they get?
When did they sign up?
How cool is their level icon?
Did they pick the right color of aura?

I call this science 'accountology".

I call this science 'accountology".

Ya no, i still think if Shrike turned up and said i'm an a-hole you'd believe him first kuz he's from the USA. But i'm bias kuz i aint.

Hey, it's good to have online friends. I value them.

At 11/3/08 01:39 AM, poxpower wrote: EXPLAIN THIS UNIVERSE WE LIVE IN TO ME

For people with kids, porn helps with natural family planning. (at least for males)

I don't get any of the arguments for keeping kids away from porn.

This is more tricky. We have a teen who spend long hours on the net, but we live on an island so there's safety margin. I think one can grow up a bit fast surfing the net.

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?

It's a loss of innocence. It's about children growing up too quick. But when i was young i couldn't wait. My partner is more protective. Mothers are like that.

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.

EXPLAIN THIS UNIVERSE WE LIVE IN TO ME

At 11/6/08 09:21 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: I think one can grow up a bit fast surfing the net.

I have no idea why that is bad.
Isn't that awesome?

It's a loss of innocence.

What part of the body is that again? Where can I get a refund if I was issued a faulty innocence?

It's about children growing up too quick. But when i was young i couldn't wait.

I don't care about growing up, I care that I'm going to die.

Being a kid sucks. You don't grow up from porn, you grow up from having responsibilities.

At 11/6/08 07:14 AM, poxpower wrote: So on that front alone, even if we're BOTH super-biased, I think I'd still win.

Based on what?

I'd believe you if there was some sort of evidence landslide but it seems pretty divided and subjective.

I doubt that. At this point, it's pretty clear to me this is an act on your part and your being stubborn for teh lulz.

What the fuck? That shit is retarded.

CASE IN POINT.

At 11/6/08 11:31 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/6/08 09:21 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: It's about children growing up too quick. But when i was young i couldn't wait.

I don't care about growing up, I care that I'm going to die.

The "theory" is that loss of innocence leads to teen pregnancy. Teens meeting "all manner of people" online and possibly getting into adult activities to sustain adult relationships..

Being a kid sucks. You don't grow up from porn, you grow up from having responsibilities.

..yes, and having responsibilities of your own kids to worry over ranks as number 1 on that list.

But you're right, navigating the net with skill far outweighs the need for concern, say compared to having a child roam the city streets at night.

At 11/6/08 11:50 AM, Proteas wrote:

I doubt that. At this point, it's pretty clear to me this is an act on your part and your being stubborn for teh lulz.

Doesn't it strike you as extremely arrogant to think that someone disagreeing with you must just be joking?

At 11/6/08 12:28 PM, JudgeDredd wrote:

The "theory" is that loss of innocence leads to teen pregnancy.

Well then it has nothing to do with the abstract and subjective concept of innocence, now does it? Be careful with this issue unless you fall with Proteas and his moral patrol. Don't use moral judgments to make your decision.

The correct line of argument is:

- does porn increase the rate of teen pregnancies?
- does porn increase women abuse?
- does porn make people break laws or cause harm to others in any significant way?

As far as I can tell: no. Not at all. There's no study to back that up. It's always shit like "well this twisted fucker had a ton of porn!". And you're like "hey porn! My mom told me that was bad, I guess she was right!".
So, what then? If he had a huge DVD collection of Star Trek remastered episodes, we'd blame that shit?

And why do we never blame porn for someone's awesome sexual fortitude? Like, wow look at that George Cloney, boning those women, he must watch a lot of porn to get those great ideas!

It's ridiculous the second you turn the argument around, but somehow it explains deviancy perfectly?

But you're right, navigating the net with skill far outweighs the need for concern, say compared to having a child roam the city streets at night.

I don't know that your kid is that unsafe at night anyway. Probably more kids die at the pool than by the hand of some twisted pedophile. But holy shit those stories are horrible.

People really don't give any credit to kids. They're impressionable, but that's a GOOD thing. That's your chance to give them good values. This whole argument that porn will warp them somehow assumes that even if the kid's minds are totally pliable, they're somehow resilient enough to ignore everything the parent says is good/bad and just go and beat women and stab kids for pokemon cards. Way easier to blame porn and Mortal Kombat than just outright bad luck or shitty parenting.

Next thing you know, pox will be talking about how rape should be legalized...

At 11/6/08 03:25 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Next thing you know, pox will be talking about how rape should be legalized...

Yes, just as gay marriage leads to people wanting to marry their pets.

And handguns leads to people wanting portal able nukes.

At 11/6/08 03:30 PM, Drakim wrote:

And handguns leads to people wanting portal able nukes.

I want a protable nuke, it would rule.

So since I'm bored, here's a list of possible future techs. Tell me if civilians should be able to own them:

- Personal force field that prevents people from shooting at you
- Invisibility cloak
- Mind control gun
- A gun that turns other people into homosexuals ( rad )
- Catapults ( but smaller, cause it's the future )
- A shoulder lazer ( like the predator )
- An exosuit that makes you super-strong and super-fast
- A mech ( for grocery shopping. Why not? )

cool

At 11/6/08 03:01 PM, poxpower wrote: People really don't give any credit to kids. They're impressionable, but that's a GOOD thing. That's your chance to give them good values.

To take a page from your book -- there's no such thing as "good values" so your argument is worthless. It's purely subjective, opinion-based morality and status-quo ethical bullshit based on popular social trends instead of science. It's pure fascism to tell kids what's "good" and what's "bad" so you should just let them figure it out for themselves. In some places, the objectification and rape of women is even considered virtuous... so what, are you trying to be the thought police or something, telling kids what counts as "good behavior" and what doesn't? How unscientifical.

At 11/6/08 05:49 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/6/08 03:30 PM, Drakim wrote:

And handguns leads to people wanting portal able nukes.

I want a protable nuke, it would rule.

So since I'm bored, here's a list of possible future techs. Tell me if civilians should be able to own them:

- Personal force field that prevents people from shooting at you

if everyone owns one, why not?

- Invisibility cloak

, easily combated with thermal googles

- Mind control gun

no,

- A gun that turns other people into homosexuals ( rad )

you can own one, but cant use it without consent of the person.

- Catapults ( but smaller, cause it's the future )

yes

- A shoulder lazer ( like the predator )

if theres force felids then why not

- An exosuit that makes you super-strong and super-fast

most definitly, although everyone else would have one too.

- A mech ( for grocery shopping. Why not? )

how could you not live with this.

cool

only thing im against is the mind control device,

but I could change my mind depeding on how fast/ ovious it is.

like dose it take over minds instantly? can you fight it back(like inside your mind)? dose it charge up, is there a loud high pitch noise when its chargeing?ecT:

At 11/6/08 06:25 PM, thedo12 wrote:

- An exosuit that makes you super-strong and super-fast

most definitly, although everyone else would have one too.

Not poor people.
I long to live in the day where rich people can buy more intelligence, longevity and strength than everyone else!
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee we'll have a jolly good time.

At 11/6/08 03:01 PM, poxpower wrote:
The correct line of argument is:

- does porn increase the rate of teen pregnancies?
- does porn increase women abuse?
- does porn make people break laws or cause harm to others in any significant way?

I thought i made a point on the second one. You argued that viewing women as objects of sexual domination was not inherently wrong... When i suggested 'twisted veiws on sexual relations' i was referring to the psychological acceptability of dominating women by men, in a way, our modern sexual culture that reflects this violent relationship seems to both support and refute the 'porn 4 childeren is bad' argument... On one hand it possibly suggests that the rise in the popularity and occurrence of female abuse occurred independently, on the other hand, you could argue a case that this rise in new thought coincided with the rise of the internet which made porn something considerably less difficult to get one's hands on.

AAAAnnnywaaay... If you're only questioning the objectivity of the rising veiw by boys AND girls that women are objects of sexual domination why are you not questioning the objectivity of female abuse. Your arguments might be good but how silly is it to try and argue that the rise of a particular thought process on the sexual relations between men and women, as influenced [and i assume this is not up for debate] by the rise in youth access to pornography, would not in some way be related to the potential rise in the abuse of women? Arguing otherwise would be like saying that the rise in fundamentalist ideology in a region wouldn't lead to the rise of fundamentalism a political influence.

I say if it's not hurting anyone legalize it

At 11/6/08 06:33 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

would not in some way be related to the potential rise in the abuse of women?

Huh, why would it?
Why would I start beating women more if I am just using them for sex?

Where are the stats for that? I claim there's none.

As far as I know, wife-beatings are really really common in... muslim countries.. Who incidentally watch a lot of porn... oh wait...

And no one has yet defined "objectifying a woman". I don't know what the hell it means and I suspect no one else here knows.

So let's look it up!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_obje ctification

Wow look at that, a turd sandwich once again! I told you guys it was just a matter of opinion, but no, apparently Proteas had determined that "objectification of woman" is really bad and should be avoided. Welcome to the tool shed.

At 11/6/08 09:13 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/6/08 06:33 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

would not in some way be related to the potential rise in the abuse of women?

Huh, why would it?
Why would I start beating women more if I am just using them for sex?

"about marketers' influence on teen girls. "All this sex gives a misinformed notion of what it means to be grown-up." Studies show that kids who consume this kind of sex in the media inherit more traditional views of gender-boys as dominant, girls as submissive, in the bedroom and beyond."

If i am not mistaken gender abuse is rooted in the issue of a power struggle. Abuse itself occurs either because the abuser is drunk or because they consider it a societal norm to dominate women, emotionally and sexually.

At 11/6/08 09:24 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

"about marketers' influence on teen girls. "All this sex gives a misinformed notion of what it means to be grown-up." Studies show that kids who consume this kind of sex in the media inherit more traditional views of gender-boys as dominant, girls as submissive, in the bedroom and beyond."

huh, you don't find that pathetically subjective and vague?
And "more traditional views"? Haha, what does that mean? Like, before porn, people had this view that women were submissive, and now we should blame porn for doing that?

Does not compute

At 11/6/08 03:01 PM, poxpower wrote: Doesn't it strike you as extremely arrogant to think that someone disagreeing with you must just be joking?

Not in the least bit. You wrote a piss poor excuse for a topic, backed it up with flimsy egoist logic and ethics, supplied not a bit of evidence to defend your points, would not defend your points because you were constantly shifting the subject to why everyone else was wrong for disagreeing with you, acted intentionally obtuse about the simplest of statements, and wrote off as bullshit even the most liberally written of studies that still contradicted your viewpoint.

You're a troll.

At 11/6/08 09:13 PM, poxpower wrote: And no one has yet defined "objectifying a woman". I don't know what the hell it means and I suspect no one else here knows.

So let's look it up!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_obje ctification

Wow look at that, a turd sandwich once again! I told you guys it was just a matter of opinion, but no, apparently Proteas had determined that "objectification of woman" is really bad and should be avoided. Welcome to the tool shed.

Know the great thing about wiki? The footnotes:
http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualizations um.html

Yes, it's such a piece of shit matter of opinion that the APA formed a task force to counter the threats.
There's a nice big header there for ya "Evidence for the Sexualization of Girls"

With a reference list a mile fucking long.

" I told you guys it was just a matter of opinion"

EVERY SPECIALIST ON THE SUBJECT DISAGREES WITH YOU.
You'd think with your stance on science as it is, you'd at least hear out something that, what seems like the entire APA, has agreed upon without scoffing and saying "it's bullshit".

Course, I know you. Logic and reason have never been your strong suits.

Let this be the final nail in the coffin:
There's an article from the APA, with references up the ass, stating evidence for, and consequences of the objectification of women.

Pox thinks it's a "turd sandwitch".

Therefore, it can either be concluded that Pox knows more about the subject than every researcher on it, or that he's completely ignoring sound evidence.....much the same way religious people ignore evidence, might I add.

Congrats Pox. You've got as much faith in your own Ego as other people do in God.

Narcissism, thy name is you.

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?

Stare at the t.v. like a six year old who just saw Santa.

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".

It makes no sense. You need to teach sex ed. I don't get these people who are against it, they are always crazy Christians who are completely against anything that can be linked to sex. Sex ed. teaches about sexually transmitted diseases, which would get people to stop having sex if it had any effect at all.

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

I can tell you as a 15 year old, we are less innocent with regard to sex than any other humans on the face of the planet. Maybe you've forgotten, but bunnies think about sex less than us.

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.

The thing about video games is that it is a scapegoat. It is easy to say that if you play GTA you will steal a car, because people have lost the ability to think for themselves. Anyone who wants to argue about that, answer me this, where did the people from GTA get the idea for carjackings? Video games did not invent violence, if anything they give you an idea of what it is really like.

EXPLAIN THIS UNIVERSE WE LIVE IN TO ME

I would, but I am still trying to figure it out.

At 11/7/08 01:24 AM, Imperator wrote:

Know the great thing about wiki? The footnotes:
http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualizations um.html

Yes, it's such a piece of shit matter of opinion that the APA formed a task force to counter the threats.

Haha did you read that article? That was published by a panel composed entirely of women apparently. Didn't know science was gender-biased.

You know what? If women aren't content with the state of media, then they can start their own businesses and set the trends themselves instead of trying to appeal to authority to get a shortcut and decide what goes on in magazines, movies, commercials, games etc. They have all the same fucking rights as men AND MORE but they're STILL complaining. So far the biggest "danger" is that girls are depressed and distracted about their image.
OH PLEASE, ANYTHING BUT THAT! God forbid they'd join a gym! NOOO! Losing weight? Insane I tell you!

Btw it would be so funny if the situation was reversed and women had all the smart jobs and men were sluts and they still complained that women aren't ever shown as desired by men. "oh women in movies and on tv are always seen chasing men like fools! That is ridiculous and gives a clear bias that women are sex-craving losers! Many women seek sex in early years at all costs, making relations terrible! boohoo!"

This whole movement is just a double-standard and completely biased.

When's the last time you saw a stupid woman on tv or in a movie? When's the last time you saw a woman just fall in love completely with a man in a movie? No, there's always this bullshit where the guy is an idiot and the girl resists and taunts endlessly, all the while showing how smart, capable and independant she is. But the second she shows a piece of skin, then OH NO SHE'S BEING OBJECTIFIED, YOU'VE CORRUPTED A GENERATION OF GIRLS WHO'LL CHOOSE STUPID JOBS LIKE PSYCHOLOGIST INSTEAD OF GOING INTO MATHS AND CHEMISTRY.

This is BULLSHIT.

Btw what does this have to do with the effects of a kid seeing an eyefull of tits again?

At 11/7/08 09:48 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/7/08 01:24 AM, Imperator wrote:

No, there's always this bullshit where the guy is an idiot and the girl resists and taunts endlessly, all the while showing how smart, capable and independant she is...

Btw what does this have to do with the effects of a kid seeing an eyefull of tits again?

Tit's are a tease object the moment a child stops suckling? ... *shrugs*

The problem is contradiction. Allowing children to see porn contradicts the puritan values that our country was unfortunately founded upon, and would also contradict the church's claim that premarital sex is sinful, and that lust is the work of the devil. Honestly if our society didn't have its head shoved so far up its own ass in regards to what is illegal and taboo (I refer to things such as marijuana laws and the recent law that if a cigarette is smoked in a movie it automaticaly gets an "R" rating... cmon people) than it wouldn't be such a suprise to a child when they first discover what sex is. We have parents telling their children that there is a freaking stork droping kids down the chimney. There is very little difference in the problems caused by a child in our society first discovering porn and the problems caused in a child discovering santa claus and the tooth fairy are not real. Same basic principal, but the church and our society add a whole other level of discomfort and awkwardness to the situation.

At 11/7/08 09:48 PM, poxpower wrote: Haha did you read that article? That was published by a panel composed entirely of DOCTORS apparently.

Fixed.

Course the fact that "Ph.D" appears after their names means nothing I suppose....

This whole movement is just a double-standard and completely biased.

Ok. I think I've heard just about enough.
Why don't YOU tell ME what it's gonna take for you to change your views?

On second thought, don't. I already know the answer:
The only thing that would get you to admit you're full of shit is if the hand of God that you don't believe in came down and slapped the Ego off your face.

This is BULLSHIT.

Yes. I pull an article with SIX doctors, citing research a mile long. But Pox says otherwise. Course, who are a bunch of chicks to argue with him? It's obviously just a biased female ploy. The fact that they're all DOCTORS is just a clever ruse to disguise their findings.

Btw what does this have to do with the effects of a kid seeing an eyefull of tits again?

It has to do with your own bias, and the fact that you reject anything that you're uncomfortable with, regardless of how scientifically secure it actually is.

Proteas is entirely correct, you're trolling. You ignored the fact the article is written by Doctors, well sourced, and coming from a more than repudable site.

The only reason I can possibly see you denying something about as scientifically sound as fucking gravity is if you were just trying to be a complete dick, trolling the boards looking to infuriate people.

So instead of continuing, I'm just gonna list the research the article cites, so everyone else can see just how deficient your argument really is. Cheers asshat.

Once again, the article that you find is bullshit.
http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualizations um.html
From the APA, written by 6 doctorates.

Their sources:
Abramson, E., & Valene, P. (1991). Media use, dietary restraint, bulimia, and attitudes toward obesity: A preliminary study. British Review of Bulimia and Anorexia Nervosa, 5, 73-76.

Brotto, L., Heiman, J., & Tolman, D. (in press). Towards conceptualizing women's desires: A mixed methods study. Journal of Sex Research.

Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Women's psychology and girls' development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Durkin, S. J., & Paxton, S. J. (2002). Predictors of vulnerability to reduced body image satisfaction and psychological well-being in response to exposure to idealized female media images in adolescent girls. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53, 995-1005.

Eder, D. (with Evans, C. C., & Parker, S). (1995). School talk: Gender and adolescent culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts,T-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women's lived experience and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206.

Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts,T., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J.M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 269-284.

Gapinski, K. D., Brownell, K. D., & LaFrance,M. (2003). Body objectification and "fat talk": Effects on emotion, motivation, and cognitive performance. Sex Roles, 48, 377-388.

Gow, J. (1996). Reconsidering gender roles on MTV: Depictions in the most popular music videos of the early 1990s. Communication Reports, 9, 151-161.

Grauerholz, E., & King, A. (1997). Primetime sexual harassment. Violence Against Women, 3, 129-148.

Harrison, K. (2000).The body electric: Thin-ideal media and eating disorders in adolescents. Journal of Communication, 50, 119-143.

Hebl, M. R., King, E. G., & Lin, J. (2004). The swimsuit becomes us all: Ethnicity, gender, and vulnerability to selfobjectification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1322-1331.

Hofschire, L. J., & Greenberg, B. S. (2001). Media's impact on adolescents' body dissatisfaction. In J. D. Brown & J. R. Steele (Eds.), Sexual teens, sexual media (pp. 125-149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Impett, E. A., Schooler, D., & Tolman, D. L. (2006). To be seen and not heard: Femininity ideology and adolescent girls' sexual health. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21, 628-646.

Krassas, N., Blauwkamp, J. M., & Wesselink, P. (2001). Boxing Helena and corseting Eunice: Sexual rhetoric in Cosmopolitan and Playboy magazines. Sex Roles, 44, 751-771.

Krassas, N. R., Blauwkamp, J. M., & Wesselink, P. (2003). "Master your Johnson": Sexual rhetoric in Maxim and Stuff magazines. Sexuality & Culture, 7, 98-119.

Lin, C. (1997). Beefcake versus cheesecake in the 1990s: Sexist portrayals of both genders in television commercials. Howard Journal of Communications, 8, 237-249.

Martin, K. A. (1998). Becoming a gendered body: Practices in preschools. American Sociological Review, 63, 494-511.

McConnell, C. (2001). An object to herself: The relationship between girls and their bodies. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(8B), p. 4416.

McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The Objectified Body Consciousness Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181-215.

Mills, J., Polivy, J., Herman, C. P., & Tiggemann, M. (2002). Effects of exposure to thin media images: Evidence of selfenhancement among restrained eaters. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1687-1699.

Nichter, M. (2000). Fat talk: What girls and their parents say about dieting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

O'Donohue, W., Gold, S. R., & McKay, J. S. (1997). Children as sexual objects: Historical and gender trends in magazines. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research & Treatment, 9, 291-301.

Plous, S., & Neptune, D. (1997). Racial and gender biases in magazine advertising: A content analytic study. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 627-644.

Rolón-Dow, R. (2004). Seduced by images: Identity and schooling in the lives of Puerto Rican girls. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35, 8-29.

Schooler, D., & Ward, L.M. (2006).Average joes: Men's relationships with media, real bodies, and sexuality. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7, 27-41.

Slater, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2002). A test of objectification theory in adolescent girls. Sex Roles, 46, 343-349.

Stice, E., Schupak-Neuberg, E., Shaw, H., & Stein, R. (1994). Relation of media exposure to eating disorder symptomatology: An examination of mediating mechanisms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 836-840.

Thomsen, S. R.,Weber,M.M., & Brown, L. B. (2002).The relationship between reading beauty and fashion magazines and the use of pathogenic dieting methods among adolescent females. Adolescence, 37, 1-18.

Vincent, R. C. (1989). Clio's consciousness raised? Portrayal of women in rock videos, re-examined. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 155-160.

Ward, L. M. (1995). Talking about sex: Common themes about sexuality in the prime-time television programs children and adolescents view most. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 24, 595-615.

Ward, L. M. (2002). Does television exposure affect emerging adults' attitudes and assumptions about sexual relationships? Correlational and experimental confirmation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 1-15.

Ward, L. M. (2004). Wading through the stereotypes: Positive and negative associations between media use and Black adolescents' conceptions of self. Developmental Psychology, 40, 284-294.

Ward, L. M., & Rivadeneyra, R. (1999). Contributions of entertainment television to adolescents' sexual attitudes and expectations:The role of viewing amount versus viewer involvement. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 237-249.

Zurbriggen, E. L., & Morgan, E. M. (2006). Who wants to marry a millionaire? Reality dating television programs, attitudes toward sex, and sexual behaviors. Sex Roles, 54, 1-17.

At 11/8/08 12:22 AM, Imperator wrote:

Course the fact that "Ph.D" appears after their names means nothing I suppose....

You don't think it's even a slight conflict of interest to have an all-women panel publish an article about how women deserve more respect in society? What's the proportion of doctors or psychologists who are women again?

Pardon me if I find this a LITTLE suspicious.

Why don't YOU tell ME what it's gonna take for you to change your views?

Show me that a kid seeing porn becomes a violent person who actually commits crimes against women.
All the rest is completely subjective as to whether it's good or bad and of no interest to me.

And sources are not relevant WHEN THEY'RE NOT ABOUT THE RIGHT POINTS.

At 11/8/08 12:33 AM, poxpower wrote: You don't think it's even a slight conflict of interest to have an all-women panel publish an article about how women deserve more respect in society? What's the proportion of doctors or psychologists who are women again?

Would you think the same thing if the panel were all men?

What basis do you have to question their academic integrity, besides the fact they happen to be women?

Or do you just presume a group of women holding Ph.D's are naturally inclined to be professionally and academically dishonest by virtue of the research topic?

Pardon me if I find this a LITTLE suspicious.

No, I don't think I will. Your entire basis for denying their research, and the references they used is what? A group of women can't write about women without being dishonest in their PROFESSIONAL line of work?

Piss off.
You thought the objectification of women was BS. I think the APA has proven it's point. If you wanna argue, go read through all those links and

Show me that a kid seeing porn becomes a violent person who actually commits crimes against women.

You gotta be shitting me.....
WFT do you want, a fuckin court case or something? The studies aren't good enough, the APA isn't good enough, you want a specific Jon Doe reference pulled from the criminal archives or some shit?

How about this? I'll hold you to this same ridiculous standard of scruitiny the next time you talk about how bad religion is.

All the rest is completely subjective as to whether it's good or bad and of no interest to me.

Yeah, the APA is well known for putting out completely subjective results......

And sources are not relevant WHEN THEY'RE NOT ABOUT THE RIGHT POINTS.

Eg, the points that contradict your entire argument.

We're done.

I dont care if kids see porn and stuff. I dont have to deal with them. They can get a limb cut off for all I care.

At 11/8/08 02:32 AM, Imperator wrote:

Would you think the same thing if the panel were all men?

No.

What basis do you have to question their academic integrity, besides the fact they happen to be women?

First off, their "findings" are mostly moral judgments. They'll find something out, then declare that it's bad and unfair to women and that it must change, not caring if it's fair to men or the rest of society.
Second: they're human beings and humans are always partial.

You thought the objectification of women was BS.

I don't deny it exists, I just claim that no one should give a shit and they certainly shouldn't start boards who censor and screen all content just because women are insecure about how they look.

You gotta be shitting me.....
WFT do you want, a fuckin court case or something? The studies aren't good enough, the APA isn't good enough, you want a specific Jon Doe reference pulled from the criminal archives or some shit?

All you need is ONE study that CLEARLY demonstrates that exposure to porn makes men act violently towards women and/or children and I don't see that anywhere. It always ALWAYS returns to "men don't respect women as much" which sounds like a total load of bullshit and a cry out for attention. Apparently we should be worshiping women just for existing no matter how many defects they have.

<rant rant rant>

I mean think about it honestly, Imperator. You haven't heard all of these arguments before? Haven't you also heard endless comedy routines on the subject?

For instance, women are hot. Now they'll complain if they don't get hired or picked for a job on the basis that they're ugly, but they'll never complain if they get benefits from their status as "really desirable". Wow, job promotion because I have an nice ass? WELL I GUESS I'LL JUST TAKE THAT WITHOUT COMPLAINING.
Wow, I married a rich guy because I'm a hot piece of ass? Well, life is so unfair towards women!
Wait, didn't a woman just run for PRESIDENT and one was VICE PRESIDENT, who was also a total airhead? I bet you there's psychologists somewhere trying to pin the blame on how everyone laughed at Sarah Palin on the fact that she was "objectified" and "sexualized" because she was hot.

And they don't seem to realize how easy it is for a girl/woman to look pretty fucking hot. 95% of thin girls I see on the street, I would date/fuck if I had the chance. It's not that hard to reach the "good looking" barrier and I don't blame anyone but themselves if they can't reach it without going crazy or having eating disorders.

And ever hear men complain about it? Men who work in offices and who get beaten to promotions by hot girls who sleep around? Yeah I don't hear feminists complain about that, unless it's a hot woman who goes higher than a non-hot woman.

And where does it go from there? What do they want? They probably want to eventually get to tell people what's acceptable as a depiction of a woman? Like, she can't be hot on the poster, she can't be stupid in the movie, she can't fail at anything blablabla.

It's stupid. I'm tired of this crap. Girls have an awesome place in society and their shortcomings come strictly from themselves. Just look at the net. Where are girls? What do they do? They're on myspace, facebook and twitter. They play mmorpgs. What do men do? They build websites, write articles, develop games, create movies.

Let's blame "objectification of women" for that instead of fessing up and admitting that women don't have the same general interests as men and that there NEVER WILL BE as many women in hard sciences are there are men AND THAT'S FINE.

Jeez. Women have everything on men now. They can beat a guy, they other guys will just think the victim is a pussy. They can sleep around with kids and get social sympathy even if they're convicted. They can slap men, they can demand social privileges like getting driven around on dates, having doors opened, having their meals paid, getting expensive gifts and jewelry, not having to make the first move, getting a pass when they're angry and they yell and insult etc. all the while having all the same sports teams, career opportunities, voting power, social status etc.
And is there some social movement by men to make sure that women don't discriminate them based on salary or their jobs? Somehow they've decided that it's way cooler to get stereotyped because of your job than because of the way you look. As if it was easier to become a doctor than to lose 20 pounds and show cleavage. And when the guy finally makes it to a high position, it's unfair if HE picks a girl based on looks or whatever the fuck he wants?
Not to mention that this whole "be perfect" thing runs a multi-multi BILLION industry of cosmetics, perfumes, surgery, spas, gyms, treatments etc. etc.

I seriously fail to see what they have to complain about and I don't find it in any of those in articles >:O

END RANT