NationStates Jolt Archive

Is animated pornography less objectionable than films depicting real people? why or why not?

Does pornography (regardless of whether it includes actors or was animated) influence the way men behave towards women?

What do you think?

i find animated porn to be ODD but unobjectionable. after all no one was exploited in the making of it. (my only objection to "real people" porn is when a actor is underage or did not freely choose to participate)

everything affects the way men treat women. sane men quickly learn the difference between movies and reality. they may be disappointed to find that real women dont act that way but they get over it. i expect that cartoon porn is that much more removed from reality that it has even less of a disappointment factor (and where does a man get a tentacle anyway?)

Does it have to be objectionable?

I personally don't know if it changes the way men view women (outside of the porn), but I will ask another question: is it possible that it changes the way women view women (some women DO watch porn)... or the way women view men?

The female gaze- does it exist?

I'm going to sit back and watch more comments spew out before I say anything else...

I don't find any pornography except child ponography objectionable. Porn is produced and watched by consenting adults. I think it's harmless fun.

Does it have to be objectionable?

I personally don't know if it changes the way men view women (outside of the porn), but I will ask another question: is it possible that it changes the way women view women (some women DO watch porn)... or the way women view men?

The female gaze- does it exist?

I'm going to sit back and watch more comments spew out before I say anything else...

what is "the female gaze"?

Mind you, we seem to be trapped in the heterosexual porn world in this discussion so far. In gay male porn, in which the same *like* bodies are sexually represented, is there still that need to have *possible* exploitation - that is, the one doing the penetration is considered to be dominant than the penetratee, who could possibly seen as submissive, or, in popular view, *exploited*? I wonder... What happens to porn when these concepts of dominant/submission and penetration/penetratee, or pain/pleasure are thrown out the door?

Is is possible for one who is penetrated to be seen as the more dominant? in hetero porn, the focus tends to be on the woman and her *acted* pleasure. She literally dominates the screen, she is the source of pleasure to the viewer. She cannot be exploited when she takes the job, when she takes pride in her work, when she struts her stuff to millions of people all over the world, if she allows herself to be alienated from her work.

As for animated porn... Hmmm, I really can't say yet.

I think pornography is fine-No underage, no animals and no one thats not willing and happy to participate of their own free will. I'm not interested in any of the deliberately degrading forms. I'm not interested in cartoons. Some pornography is almost art, it doesnt change the way I feel about women. I still respect them and love their bodies.

i find animated porn to be ODD but unobjectionable. after all no one was exploited in the making of it. (my only objection to "real people" porn is when a actor is underage or did not freely choose to participate)

everything affects the way men treat women. sane men quickly learn the difference between movies and reality. they may be disappointed to find that real women dont act that way but they get over it. i expect that cartoon porn is that much more removed from reality that it has even less of a disappointment factor (and where does a man get a tentacle anyway?)

tentacle anime porn is so funny! (although when i first saw it, it was REALLY disturbing)

umm... i guess your comments brings up another question: how do you know if the actors were not coerced into doing it?

I don't find any pornography except child ponography objectionable. Porn is produced and watched by consenting adults. I think it's harmless fun.
Except snuff films. Although I suppose that isn't technically consenting (although entirely possible that it could be).

tentacle anime porn is so funny! (although when i first saw it, it was REALLY disturbing)

umm... i guess your comments brings up another question: how do you know if the actors were not coerced into doing it?
you dont.

the late linda lovelace, the actress in the porn classic "deep throat" claimed afterwards to have been forced to make the movie.

all society can really do is enforce workplace laws and give exploited people the right to sue.

what is "the female gaze"?

Exactly.

Can a female eye influence the way males are portrayed in representations (literature, film, pictures, etc.), and in turn, influence the way males perceive the representations of themselves?

Think of the famous "male gaze". Think of the film Sin City. All the males are ugly mo fo's, badasses; and all the females are fatales, yet still cannot truly initiate or demonstrate "badassness" without the approval or presence of the male. This is an example of (a form of)traditional male gaze represented. I mean, this is a really, really obvious example, there are different types of male gaze, but in all, it seeks to bring females into the picture only as a source of pleasure/amusement to bring out male pride.

I don't find porn objectionable, provided it's equitable. Animated porn makes me laugh, it's just so silly - it's like finding out what happened to those old friends from high-school days who passed their time making pornographic doodles, only to discover they're making a living making pornographic doodles.

I've never gotten into Japanese animation, though. As animation goes, 'anime' makes for a whole series of well-rendered still images. But that's about it. I don't care for the stylistic conventions of anime, and I never really did. I do have problems with the way in which women and pre-pubescent girls are depicted in anime in general, but I won't labour the point.

Anyway, there's always been a market for porn, in form or another. I hardly think that's about to change anytime soon.

Mind you, we seem to be trapped in the heterosexual porn world in this discussion so far. In gay male porn, in which the same *like* bodies are sexually represented, is there still that need to have *possible* exploitation - that is, the one doing the penetration is considered to be dominant than the penetratee, who could possibly seen as submissive, or, in popular view, *exploited*? I wonder... What happens to porn when these concepts of dominant/submission and penetration/penetratee, or pain/pleasure are thrown out the door?

Is is possible for one who is penetrated to be seen as the more dominant? in hetero porn, the focus tends to be on the woman and her *acted* pleasure. She literally dominates the screen, she is the source of pleasure to the viewer. She cannot be exploited when she takes the job, when she takes pride in her work, when she struts her stuff to millions of people all over the world, if she allows herself to be alienated from her work.

As for animated porn... Hmmm, I really can't say yet.

ive always found it odd that people think of the "penetratee" as being exploited. this is a primary idea in the andrea dworkin school of anti-porn thought. the idea that there can be no equality in sex and that "receiving" can never be a form of dominance.

i find most gay porn to be too extreme for my taste. (although i find gay erotica to be the most romantic stuff available). what ive seen seems to be very much in the "exploiter/exploitee" style. but that may just be the extreme nature of gay porn. no "soft core" need apply.

in porn photos, for the most part, women are dominant no matter what sex act is being depicted. men are so irrelevant as to be reduced to just genetalia in most shots. but of course, they are all just actors/models posing as required by the director or photographer.

I don't find porn objectionable, provided it's equitable. Animated porn makes me laugh, it's just so silly - it's like finding out what happened to those old friends from high-school days who passed their time making pornographic doodles, only to discover they're making a living making pornographic doodles.

I've never gotten into Japanese animation, though. As animation goes, 'anime' makes for a whole series of well-rendered still images. But that's about it. I don't care for the stylistic conventions of anime, and I never really did. I do have problems with the way in which women and pre-pubescent girls are depicted in anime in general, but I won't labour the point.

Anyway, there's always been a market for porn, in form or another. I hardly think that's about to change anytime soon.

Have you ever seen "Simpsons" or "Flintstones" pornography? Or some of the disney characters? Those are a little disturbing.
And is underage animated pornography illegal? It should be. An example-Lisa Simpson and Bart. That has to be against the law.

Have you ever seen "Simpsons" or "Flintstones" pornography? Or some of the disney characters? Those are a little disturbing.
And is underage animated pornography illegal? It should be. An example-Lisa Simpson and Bart. That has to be against the law.
john ashcroft tried to make cartoon child porn illegal. i dont know if he succeeded or not

the rationale for having child porn be illegal is the exploitation of the children involved. with animated child porn, no child is hurt so i dont see where it can be made illegal.

ive always found it odd that people think of the "penetratee" as being exploited. this is a primary idea in the andrea dworkin school of anti-porn thought. the idea that there can be no equality in sex and that "receiving" can never be a form of dominance. .

Exactly my thoughts.



in porn photos, for the most part, women are dominant no matter what sex act is being depicted. men are so irrelevant as to be reduced to just genetalia in most shots. but of course, they are all just actors/models posing as required by the director or photographer

This is due to the assumption that the audience is hetero male. If it was for a hetero female audience, *both* characters would be good looking. I wonder what this implies, hmmmm?

Waste of time,
Waste of money,
Waste of talent,
Waste of life.

*personal opinion outside of a vast number of moral objections which I'll refrain from sharing cuz no one really cares. :-) *

Waste of time,
Waste of money,
Waste of talent,
Waste of life.

*personal opinion outside of a vast number of moral objections which I'll refrain from sharing cuz no one really cares. :-) *


Thats you're opinion. If you arent interested, thats fine-I wont hold it against you.
I dont know the figures, but I remember the porn industry being in the billions of dollars. Some one is making some serious cash. I have a feeling the actors are only making a proportionately tiny amount of that.

Why is 'pornography' objectionable at all?

I, for one, like women. I like to watch them, I like to feel them. Does it make me a bad person? If it does then lock me up, because a nice smooth leg, a pink nipple, or a series of wet, squishy sounds is right up my alley.

I'll admit, most porno's are kinda off, but in the end it's just people having sex. Why do we attach such a stigma to it? People fuck. *shock* Not only do they occasionally have a bout of sex, but some people do it ALOT. Why, I'm willing to bet that somewhere across the world, there are people screwing -right now-. Does this offend you? Anyone? Or is it just the fact that sometimes they put it on tape for others to watch that offends you?

I for one would rather CNN showed the latest bout of wild sex between consenting adults than the murders, rapes, wars, and other terrible things that we see EVERY FUCKING DAY. Where are our morals, when Janet Jackson's titty and Nicolette Sheridan's naked [b]back[/i] cause so much controversy, yet we don't bat an eye when we see someone murdered on TV, or we get a nice clip of a warzone?

*shakes head* Civilization is crumbling.

-Pantera

In my opinion, Porn is merely an expression. There is many kinds and the different kinds mean different standards. For example, the oh so sloppy basement porn shot with a friends digital camera is a little degrating and cant be truly considered art, however, give me a good old fashioned Adam and Eve production inside a genuine studio, with an honest to goodness plot. (yes there are some out there) and it can be beautiful. Porn has gone beyond just being "wack off" material and has moved on to be an amazing way to learn to be passionate and expressive. Oh well, just my opinion.

This is due to the assumption that the audience is hetero male. If it was for a hetero female audience, *both* characters would be good looking. I wonder what this implies, hmmmm?

if women were taken into consideration there would never again be a butt-ugly male porn star with huge genitals.

Except snuff films. Although I suppose that isn't technically consenting (although entirely possible that it could be).
Snuff films are an urban legend. Nobody's ever been able to present one to a court of law.

Have you ever seen "Simpsons" or "Flintstones" pornography? Or some of the disney characters? Those are a little disturbing.
And is underage animated pornography illegal? It should be. An example-Lisa Simpson and Bart. That has to be against the law.
That's a difficult issue. Unlike real kiddie porn, no children are being harmed by making animations. Some people say that the videos would be used by perverts to coerce children into performing sex acts. Then again, we don't ban guns just because some people rob banks with them. It's a really tough call.

john ashcroft tried to make cartoon child porn illegal. i dont know if he succeeded or not

the rationale for having child porn be illegal is the exploitation of the children involved. with animated child porn, no child is hurt so i dont see where it can be made illegal.


In my opinion, its wrong. Maybe there wont be an individual victim, but I dont feel helping to feed this type of desire is in anyone's best interest. I cant assume that porn could lead to rape or violent movies could lead to murder, but I dont think any child pornography, in any form.should be tolerated.

Snuff films are an urban legend. Nobody's ever been able to present one to a court of law.


I've never seen one or know one who claims to have seen one. I think that sadaam hussein's sons may have had a library of them though.

if women were taken into consideration there would never again be a butt-ugly male porn star with huge genitals.

Ahhh, the joys of camera angles, some editing, and voila! Nature augmented by 100x!

I've never seen one or know one who claims to have seen one. I think that sadaam hussein's sons may have had a library of them though.
Individual psychos sometimes videotape their depravity, but I meant snuff films as a type of porn distributed for cash. There are fakes, but no real ones making the rounds. One film, Flower of Flesh and Blood, which depicted a weird looking Japanese guy in a samurai outfit cutting the limbs off, disemboweling, and finally beheading a woman strapped to a bed was realistic enough to fool many people, but when investigated it turned out to be a fake.

Why is 'pornography' objectionable at all?

I, for one, like women. I like to watch them, I like to feel them. Does it make me a bad person? If it does then lock me up, because a nice smooth leg, a pink nipple, or a series of wet, squishy sounds is right up my alley.

I'll admit, most porno's are kinda off, but in the end it's just people having sex. Why do we attach such a stigma to it? People fuck. *shock* Not only do they occasionally have a bout of sex, but some people do it ALOT. Why, I'm willing to bet that somewhere across the world, there are people screwing -right now-. Does this offend you? Anyone? Or is it just the fact that sometimes they put it on tape for others to watch that offends you?

I for one would rather CNN showed the latest bout of wild sex between consenting adults than the murders, rapes, wars, and other terrible things that we see EVERY FUCKING DAY. Where are our morals, when Janet Jackson's titty and Nicolette Sheridan's naked [b]back[/i] cause so much controversy, yet we don't bat an eye when we see someone murdered on TV, or we get a nice clip of a warzone?

*shakes head* Civilization is crumbling.

-Pantera

I love the female anatomy as well. A good deal of them anyway. Its not offensive, its a natural work of art. Maybe because of the way its treated in the US media makes it more exciting to see? Maybe if it were more commonplace it wouldnt be so special? Who knows.
I agree-I would rather explain two people having sex on a movie to my kids, than why someone just shot/stabbed or clubbed someone to death.

One film, Flower of Flesh and Blood, which depicted a weird looking Japanese guy in a samurai outfit cutting the limbs off, disemboweling, and finally beheading a woman strapped to a bed was realistic enough to fool many people, but when investigated it turned out to be a fake.

Thank God.

Thank God.
The risk of the penalties associated with producing snuff films combined with the small market for such a product make sure that they don't get produced and distributed.

Why is 'pornography' objectionable at all?

I, for one, like women. I like to watch them, I like to feel them. Does it make me a bad person? If it does then lock me up, because a nice smooth leg, a pink nipple, or a series of wet, squishy sounds is right up my alley.

I'll admit, most porno's are kinda off, but in the end it's just people having sex. Why do we attach such a stigma to it? People fuck. *shock* Not only do they occasionally have a bout of sex, but some people do it ALOT. Why, I'm willing to bet that somewhere across the world, there are people screwing -right now-. Does this offend you? Anyone? Or is it just the fact that sometimes they put it on tape for others to watch that offends you?

I for one would rather CNN showed the latest bout of wild sex between consenting adults than the murders, rapes, wars, and other terrible things that we see EVERY FUCKING DAY. Where are our morals, when Janet Jackson's titty and Nicolette Sheridan's naked [b]back[/i] cause so much controversy, yet we don't bat an eye when we see someone murdered on TV, or we get a nice clip of a warzone?

*shakes head* Civilization is crumbling.

-Pantera

It's cuz women ARE SCARY!!!!!! I SCREAM EVERYTIME I SEE A BOOBIE and DEMAND THAT THEY BE LOCKED UP! (no, not the women, just their boobs)

We have to put the blame somewhere. Some day they'll correlate the two. (Pubic Hair causes crime)

And it's easier to control us girlies than to control the murderers......We need people to fill those prisons, yo. (on a side note, I **love** how in the States you can state the prison population as a percentage of the entire country. Goddamn.)

My favorite quote describing porno:

“Like an addiction, you keep craving something that is harder, harder, something which, which gives you a greater sense of excitement. Until you reach a point where the pornography only goes so far, you reach that jumping off point where you begin to wonder if maybe actually doing it would give you that which is beyond just reading it or looking at it."

Words of wisdom brought to you by Mr. Ted Bundy

Ah pornography.....
IMHO, pornography is just another profession that any person can freely choose to do. You have a portfolio, a reputation, rather like an artist I think.
I do not think anyone that freely chooses to persue a career in pornography is any more exploited than an angry accountant. The people who make wild claims that porno is the exploitation of woman frankly rather annoy me. Does anyone claim that men who work in the porn industry are exploited? No.

I find nothing objectionable or controversial about pornography whatsoever, whether it be standard hetrosexual pornography, Bondage porn, whatever. Animated porn too is starting to become mainstream, and that is great because the artist can probably make more money than they would animating newspaper cartoons or whatever. Female anatomy is a point of interest for most males, so where is the harm in making money out of it?

My favorite quote describing porno:

“Like an addiction, you keep craving something that is harder, harder, something which, which gives you a greater sense of excitement. Until you reach a point where the pornography only goes so far, you reach that jumping off point where you begin to wonder if maybe actually doing it would give you that which is beyond just reading it or looking at it."

Words of wisdom brought to you by Mr. Ted Bundy
Obviously, you must understand that it will only get that bad if you are crimimnally insane and watch it like every day from morining to night. At that point, one should probably seek professional help.

My favorite quote describing porno:

“Like an addiction, you keep craving something that is harder, harder, something which, which gives you a greater sense of excitement. Until you reach a point where the pornography only goes so far, you reach that jumping off point where you begin to wonder if maybe actually doing it would give you that which is beyond just reading it or looking at it."

Words of wisdom brought to you by Mr. Ted Bundy
So pornography causes serial killers? I wonder how much pornography Albert Fish and Jack the Ripper had access to?

john ashcroft tried to make cartoon child porn illegal. i dont know if he succeeded or not

the rationale for having child porn be illegal is the exploitation of the children involved. with animated child porn, no child is hurt so i dont see where it can be made illegal.

It wasnt John Ashcroft, it was congress. The supreme court found it unconstitutional, citing a variety of reasons. Congress created a new law to replace the unconstitutional one, which they felt addressed most of the complaints of the supreme court. That one has yet to be challenged at the supreme court but if it ever is, it will probably be struck down because it doesnt address the basic complaint of the supreme court, child porn laws are designed to protect children from exploitation, why would you ban porn in which no children are being exploited?

In my opinion, its wrong. Maybe there wont be an individual victim, but I dont feel helping to feed this type of desire is in anyone's best interest. I cant assume that porn could lead to rape or violent movies could lead to murder, but I dont think any child pornography, in any form.should be tolerated.
i agree that its wrong. its creepy, its sick etc etc etc

but i dont think that some guy with a drawing of bart and lisa engaged in an incestual act should go to prison and when he gets out, should have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. its just too big a punishment for a sleazy cartoon drawing.

wanking at the sight of a cartoon is a bit pathetic.
I find pornography sad reallybecause it's so predictable

Wanking at the sight of a cartoon is a bit pathetic.
I find pornography sad, really, because it's so predictable.

I find the stuff disturbing, not to mention boring, so I don't go near the stuff. Just personal reasons, though. However, that cartoon stuff is just plainWRONG!

wanking at the sight of a cartoon is a bit pathetic.
I find pornography sad reallybecause it's so predictable
I don't know. I've seen some very unpredictable pornography.

but i dont think that some guy with a drawing of bart and lisa engaged in an incestual act should go to prison and when he gets out, should have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. its just too big a punishment for a sleazy cartoon drawing.

I was looking for a Simpsons desktop wallpaper and found that one. :(
It was kind of disturbing.

I find [the idea of] animated porn no less or more objectionable than [the idea of] real porn. I imagine many people would find the real thing worse.

I have no idea if porn influences the way men see women.

I have no problems with naked men and women appearing in magazines or on the net. Men (and women) have been obsessed with the naked form for generations (althought personally, botecelli's chicks wouldnt be quite so appealing with their gash on display, although men may dissagree with me)

i dont really have a problem with hard core porn (penitration) because men will always want this and it will appear somehow, either publically or privatly.

I have a problem with child porn, S&M, and rape fantasy porn. All 3 should be banned in all forms. Is drawing the rape of a child any better than photographing the rape of a child?

I dont think so, nor do most civilised people. Tempting people to rape, beat, humilliate ot hurt sexually in any way should always be banned.

And for the men out there, little boys get raped too, fancy seeing that in a cartoon?

Just playing Devil's advocate here, but maybe fake kiddie porn is a way that people who crave that sort of thing can get their kicks without real children being harmed.

What about if it is just a story, and not a picture? Should stories about kiddie sex be illegal to? If not, what would be the difference?

I have a problem with child porn, S&M, and rape fantasy porn. All 3 should be banned in all forms.

I have to step in to defend S&M porn here. S&M can be (and very often is) practised in a safe way between consenting adults. The fact is, some people enjoy pain. I am one of them.

Anything regarding kiddie sex should be illegal. Do you want to egg these sickos on?

I was not defending child pornography.
I was defending Sadomasochism.
There is a difference.

i dont really have a problem with hard core porn (penitration) because men will always want this and it will appear somehow, either publically or privatly.

I have a problem with child porn, S&M, and rape fantasy porn. All 3 should be banned in all forms. Is drawing the rape of a child any better than photographing the rape of a child?

I dont think so, nor do most civilised people. Tempting people to rape, beat, humilliate ot hurt sexually in any way should always be banned.

What's wrong with S&M porn? It's all between consenting adults! Also, people "will always want this and it will appear somehow, either publicly or privately."

I agree with banning child porn, because it involves children being forced, drugged and coerced. However, there is no real reason to ban cartoon porn, even if it does depict rape and children. I think they're wrong and whoever wants to look at them is sick, but they should not be illegal. As long as nobody is actually getting raped it should be legal.

"Tempting people"... blah personal responsibility. People are held accountable for their own actions. You can't blame cartoonists. I suppose Marylin Manson is to blame for teen violence?

And for the men out there, little boys get raped too, fancy seeing that in a cartoon?
Nice implication that men like to fantasise about rape.

i find animated porn to be ODD but unobjectionable. after all no one was exploited in the making of it. (my only objection to "real people" porn is when a actor is underage or did not freely choose to participate)

everything affects the way men treat women. sane men quickly learn the difference between movies and reality. they may be disappointed to find that real women dont act that way but they get over it. i expect that cartoon porn is that much more removed from reality that it has even less of a disappointment factor (and where does a man get a tentacle anyway?)
As much as I agree with some of the things you said

I love how it was only about how movies effect how men treat women (men are not the only ones watching porn and porn is not the only type of movies out there)
I.E. Chick flicks causing disapointment when all men dont act that way ... Etc

I have no problems with naked men and women appearing in magazines or on the net. Men (and women) have been obsessed with the naked form for generations (althought personally, botecelli's chicks wouldnt be quite so appealing with their gash on display, although men may dissagree with me)

i dont really have a problem with hard core porn (penitration) because men will always want this and it will appear somehow, either publically or privatly.

I have a problem with child porn, S&M, and rape fantasy porn. All 3 should be banned in all forms. Is drawing the rape of a child any better than photographing the rape of a child?

I dont think so, nor do most civilised people. Tempting people to rape, beat, humilliate ot hurt sexually in any way should always be banned.

And for the men out there, little boys get raped too, fancy seeing that in a cartoon?


I agree with all the underage comments ... both in drawing and real life porn but not with the S&M ... it is a fetish ... and no matter what they do it is concenting between two adults

They may be pretending but no one was actualy raped (having concented)

Sorry Cyrian space, i was replying to Lipstopia who said

Just playing Devil's advocate here, but maybe fake kiddie porn is a way that people who crave that sort of thing can get their kicks without real children being harmed.

What about if it is just a story, and not a picture? Should stories about kiddie sex be illegal to? If not, what would be the difference?

You posted a margin before i did.

"Tempting people"... blah personal responsibility. People are held accountable for their own actions. You can't blame cartoonists. I suppose Marylin Manson is to blame for teen violence?

No, but exposeur to porn (as well as bad parenting) can lead people who might otherwise develope normally to become sadomachochistic. And if cartoonists depict depravity of any kind, i can blame them, just as i would blame parents, videogames and peers.

I've never heard of the sadomasochistic geen. if you can prove it's a genetic compulsion, fine, provide the porn for it, until then dont corrupt young minds with your crap!

They may be pretending but no one was actualy raped (having concented)

Do you think would be rapists are thinking "well, this isnt rape, it's OK, i'll just find myself someone to simulate rape with me too".

NO, you feed the fantasies of the sick. OK, maybe most people who read or view sick material dont rape, murder or molest. But are these really things we want to encourage in people? Do we want to "egg them on"?

Freedom of speach is fine, except for a few acts which should never be written about, photographed (even if the stars are acting) or drawn.

Sorry Cyrian space, i was replying to Lipstopia who said



You posted a margin before i did.



No, but exposeur to porn (as well as bad parenting) can lead people who might otherwise develope normally to become sadomachochistic. And if cartoonists depict depravity of any kind, i can blame them, just as i would blame parents, videogames and peers.

I've never heard of the sadomasochistic geen. if you can prove it's a genetic compulsion, fine, provide the porn for it, until then dont corrupt young minds with your crap!



They are not corrupting young minds with it ... they are alowing legal adults to view what they wish

If kids get a hold of it the person responsible for suplying them with the illegal material (for them) should be responsible

Just like alchaholl

Do you think would be rapists are thinking "well, this isnt rape, it's OK, i'll just find myself someone to simulate rape with me too".

NO, you feed the fantasies of the sick. OK, maybe most people who read or view sick material dont rape, murder or molest. But are these really things we want to encourage in people? Do we want to "egg them on"?

Freedom of speach is fine, except for a few acts which should never be written about, photographed (even if the stars are acting) or drawn.
You have no proof that viewing these materials increase cases of the acts you speek of ... untill you can provide a link between the two there is no logical reason to believe that it is "egging" them on

You have no proof that viewing these materials increase cases of the acts you speek of ... untill you can provide a link between the two there is no logical reason to believe that it is "egging" them on

There are no statistics but the rise in paedoplilia on the internet has given rise to many more practicing paedophiles. Read a bit more true crime and articles. The link between fantasising and doing is very clear once people perceve others to be the same and "accept" what they're doing.

They are not corrupting young minds with it ... they are alowing legal adults to view what they wish

If kids get a hold of it the person responsible for suplying them with the illegal material (for them) should be responsible

Just like alchaholl

Yes. alcohol distroys childhoods, alcohol causes people to rape, alcohol causes sadomaschokism.

The problem is that children have access to this pornigraphic crap as well as adults. Have you ever known a man to burn his pornography as soon as he's read it? No. his kids will find it one day as all kids are curious.

The best solution it not to have it in the first place.

I see no real harm in playboy and the like, or shoe fetishes but fetishes that advocate harm to another, in any form should be banned just like the acts are.

Maybe i'll publish a "how to hijack a fully fulled plane, circumnavigate the security and ram a few buildings" webside. Would you have something to say about freedom of speech then?

FFS porn is porn between two (or more) consenting adults. wtf is the big deal? if you're such a poor parent that you can't hide your porn from your kid then you have bigger problems to worry about i fear

There are no statistics but the rise in paedoplilia on the internet has given rise to many more practicing paedophiles. Read a bit more true crime and articles. The link between fantasising and doing is very clear once people perceve others to be the same and "accept" what they're doing.



Yes. alcohol distroys childhoods, alcohol causes people to rape, alcohol causes sadomaschokism.

The problem is that children have access to this pornigraphic crap as well as adults. Have you ever known a man to burn his pornography as soon as he's read it? No. his kids will find it one day as all kids are curious.

The best solution it not to have it in the first place.

I see no real harm in playboy and the like, or shoe fetishes but fetishes that advocate harm to another, in any form should be banned just like the acts are.

Maybe i'll publish a "how to hijack a fully fulled plane, circumnavigate the security and ram a few buildings" webside. Would you have something to say about freedom of speech then?

Then it is the person who allows his kids to get at it's fault not the supplier (as long as the suplier makes sure the direct buyers are of adult age)

I was pointing at alchahol as a substance that is legal to people of majority but not minority rather then its effects

FFS porn is porn between two (or more) consenting adults. wtf is the big deal? if you're such a poor parent that you can't hide your porn from your kid then you have bigger problems to worry about i fear
Exactly the person of majority that supplies the person of minority should be the responsible party

Oh dear lord, the lies about S&M...
I've never been drunk, never been abused, and yet I am a masochist.
I've fantasized about it long before I discovered pornography.
I've always enjoyed pain. As a kid I used to like it a lot when I scraped my knee on my bike.
And I've always been submissive (at least in relationships)


I see no real harm in playboy and the like, or shoe fetishes but fetishes that advocate harm to another, in any form should be banned just like the acts are.
Between consenting adults, neither the acts or pictures of them are illegal. In America, I can recieve a whipping, a flogging, be tied up, et cetera, and as long as I consent (And I do!) it is legal.

There are no statistics but the rise in paedoplilia on the internet has given rise to many more practicing paedophiles. Read a bit more true crime and articles. The link between fantasising and doing is very clear once people perceve others to be the same and "accept" what they're doing.



Yes. alcohol distroys childhoods, alcohol causes people to rape, alcohol causes sadomaschokism.

The problem is that children have access to this pornigraphic crap as well as adults. Have you ever known a man to burn his pornography as soon as he's read it? No. his kids will find it one day as all kids are curious.

The best solution it not to have it in the first place.

I see no real harm in playboy and the like, or shoe fetishes but fetishes that advocate harm to another, in any form should be banned just like the acts are.

Maybe i'll publish a "how to hijack a fully fulled plane, circumnavigate the security and ram a few buildings" webside. Would you have something to say about freedom of speech then?

The movie Terminator depicts violence, it glorifies it and advocate violence as much as S&M porn does. Should it be banned?

As for the 'how to hijack plane and bla bla bla' makes as many web sites about it as you want, people don't have to go to it.

I think the whole pornography question will soon be eclisped by technology. Within a decade you may well see computer programs that can generate pornography to the exact tastes of the individual. You'll be able to set the parrameters of your sexual fantasy and see it inacted on the computer screen.

Is there anyway this can ever be regulated?

I think the whole pornography question will soon be eclisped by technology. Within a decade you may well see computer programs that can generate pornography to the exact tastes of the individual. You'll be able to set the parrameters of your sexual fantasy and see it inacted on the computer screen.

Is there anyway this can ever be regulated?
Sure regulate the distribution of such software

porn is porn no matter what genre it's in...but the difference between cartoon and actual actors (apart from the obvious) is that hardcore porn (with actual people) is more fun to watch (and do whatever else it is y'all do during a porno :D ;) )

and can someone please get rid of this "barely legal" porn...you know, like incest, child, and beastiality porn??????? other than that, yeah (and get rid of defecation...or at least make it so you have to verify legal age to watch it) urination isn't all that bad....(not that i enjoy it) :)

Sure regulate the distribution of such software

Yeah like that's ever going to work on the internet. :D

I think the whole pornography question will soon be eclisped by technology. Within a decade you may well see computer programs that can generate pornography to the exact tastes of the individual. You'll be able to set the parrameters of your sexual fantasy and see it inacted on the computer screen.

Is there anyway this can ever be regulated?

Why would you need to regulate it? It is only going to be fed by your own imagination. What you do with the software is nothing you wouldn't be doing with your imagination already so it's not like it's going to influence you into having desires and ideas you didn't already have.

This would be some cool shit though, I think within a decade is a little hopeful though.

and can someone please get rid of this "barely legal" porn...you know, like incest, child, and beastiality porn??????? other than that, yeah (and get rid of defecation...or at least make it so you have to verify legal age to watch it) urination isn't all that bad....(not that i enjoy it) :)
Um barly legal porn is none of the things you listed

It just denotes actors that are 18 (or very close)

and can someone please get rid of this "barely legal" porn...you know, like incest, child, and beastiality porn??????? other than that, yeah (and get rid of defecation...or at least make it so you have to verify legal age to watch it) urination isn't all that bad....(not that i enjoy it) :)

So defication bad, urination so-so....that's one weird ass place to draw the line. Not that there's anything wrong with that...... :confused:

well, could someone please draw a line at: beastiality, child, and defecation porn???? :confused:

So defication bad, urination so-so....that's one weird ass place to draw the line. Not that there's anything wrong with that...... :confused:

That is pretty wierd ass. I definitely don't want anyone defecating or urinating on anyone... apparently urine is so-so though for them. :confused:

I never understood what is arousing about those types of porn.

well, could someone please draw a line at: beastiality, child, and defecation porn???? :confused:

Well I guess defication is up to those who are taking dumps on each other, if they are both consenting it's OK. With animal porn, animals can't consent so no go. Children aren't old enough to consent, no matter what they actually say, so no go there either.

BTW I don't like defication porn or anything, it's some weird ass stuff but why should others who like it not be allowed to watch it when it's not hurting anyone?

my mistake there...i take shit/piss porn back...if they like it...and it's consensual between 2 (or more) people of legal age...then whatever...i should've thought about others...and no though in my opinion, pissing is so-so, i don't like it...i just think like this: "which would i rather let my girl do to me? piss? or shit on me? :confused: :D

Is animated pornography less objectionable than films depicting real people? why or why not?

Does pornography (regardless of whether it includes actors or was animated) influence the way men behave towards women?

What do you think?

No, and no

my mistake there...i take shit/piss porn back...if they like it...and it's consensual between 2 (or more) people of legal age...then whatever...i should've thought about others...and no though in my opinion, pissing is so-so, i don't like it...i just think like this: "which would i rather let my girl do to me? piss? or shit on me? :confused: :D

Hehe. I think I'd rather take a beating than that stuff.

Hehe. I think I'd rather take a beating than that stuff.

Yeah, I'd rather be subjected beatings than be shit on.

i kinda like beatings...i got bit in a threesome yesterday... :D ;) :cool:

i kinda like beatings...i got bit in a threesome yesterday... :D ;) :cool:

As in, with teeth?

I'm tempted to start a 'what would you do to sleep with person X' type of thread. Where person X would be a really hot celbrity or famous sex kitten type person and weather people would be willing to take a serious beating to nail said person.

i kinda like beatings...i got bit in a threesome yesterday... :D ;) :cool:

Just going to throw this out there: Where did you get bit?

I'm tempted to start a 'what would you do to sleep with person X' type of thread. Where person X would be a really hot celbrity or famous sex kitten type person and weather people would be willing to take a serious beating to nail said person.
In cases like mine, it would greatly enhance the experience.
Well, as long as we're talking beating with a cane, or a whip, or something like that. If we're talking getting kicked repeatedly in the stomach and face, I'm out. My love of pain doesn't extend to my internal organs.

I'm not a porn connosour, but what I've seen I find animated porn too silly looking to be objectionable.


Does it affect men's ways towards women? Some maybe. But not all.


And I'm pretty sure it's the same with women too.

Just playing Devil's advocate here, but maybe fake kiddie porn is a way that people who crave that sort of thing can get their kicks without real children being harmed.

What about if it is just a story, and not a picture? Should stories about kiddie sex be illegal to? If not, what would be the difference?


That thought had crossed my mind for a moment-but only a moment. I guess I have to go with absolute ZERO tolerance for any under age pornography. Stories,picture, films cartoons-absolutely no tolerance at all. Try and execute any one that "craves" this sick trash. I dont need them getting "kicks". I just need them annihilated. You'll be doing them and kids a favor.
Yeah-its extreme. It needs to be. When they are caught-the 1st, 2nd even third times, they almost always say that they will never be cured.

In cases like mine, it would greatly enhance the experience.
Well, as long as we're talking beating with a cane, or a whip, or something like that. If we're talking getting kicked repeatedly in the stomach and face, I'm out. My love of pain doesn't extend to my internal organs.

Huh, actually, that's quite interesting. I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum, and that's a difficult line to learn, truth be told. I've had to have it explained several times.

As for porn, go right ahead and watch it--so long as it is between two concenting adults, I see no problem with it. Child porn, as has already been said, is quite wrong. Bestiality is wrong as well, because animals cannot concent. Though the other day, I read that no animals are even allowed on the sets during a shoot. So perhaps beastiality is not a problem? I wouldn't really know, of course, just asking.

The reason child porn laws exist is to protect children from being exploited for the creation of pornography. If you begin to prosecute people for drawings and writings about fictional children engaged in sexual acts that did not really occur, then the focus of the law has become to punish people for what they are thinking. This is the type of thoughtcrime Orwell warned us about. If we want to start banning the fictional depiction of crime, then its time we ban the depiction of drug use, murder, assault, robbery, and all other crimes. This would drive hollywood out of business. When was the last time you saw a movie that did not contain a fictional representation of crime? There is nothing wrong with fake pornography involving children that do not really exist, and there shouldnt be because it isnt our place to punish people for what they think.

Huh, actually, that's quite interesting. I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum, and that's a difficult line to learn, truth be told. I've had to have it explained several times.


There are mainly two types of pain. There is the sharp, warm surface pain, like from a slap, and then there is internal pain. Internal pain isn't just a sense of pain, but actually feels sickening. And it tends to be more cold than warm.
Surface pain can reach any level of intensity and be bearable. It takes something quite a bit further than masochism to enjoy internal pain.
Despite what the books and movies say, it's almost impossible to fine a masochist who enjoys a solid punch to the kidneys.

There are no statistics but the rise in paedoplilia on the internet has given rise to many more practicing paedophiles.

so there is no data, but the data shows a causal relationship between the number of people who like children and the number of people who say they do on the internet?

how can there not be any data and that non-existent data be used to demonstrate causal relationships.?

There are mainly two types of pain. There is the sharp, warm surface pain, like from a slap, and then there is internal pain. Internal pain isn't just a sense of pain, but actually feels sickening. And it tends to be more cold than warm.
Surface pain can reach any level of intensity and be bearable. It takes something quite a bit further than masochism to enjoy internal pain.
Despite what the books and movies say, it's almost impossible to fine a masochist who enjoys a solid punch to the kidneys.

Oh, I know that now. It just took a while to learn. >>

Why would you need to regulate it? It is only going to be fed by your own imagination. What you do with the software is nothing you wouldn't be doing with your imagination already so it's not like it's going to influence you into having desires and ideas you didn't already have.

This would be some cool shit though, I think within a decade is a little hopeful though.


Well it could be done today if a good software house wanted to invest some serious programming work in it. By today's technological standards it would be a massive investment. Pornography, by its very nature has always been as cheap and easy as possible because it is a throw away product, once sexual gratification has been achieved it can be embarrasing to have bits of your libido lying around in plain site.

This is why pornography has always used the cutting edge of cheap technology for production and replication. With digital video and the internet we have seen a pornography explosion.

In the same way you can use video editing and musical composition software to splice together adult video footage today, so will software tools developed for other purposes be used for pornography in the future.

Because we are horny little monkeys. :p

As much as I agree with some of the things you said

I love how it was only about how movies effect how men treat women (men are not the only ones watching porn and porn is not the only type of movies out there)
I.E. Chick flicks causing disapointment when all men dont act that way ... Etc
LOL! I always thought that way. I mean come on, what woman hasn't read some romance novel, sniffed, and glared at her man across the room, casually minding his own business. It objectifies men and makes them appear as sensitive, sappy balls of emotion. Us men are so much more! Stop degrading men. We are more than our feelings! :p

Sorry Cyrian space, i was replying to Lipstopia who said



You posted a margin before i did.



No, but exposeur to porn (as well as bad parenting) can lead people who might otherwise develope normally to become sadomachochistic. And if cartoonists depict depravity of any kind, i can blame them, just as i would blame parents, videogames and peers.

I've never heard of the sadomasochistic geen. if you can prove it's a genetic compulsion, fine, provide the porn for it, until then dont corrupt young minds with your crap!



Do you think would be rapists are thinking "well, this isnt rape, it's OK, i'll just find myself someone to simulate rape with me too".

NO, you feed the fantasies of the sick. OK, maybe most people who read or view sick material dont rape, murder or molest. But are these really things we want to encourage in people? Do we want to "egg them on"?

Freedom of speach is fine, except for a few acts which should never be written about, photographed (even if the stars are acting) or drawn.
1 Who cares if someone becomes an S&M fetishist? It's just a different kind of consentual sexual activity.

2 Depicting "rape fantasies" and S&M encourages rapists? Does that mean that sitcoms encourage stupidity, Fear Factor encourages eating maggots and action movies encourage running around shooting M-16s in an urban environment? If so, by your logic, we should ban them all and just watch Disney programming. Sorry, I'm not into that. I think I should be free to watch what I want so long as I act responsibly.

3 Freedom of speech should only be limited when it directly harms someone. Examples include the classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater", Child porn, and actual rape porn. Everything else is fine. Ask yourself if you really trust anyone to monitor what ideas, images and stories can be safely shown to the public. Think about how much power that person or group has and decide if anyone is responsible enough not to abuse it.

I think the whole pornography question will soon be eclisped by technology. Within a decade you may well see computer programs that can generate pornography to the exact tastes of the individual. You'll be able to set the parrameters of your sexual fantasy and see it inacted on the computer screen.

Is there anyway this can ever be regulated?
If it's just animations on a computer screen I don't think it should be regulated. Except perhaps to set a minimum age for purchase of the software.

To answer the main question, it depends on a few things, a big one being morals. I think that porn is a huge factor in making our society so obsessed with sex. When you watch those films overtime, then you just start thinking of women (or men) as nothing more than objects or meat. I used to check that stuff out all the time, but since I stopped, I've had greater realtionships and been happier in general.

The fact is, when there is a type of entertainment that is marketed towards our most primal, primitive urges, it messes up our sense of reality and priorites. As a hetero man, I think that women deserve our utmost respect. But by watched them hump and moan for fun on a regular basis like so many people are doing, it's impossibe to do this, no matter how strong we think we are.

To answer the main question, it depends on a few things, a big one being morals. I think that porn is a huge factor in making our society so obsessed with sex. When you watch those films overtime, then you just start thinking of women (or men) as nothing more than objects or meat. I used to check that stuff out all the time, but since I stopped, I've had greater realtionships and been happier in general.

The fact is, when there is a type of entertainment that is marketed towards our most primal, primitive urges, it messes up our sense of reality and priorites. As a hetero man, I think that women deserve our utmost respect. But by watched them hump and moan for fun on a regular basis like so many people are doing, it's impossibe to do this, no matter how strong we think we are.
Dude, that may be true for you, but not for everyone. I watch porn. I respect women. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

LOL! I always thought that way. I mean come on, what woman hasn't read some romance novel, sniffed, and glared at her man across the room, casually minding his own business. It objectifies men and makes them appear as sensitive, sappy balls of emotion. Us men are so much more! Stop degrading men. We are more than our feelings! :p
LOL!!! Thats good :-D I will have to remember that

The reason child porn laws exist is to protect children from being exploited for the creation of pornography. If you begin to prosecute people for drawings and writings about fictional children engaged in sexual acts that did not really occur, then the focus of the law has become to punish people for what they are thinking. This is the type of thoughtcrime Orwell warned us about. If we want to start banning the fictional depiction of crime, then its time we ban the depiction of drug use, murder, assault, robbery, and all other crimes. This would drive hollywood out of business. When was the last time you saw a movie that did not contain a fictional representation of crime? There is nothing wrong with fake pornography involving children that do not really exist, and there shouldnt be because it isnt our place to punish people for what they think.
Very good point we move beyond punishing for an act to punishing for a thought

I watch porn. I respect women. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

indeed. i watch porn with women i respect.

The fact is, when there is a type of entertainment that is marketed towards our most primal, primitive urges, it messes up our sense of reality and priorites. As a hetero man, I think that women deserve our utmost respect. But by watched them hump and moan for fun on a regular basis like so many people are doing, it's impossibe to do this, no matter how strong we think we are.

Is it the humping, the moaning, or the fun that makes you lose respect for these women?

If you see sex as something that is natural and pleasureable then there is no reason to lose respect for women who enjoy having sex. It is only when sex is seen as shamefull or wrong in some way that women who have sex are objectified.

For the first question, yes. I find actual porn rather degrading to women, even if they did so willingly, it just disturbs me. Animated porngraphy negates this, so is better.

As for the second, only when there is already an underlying mental issue.

For the first question, yes. I find actual porn rather degrading to women, even if they did so willingly, it just disturbs me. Animated porngraphy negates this, so is better.

As for the second, only when there is already an underlying mental issue.
And how the hell is it just degrading to women (porn as a whole not specific types)

Is it the humping, the moaning, or the fun that makes you lose respect for these women?

If you see sex as something that is natural and pleasureable then there is no reason to lose respect for women who enjoy having sex. It is only when sex is seen as shamefull or wrong in some way that women who have sex are objectified.

EXACTLY women are being degraded by thoes who frown on sex not thoes of us who think it is a natural part of life

Here's a question -- Where do you draw the line(s) between artistic nudes, erotic photographs, and pornography?

Here's a question -- Where do you draw the line(s) between artistic nudes, erotic photographs, and pornography?

That definition has been fought over for hundreds of years. I doubt we will come to an agreement here.

That definition has been fought over for hundreds of years. I doubt we will come to an agreement here.


I'm just curious as to where people personally draw the line.

Is animated pornography less objectionable than films depicting real people? why or why not?

Does pornography (regardless of whether it includes actors or was animated) influence the way men behave towards women?

What do you think?
yes, slightly. yes.

I'm just curious as to where people personally draw the line.

The line is a very personal one but I believe that there is a universal constant. People consider things that arouse them personally to be pornography. People consider things that they don't find arousing to be art.

This explains why some people have been prosecuted for child pornography for making innocent photographs heir children. The parents didn't consider the photos of their unclothed children to be pornography but the police offoicer and prosecuters involved in these cases just happen to get off on such photos.

The line is a very personal one but I believe that there is a universal constant. People consider things that arouse them personally to be pornography. People consider things that they don't find arousing to be art.

This explains why some people have been prosecuted for child pornography for making innocent photographs heir children. The parents didn't consider the photos of their unclothed children to be pornography but the police offoicer and prosecuters involved in these cases just happen to get off on such photos.

Child pornography, defined by federal law as a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct
Not nessisarily just nude photo's of ones kids

And being "prosicuted" I assume you mean convicted ... that would be more of a jurry issue then a police or prosecuter

Porn is for horny bastards.

Porn is for horny bastards.
So?

Child pornography, defined by federal law as a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct
Not nessisarily just nude photo's of ones kids

And being "prosicuted" I assume you mean convicted ... that would be more of a jurry issue then a police or prosecuter

The problem is that the definition of "sexualy explicit conduct" in the statute includes "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person".
"Lascivious" is very open to interperation.



http://www.lukeisback.com/essays/essays/child_nudity.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/childporn/

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:u3YM4AcEJpwJ:freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/kiddie_porn2.htm


There are quite a few cases that really take the cake.

James Smith was convicted of child pornography for some photos he took of three young girls. The girls were totally clothed in all the pictures but the court ruled them pornographic because the girls were playing with a mink tail and pretending to whip each other with it. Prosecutors claimed the tail was a "whip-like device" and that the horsing around of the children was "sadistic and masochistic abuse."

In another case a man was convicted of child pornography because he hired a photographer to take photos of clothed girls. Neither the photographer nor the parents were charged—just the man who commissioned the photos because he allegedly found such photos erotic. FBI agent Ken Lanning said, regarding this case, "these kind of pictures, rather than more graphic ones, are frequently published in magazines distributed to paedophiles in an attempt to circumvent the laws against obscenity and child pornography." In other words they are arguing that any photo, regardless of how chaste, which a paedophile might enjoy, qualifies as child pornography. In essence this theory would make illegal all photos of children.

Stephen Knox, a student at Pennsylvania State University was arrested and convicted for receiving and possessing child pornography after he purchased a video of clothed teenaged girls. At no time were the girls nude nor did they engage in any sexual conduct. But the court argued that some of the video showed a girl's thigh which the court considered part of the pubic "area." The court said: "Although in every instance the girls' genitals were covered by either underpants or a bathing suit, the area in close proximity to the genitals, specifically the uppermost portion of the inner thigh area to the girls' genitals, was clearly exposed." When the case was appealed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decided that showing the upper thigh wasn't sufficient to qualify as pornography but then made matters worse by claiming that photos of clothed children "still provide considerable interest and excitement" to paedophiles and therefore the conviction stood. This was the same logic used when Calvin Klein was threatened by Janet Reno's Justice Department with child porn charges when the company ran ads for their jeans featuring young models.

Mark and Tina Vollbach were arrested as child pornographers because they took nude photos of their children. US Postal Inspector Mike O'Hara took copies of the photos and distributed them to the media. In this case Assistant United States Attorney Richard Delonas tried to convince the court that a photo of a bare butt qualified as as lascivious display of genitals. When the judge was perplexed concerning the Vollbach's being charged for having a rear photo of their child, he asked Delonas: "No one has their genitalia on their buttocks. The pubic area and buttocks aren't synonymous: right?" Delonas responded, "I think an argument can be made in that direction." Delonas also said, "there is no definition as to what parts of the body are included in the genitalia or pubic area" and that means he can use his own interpretation.

A nudist family had their life disrupted because they had photos of their teenaged daughter sunbathing in the back yard. William Lerch was convicted as a child pornographer for taking a nude photo of his daughter when she was playing just before taking her bath. One photo, which showed the girl hugging her mother was described by prosecutors as showing "imminent lesbian incest."

In reality, many people are far more perverse than they are willing to admit and they project that onto others. As a result, people are arrested for innocous photographs.

The problem is that the definition of "sexualy explicit conduct" in the statute includes "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person".
"Lascivious" is very open to interperation.



http://www.lukeisback.com/essays/essays/child_nudity.htm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/childporn/

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:u3YM4AcEJpwJ:freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/kiddie_porn2.htm


There are quite a few cases that really take the cake.











In reality, many people are far more perverse than they are willing to admit and they project that onto others. As a result, people are arrested for innocous photographs.


Intresting stuff
Also heard in the news latly (past few months) An underage girl that gave out a few nude pictures of HERSELF to someone online (who turned out to be law enforcement) and was charged with posession and distrobution of illegal material herself
(she took the pictures and she distributed ... no adult in the picture other then who she tried to distribute to)

I'm still kind of waiting for either a defense or an apology for the whole "S&M is caused by drinking and child abuse and is illegal, so illegalise horrible S&M porn!" thing. Yeah.

No, but exposeur to porn (as well as bad parenting) can lead people who might otherwise develope normally to become sadomachochistic. And if cartoonists depict depravity of any kind, i can blame them, just as i would blame parents, videogames and peers.

I've never heard of the sadomasochistic geen. if you can prove it's a genetic compulsion, fine, provide the porn for it, until then dont corrupt young minds with your crap!

Freedom of speach is fine, except for a few acts which should never be written about, photographed (even if the stars are acting) or drawn.
Young minds? When have I ever said that children should be allowed to have porn?

Obviously if you want to ban porn you don't think that "Freedom of speech is fine".

You as bad as those moralising Christian nuts. You want to ban porn, ban depravity of any kind, just like them.

There are no statistics but the rise in paedoplilia on the internet has given rise to many more practicing paedophiles. Read a bit more true crime and articles. The link between fantasising and doing is very clear once people perceve others to be the same and "accept" what they're doing.
At this stage I'm begging you to find where anyone has endorsed photographic or filmic child porn.

The problem is that children have access to this pornigraphic crap as well as adults. Have you ever known a man to burn his pornography as soon as he's read it? No. his kids will find it one day as all kids are curious.

I see no real harm in playboy and the like, or shoe fetishes but fetishes that advocate harm to another, in any form should be banned just like the acts are.

Maybe i'll publish a "how to hijack a fully fulled plane, circumnavigate the security and ram a few buildings" webside. Would you have something to say about freedom of speech then?
A man? Always got to single us out, right? Sexist bitch.

Fetishes aren't banned, and neither is S&M. The only sex acts that are illegal are those which are not consensual.

Yes, I would not call for your website to be banned. That's freedom of speech you're excercising. Besides, there are already hundreds of "how to hijack a plane" websites.

You want the government to regulate what goes on in our bedrooms between consenting adults? *cough* fascism

I think the whole pornography question will soon be eclisped by technology. Within a decade you may well see computer programs that can generate pornography to the exact tastes of the individual. You'll be able to set the parrameters of your sexual fantasy and see it inacted on the computer screen.
And more than likely twenty years after that, interactive sex dolls will be available*.

*Note to Feminist Cat Women and other hysterical nuts: I don't actually want sex dolls.

well, could someone please draw a line at: beastiality, child, and defecation porn???? :confused:
Beastiality and child porn should be illegal, as they are the pretty much the same as rape. Defecation porn is disgusting but should be legal.

so there is no data, but the data shows a causal relationship between the number of people who like children and the number of people who say they do on the internet?

how can there not be any data and that non-existent data be used to demonstrate causal relationships.?
shhh, Feminist Cat Women knows what she knows, don't let silly things like facts and logic get in her way.

Here's a question -- Where do you draw the line(s) between artistic nudes, erotic photographs, and pornography?
It's pornography when the maker's intention is for the audience to masturbate.

There are quite a few cases that really take the cake.

-snip-

In reality, many people are far more perverse than they are willing to admit and they project that onto others. As a result, people are arrested for innocous photographs.
Victims of a police state, every one of them.