Erotoxins?

[Feisty Mouse]

Actually It has been done... I have this "FRIEND" who watched it and told me about it. Although what he told me I found offensive and covered my ears,"LALALALALALALA, I don't watch porn, it's just wrong". I says to da guy...

Cheers,

Ryan

Was *that* "kung fu girls", or something like that? I just about passed out laughing when I heard about it. What a bizarre mix - but then again, I'm sure there's stuff out there that's 100 times more odd.

And, HHJH, I do think there are more seriously pressing issues that are affecting young people and kids....

 

[hardheadjarhead]

And, HHJH, I do think there are more seriously pressing issues that are affecting young people and kids....

I know. And I wasn't cracking on you...you know how I am, though. I just have to write and write and write else my head explodes like a warm watermelon hitting the pavement from a high altitude on a hot summer day.

Yuck. Where DO I come up with this stuff?

Had to post this. Its from Jay Leno:

Here’s a sign of the times. A video company is coming out with porn that features only married couples having sex. See that’s when you know the Republicans have won. When we have married porn.

Finally a return to family values.

You can tell they’re really married because she wouldn’t do stuff on the video that they did while they were dating.

Actually the first married couple porn movie is 2 ½ hours of nothing but sex. Took over 12 years to film.


Regards,


Steve

 

[5 hand swords]

I know. And I wasn't cracking on you...you know how I am, though. I just have to write and write and write else my head explodes like a warm watermelon hitting the pavement from a high altitude on a hot summer day.

Yuck. Where DO I come up with this stuff?

Had to post this. Its from Jay Leno:

Here’s a sign of the times. A video company is coming out with porn that features only married couples having sex. See that’s when you know the Republicans have won. When we have married porn.

Finally a return to family values.

You can tell they’re really married because she wouldn’t do stuff on the video that they did while they were dating.

Actually the first married couple porn movie is 2 ½ hours of nothing but sex. Took over 12 years to film.


Regards,


Steve

Well no condoms and they do anything right - is it Pam and Tommy Q?
Mine is .
and the rule is when one is up for it the other one is too.

 

[Sarah]

"brain-mapping studies into the physical effects of pornography"


Are they taking volunteers for this test.....do you have to study??

 

[raedyn]

I don't buy the arguements that porn, in general, is a bad thing. But there are certain types of it that are. Porn featuring children or those appearing to be children, for instance. That kind of pornography is proven to be a trigger for pedophiles. They will view pornographic images of children, and then go out and commit crimes against chidren. This sort of porn should be (and is) outlawed.

 

[glad2bhere]

I would not mind the pornography so much, but the same society that supports these activities economocally also wants a community that demonstrates solid, respectful and productive regard between the sexes. In order to tell a story, one must have conflict and, hopefully, a resolution to the conflict. In pornography, conflict between the sexes, or among the sexes is presented but is rarely, if ever resolved. Now, I know folks are probably wondering where this is going so I ask you to consider a parallel point.

Arguably the society depends on a strong marital base. In turn, arguably a strong marital base depends on clear understanding of solid relational dynamics. Now what kind of strength in this dynamic comes through when marriage-age adolescents and young adults are presented with relationships being fraught with conflict, used as game show fodder or as an idle recreation of the rich and famous? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I don't buy the arguements that porn, in general, is a bad thing. But there are certain types of it that are. Porn featuring children or those appearing to be children, for instance. That kind of pornography is proven to be a trigger for pedophiles. They will view pornographic images of children, and then go out and commit crimes against chidren. This sort of porn should be (and is) outlawed.

I'm not sure its the "trigger." Pedophiles gather child pornography (a felony and Federal offense...and I agree rightly so) because they're pedophiles. I doubt they go off the deep end and molest because they've viewed it. Such media isn't going to be the catalyst that sends them over the edge of what our culture properly deems a horrible taboo.

Child molestation is an act of a sociopath. Sociopaths don't need "triggers." They have no conscience, and will do whatever it is they need to do to get their desires met. Serial killers use porn all the time...but porn doesn't make them murder.

This ties in with a thread from some time back when we talked about video games and violence. Thousands of kids played "Doom" the video game. Yet the game was demonized because two psychopaths who played it went off the deep end and killed children at Columbine. We miss the forest for the trees when we go after something like this.

For a good book on this topic, check out Jonathan Kellerman's "Savage Spawn: Reflections on violent children." It has a lot to say about sociopathy and the nature of the beast.



Here's an interesting NYT article on the disparity between what we say and what we do...we like our sin on television:


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/22/business/media/22tube.html?oref=login&th

Regards,


Steve

 

[glad2bhere]

I feel a little uncomfortable about the way we are slipping back and forth, rather casually between normalcy and pathology regarding this subject. Thats why I chose to comment on it more as an indicator of values and their interpretation than as something causal. I don't think that it is fair to automatically conclude that exotic or erotic content precipitates erotic or exotic behavior. As I was reading the previous post I was wondering how differently a pedophile would see the movie "Tom Sawyer", "The Secret Garden" or even "Lolita."

During the time that I was working In-patient on a psych ward we often let the patients take walks to the local video stores and rent movies on their passes. I came to notice that a significant number of those movies contained content which often included scantily clad misses running from a knife-weilding psychopath. I objected at Treatment Team meetings but was usually voted down in the end. Likewise I cannot say that there was any increase in knifings or mutilations of young ladies when the pts went home. However, I still hold that though a number of people watched those flicks not every body was getting the same message regarding violence in the privacy of their own mind.

FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I know. And I wasn't cracking on you...you know how I am, though. I just have to write and write and write else my head explodes like a warm watermelon hitting the pavement from a high altitude on a hot summer day.

Oh, I didn't think you were.

I like your similes. And, also, encourage the writing, rather than the watermelon alternative!

(Mmmm... watermelon!)

lol

 

[JPR]

There are so many competing values in a discussion of this nature. On the one hand, you have freedom to choose. It is our guaranteed freedom to pursue happiness. What we choose to entertain ourselves with falls into this category. Plus we have freedom of expression, what we choose to make movies of or take pictures of is our business.



On the other hand, we routinely limit or even preclude our freedoms in some areas because it serves a greater good, or protects something / someone which society feels needs such protection. Therefore we are restricted in what we say (I can not, without legal consequences, yell fire in a movie for the danger it poses), what we do (I can not, without legal consequences, drive 90 mph down the main street of my town even if I feel competent to do so), what we have access to (prior to being 21 I can not drink alcoholic beverages with out legal consequences), or how we live (I can not, even if I think it makes me happy, have 12 wives or marry a 14 year old).



The issue to me isn’t whether pornography is addictive, but do we need / want to protect our society from the effects it may / may not have? Many things are addictive, as some of you have pointed out. In fact, there are people that become addicted to otherwise good things (compulsive eating, hand washing, reading, martial arts workouts, whatever).



So what is the effect? That is really the difficult thing to determine. Is pornography more harmful than valuable? The female form is beautiful, sex is wonderful, and fantasies are a great escape, some say pornography provides access to these things. Exploiting women (or men), denigrating women to fulfill sexual needs, associating violence with sex, or exposing immature children to subject they are not ready for is harmful, and some say that is at the core of pornography.



I use my imagination and ask myself this question, do I, as the father of an 8 year old girl and 10 year old boy, want my daughter treated like the women that are typically portrayed in a porno? Do I want my son to act that way? That is really the question we ask before we allow them to watch anything (and no, I don’t think that a lot of people are feeding their children porno).



A problem here is two fold, first the ease of accessing internet porno, and second the increased sexual exposure in media. I get unsolicited emails containing graphic pornographic material (yes, I filter them), it is easy to access internet porn sites (and can happen quite accidentally whitehouse.com being a famous one) and TV pumps sexual messages straight into my house (yes, we are selective about what children watch but you have to be quick on the remote to jump from a commercial that you would rather not see or a football intro that raises a lot of questions). I liken it to this. Let’s say that you are attempting to teach your children to eat healthy food. Yet everyday, McDonald’s delivers lunch and dinner to your door without you asking for it, every time you drive to the mall McD’s hands you a Big Mac, fries and coke at the door, when you walk down the street McD’s hands out fries as you pass. Sure, you don’t have to eat it, but it is still there. It is enticing and it is titillating (I had to use that word once here because it is so appropriate). Do you get tired of it and want it to stop? Yes.



As adults, we are responsible for our own behaviors, and society should be very careful about trying to “rescue” us by outlawing “harmful” things, even if we find them objectionable. We also have a responsibility to protect what is good and right. I have moral objections to pornography as I think it exploits women (by and large), promotes an unhealthy sexual relationship (out side of committed marriages), and reduces sex from a celebration of intimacy to a purely hedonistic pursuit. Given all of that, I could live with its existence if that is what a majority of our society really wants. What I cannot tolerate is its unwanted invasion of my home that requires my time, energy, money and vigilance to combat.



[font=&quot]JPR[/font]

 

[glad2bhere]

".......I use my imagination and ask myself this question, do I, as the father of an 8 year old girl and 10 year old boy, want my daughter treated like the women that are typically portrayed in a porno? Do I want my son to act that way? ....."

...just as long as its YOUR daughter or YOUR son and not, say, MY granddaughter. Do you know what I'm saying? In some ways I view this as a variation of the old "Not-in-MY-neighborhood" Syndrome. In Other words, there is a certain anonimnity with the person on the screen. And, since we have been raised with media that routinely "bends" reality with fake blood, artifical violence and fabricated conflicts we may also project onto those anonymous actors the idea that somehow what we are seeing is not real in some way. Put these two concepts together and what we could have is your daughter (who is an anonymous acting material to me) being violated in someway that I rationalize to myself as not actually happening--- some vague trick of cinematogrphy. Now, what if the situation were changed. What if the time and place were the Balkans during ethnic cleansing and the child was my granddaughter being systematically gang-raped by a squad of soldiers while I am forced to watch. Still pornographic, but imagine the difference in the response. No, I stand against pornography not because the effect it MIGHT have on the viewer, but because of the damage to a human life that must occur for such behavior to be "OK" for another human being to subject themselves to such an experience---- whether I know them or not.
FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[hardheadjarhead]

JPR, an excellent post.

Combating the invasion of prurient material (both erotic and porn--I make a distinction) is indeed difficult for the parent. The options for action are government censorship, or parents continued barring of the door and explanations to their children about the nature of the world and its excesses.

Let me offer a quote from Robert H. Bork, taken from The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. "No activity that society thinks immoral is victimless. Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral."

The potential consequences of enforcement of such an extreme attitude become readily apparent. We could have--and I think if Bork had his way would have--increased invasion of homes and curtilages by physical force in order to police the morality of residents. This has been going on since the Comstock era, so I am not skiing a slippery slope here.

The milder version of this would be FCC bans on internet porn and televised naughtiness. The latter would bring dissent as the tides of morality have ebbed (see the NYT article below). The banning of SPAM, as you know, is underway regardless of whether it is pornographic or not. The effectiveness of this remains to be seen.

It is far simpler and cheaper for parents to screen what their children see than to apply a national standard of conduct and then attempt to enforce it. It is far easier to wear slippers than it is to carpet the world, as I've said before. This places the weight of responsibility on you, rather on the government.

Downside--it is your responsibility to protect hearth and home from these insults. This is difficult, as you've mentioned. Upside--you get to set specific standards as to what you expect of your children. You'll have to put filters and locks on the computer to keep your son from accidentally viewing internet porn. If you raise him correctly (and I know for a fact you are), he will not willfully circumvent these devices. Were they to fail him, he'll have the moral courage to simply click them away and he'll move on to a healthier site.

As for your daughter...I'm sad to say she will indeed meet males who will objectify her. This has always happened in our society, and likely always will. I have never met a woman who hasn't encountered this. If you raise her correctly (and I know for a fact you are), then she will have the moral courage to look such a cad in the face--or slap his face--and move on to someone who will treat her with the respect she deserves. Trust the standard you've set for her, JPR. She'll be looking for a guy like you.

If we take offense with what we see or hear we can, if we choose, take Bork's stance and adopt the title of "victim." In doing so we can demand that society protect us from that which we fear. Or, if we choose, we can refuse victimhood and take responsibility for ourselves and our families and do what we feel is right by them.

Either choice brings an attendant fear of failure. If the government fails, we the victim will point the finger at it and society for our children's descent into depravity. If we fail to prepare our children for the temptations of life, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Regards,


Steve