July 16, 2007
Romney TV Ad: “Ocean”
About two weeks ago Gary Glenn, a conservative activist from Michigan – and no fan of Mitt Romney – wrote an open letter addressed to me expressing his concerns about the issue of pornography and the Marriott corporation.
As many of you know I recently took a job as Vice President of Communications for the Lighted Candle Society. LCS is a non-profit group founded by John Harmer and Ed Meese fighting the forces of pornography. Our ultimate mission is to help bring civil litigation against the producers and distributors of pornography.
I was also appointed to Governor Romney’s Faith and Values Committee. Gary Glenn saw the opportunity to fashion a blunt club and have a few swings. You see, in Gary’s mind, the logic runs thus (paraphrasing): “Justin, as part of the Ligthed Candle Society you should be concerned about putting your weight behind Romney because Romney sat on a board of advisers to the Marriott Corporation and Marriott is one of the biggest distributors of pornography.”
I was later interviewed by David Brody about the subject and he gave it a fair hearing. Many of my colleagues thought the question to be spurious. I too was a bit perplexed and felt that Gary was looking for another excuse to bash Romney (he’s done this numerous times now). But I did not directly respond to Gary.
Instead, I knew something that Gary didn’t… Governor Romney is the only major candidate willing to publically take action on this issue. I also knew that behind the scenes the Romney camp was going to spend actual dollars addressing this issue with a new TV ad.
With that said, I give you: “Ocean”
As I told the Brody File:
In this important fight against pornography there are those people who are determined to make enemies and affect zero change and there are those who propose to use their influence to create serious lasting change – Romney is in this latter camp?pure societal turnaround can only happen when people of influence find the right moment in time to lead change?In my opinion, Romney’s record shows that he could very well effect that change to happen. The fact that he included a serious anti-pornography group on his Faith and Values committee suggests this as well.
http://race42008.com/2007/07/16/romney-tv-ad-ocean/trackback/
July 16th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Can he afford to keep running ads this early?
July 16th, 2007 at 9:39 am
That’s a great ad.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:45 am
“Our ultimate mission is to help bring civil litigation against the producers and distributors of pornography.”
Are you serious? And you have no moral qualms with using force to make someone stop doing something you don’t really like?
You should be ashamed.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Justin,
You make a good point. By not speaking out against pornography, it is condoned. Like you said:
“Governor Romney is the only major candidate willing to publicly take action on this issue.” The others are not, therefore they are condoning pornography. Seems to me, this groups resources would be better spent leaning on the other major candidates to step up to the plate as Romney now has done addressing this issue. Instead, they rip on the one major candidate willing to join their cause? Amazing…
Also, this should not be “their” issue. They want to “own” this issue and they fear someone else may steal their thunder. You stated what their mission is: “civil litigation against the producers and distributors of pornography.” I say great, if the liberals want to sue gun manufactures for the “damage” guns do, then this scum ought to be sued for the death, disease, rapes, molestations, and other pain they contribute to. I think it is clear that their motivations are financial and not as wholesome as they’d have us believe.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:52 am
We’re under no illusion that pornography is going away. Our vision is two-fold:
“Lighted Candle Society envisions a world where pornography is shunned, spurned and widely recognized as a serious threat to our way of life. We strive for a world where the negative consequences of producing and distributing pornography far outweigh the financial benefits.”
There are a lot of things I don’t like. Homosexual marriage and the erosion of the traditional family; the abuse of illegal drugs and its effect on kids and communities; prostitution; minors abusing alcohol…
And no, I’m not ashamed to oppose these. Pornography in my mind is in the same camp. Our goal is to make people aware of the threat that pornography has to society not to outlaw it.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:56 am
But you want to take civil action against producers and distributors. Isn’t that using force to make them stop?
Why even bother with civil suits if your goal is to “make people aware”? If you just want to make people aware, then it seems a bit odd that your first mission is to “bring civil litigation against the producers and distributors of pornography.”
You are just out for some vindication, trying to punish people who are distributing something that you don’t really like.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:56 am
I also fail to see how this action against Romney contributes to their cause (which should be further regulation and ultimate elimination of pornography).
Rip on the guy who is willing to step up & address this? Would that prefer that Romney remained complacent as before like the other major candidates? If so, how does that help their cause?
I think it is about the money and the power associated with controlling a particular issue. I see this all the time on the left with environmentalism.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Romney has extremely deep pockets, and is not afraid to dip into them to keep his campaign going at its current pace. Romney did not do so great in fundraising last quarter, but he has the ability to bring in a ton of cash. Its not like McCain, Romney can personally fund his campaign through rough spots.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Justin,
I think it is great that you are a part of that society. Tell me, do you find it hard working with other groups attempting to carry out the same thing?
July 16th, 2007 at 10:18 am
cwpete – non-profit groups have an affinity for big egos and little cooperation. One of my goals is to try and pull some of these folks together. But it is hard.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Yes, I’m sure that’s true. Thanks for your honesty on that matter. And thanks even more for your work in that area.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Can you answer my post #6, Justin?
July 16th, 2007 at 10:25 am
I can, Nursat.
No different then punishing drug Lords or people who sell beer to under-18s.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Exactly. You are using force against someone doing something you don’t like, which you explicitly denied up above.
You, quite simply, lied in saying you did not want to outlaw pornography. You want to use the power of government, the legal use of force, to make people stop distributing something you find immoral or icky.
What you are advocating is quite immoral.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Wait…I thought 13 was Justin.
In that case, you did not lie, unless you agree with JasonJack in that you want to punish the pornographers.
Sorry about that misunderstanding, but the point remains. Remain logically consistent. Either you want to use force to make someone stop doing something that you don’t enjoy, or you don’t.
If you do, then you are advocating violence, which is immoral.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Nusrat, you should be ashamed for not wanting to stop the spread of this smut. It’s not simply a matter of opposing something you disagree with, its a matter of morality. Believe it or not, we can legislate against immorality. In fact, all of our laws are based on a Judeo-christian morality.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Nusrat – essentially our strategy is a bit of “legal jujitsu”, filing lawsuits in specific states that have favorable statutes for plaintiffs, winning headlines for the cause in the course of things, and stemming the tide of pornography all in one fell swoop.
Pornography addiction is a serious problem in our society. Take for instance the case of Destiny Norton (from last year), an endearing 6-year-old girl lured into a basement, suffocated, raped and stuffed into a garbage bag. The 20-year old who later admitted to the crime confessed he was addicted to pornography and was acting out a scene he had witnessed with child pornography.
I should also note that the science has caught up. We can now demonstrate through FMRI studies that pornography can impair the portion of the cerebral cortex that deals with cognitive thought. The average addict starts at 11.
90% of rapists admit a serious porn addiction. A survey of lawyers indicated that internet pornography played a serious role in 64% of divorces.
Essentially, this is a product that causes serious harm to the consumer and to society in general. Why would we want to pursue this further?
Pornography today is where tobacco was in the 70s and 80s… people are starting to discuss its effects and what can be done about it.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:32 am
I am not ashamed for saying that it is immoral to use guns and violence to stop the “smut.”
July 16th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Justin:
Answer this. Do you or do you not want to use force to make porn go away?
If you want to use the power of the law, then you are advocating force and violence to make it stop. Explain to me how this is not immoral.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:35 am
“In fact, all of our laws are based on a Judeo-christian morality.”
Does your Judeo-Christian morality include putting unbelievers to death? Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, Jesus himself included, advocated this.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Nusrat,
Could you provide us with the exact Bible verse where Jesus states that non-believers should be executed?
July 16th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Luke 19:27.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Nusrat – answer me this. Is tobacco illegal in today’s society? Are there serious financial ramifications put in place to discourage use of tobacco? Are there serious societal pressures to encourage people to stop smoking? Are these efforts led by the leading producers of tobacco products themselves? How did this all come about?
It came about because people began to realize that smoking has a serious impact on individuals and even on society. It came about because citizens filed civil litigation against the tobacco industry claiming that they were covering up the science and marketing their products to children. The snowball effect of that effort brought about huge change in society and I think for the better.
Now, how would you rate pornography against smoking?
I could open this forum to everyone reading this and ask for people to share stories of sexual abuse, divorce, serious loss of opportunity in their lives or the lives of their loved ones because of pornography. The stories would run on and on.
We believe that this is one way to bring serious change and attention to an issue that is growing out of control.
In short, just like efforts against prostitution and illegal drugs we have serious scientific evidence that pornography is a dangerous addiction and we want to do something about it.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:48 am
You advocate bringing legal “justice” to the distributors of pornography.
Haven’t these pornographers been quite peaceful? They create a product for which there is a market, and people peacefully buy these products. In advocating legal force against these people, you are advocating, essentially, putting the gun of the government to their heads and forcing them to stop.
It really frightens me that you use the language “we want to do something about it.”
We are a nation of busybodies if we want to “legislate morality” in this sick, disgusting way. It is a peaceful commodity.
Let’s say I create a book that has violent passages. Many people read the book and then several of them decide to act upon it and kill people. Should I be punished for peacefully writing a book that people bought? Of course not.
What if I write a song that has drug references that cause many people to go light up? Should I be punished for the actions of others? Of course not!
You just want to legislate this sick false moral pretense in order to control people.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Nusrat,
That quote is spoken by a King in a parable that Jesus was giving to a gathering if followers.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:50 am
By the way, Republicans always bitch and moan about the nanny state, but in saying, “waah waah, porn is dangerous for society,” (Collectivist language), then you are also picking up the nanny state of the democrats.
Leave people alone. People will make choices you disagree with. Live your own life, and stop being such a busybody, especially when you are advocating governmental violence to make them stop.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:52 am
I think the Muslims believe the same thing about executing non-believers.
I really do feel we are going down a slippery slope legislating morality as Vitter can tell you all.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:53 am
The quote is spoken by Jesus, and there is nothing to imply that it is metaphorical.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Nusrat, of course the quote was spoken by Jesus…he was the one giving the parable. All the verses before 27, as well as the rest of the teachings of Christ, teach us that it is metaphorical.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Then what could it be a metaphor for?
“Bring my enemies and slay them.”
It is well known that the King represents God in the parable.
I’d love to debate this sometime in another comment section, but I’d rather people discuss my posts 24 & 25, since they’re more relevant to the topic at hand.
Not avoiding the topic, I just want responses to those questions I posed, especially from Justin.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Nursat – I like Libertarians but I also like a society that supports and promotes morality. Just ask Mark Steyn about the failure of Europe in this regard.
Hearkening back to the first fathers of our country:
“Your love of liberty – your respect for the laws – your habits of industry – and your practice of the moral and religious obligations, are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness.â€
George Washington, letter to the Residents of Boston, October 27, 1789
“It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.â€
Thomas Jefferson, Notes On The State of Virginia, Query XIX, 1787.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:15 am
And your answers to my questions about the book and the song I posed in 24?
Those are direct parallels to why you want to clean up the “smut.” Want to prosecute authors of violent books and drugy songs?
July 16th, 2007 at 11:16 am
druggy*
July 16th, 2007 at 11:24 am
“Haven’t these pornogrophers been quite peaceful? They create a product for which there is a market, and people peacefully buy these products. In advocating legal force against these people, you are advocating, essentially, putting the gun of the government to their heads and forcing them to stop.”
Nusrat, there is a bit of hyperbole in your statement. It is true that the government can not legislate morality on every point, nor would we want it to. But the “legal process” is the most civilized way of resolving disputes like these. Remain, the legal process is a granting of authority to a representative jury or judges (our peers) asking them to examine evidence and make a decision. It is the exact opposite of “putting a gun” to their heads or other techniques used in the past like lynch mobs, riots, etc.
An example….
If a polluter dumps chemicals into a river and later 5/200,000 people are shown to have developed leukemia when only 1/200,000 was expected and through complex drawn out civil litigation the polluter is felt liable, society might require the polluter to make reforms. Perhaps the polluter has to change processes at the plant to mute the impact of harmful chemicals in the environment. The polluter may fight it saying there is “no causal relationship” between my small amounts of chemicals and your cancer….but in the end society may decide the evidence is substantial enough to warrant some change. Society may decide that the product produced by the industrial polluter is desired enough to warrant some production or it may not….but is through the legal process that we will decide.
If pornographers, like drug cartels, like tobacco companies, “create a product for which there is a market” and people “peacefully” buy these products it is likely that society will sort out the framework within which we want products like these used. Like tobacco companies 20 years ago, pornography producers may find themselves on the cusp of widespread legal attack. The first family who has lost a loved one to the pornography fueled sexual attack and successfully sues producers of this material will undoubtedly open the flood gates. Who would have imagined twenty years ago that smoking would be in general banned from public places, secondhand smoke would be widely recognized as harmful. Yet it is still legal, and obviously enjoyed by many millions of people. Society, through the legal process, has sorted out where we want to be with smoking, how we want it marketed, how intrusive we want smoking to be in the lives on non-smokers. The same will happen with pornography.
Your charge that using the legal process is “putting the gun of the government to their heads” rings very hollow. It is the only civilized way to resolve a dispute of this nature.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:26 am
But it really is putting a gun to their heads, in the logical conclusion of it all.
Let’s say you prosecute, successfully, a pornographer, for creating porn, so you fine him $1,000,000. He refuses to pay. What happens? He gets a summons, maybe gets a jail sentence. Policemen come to his house, he (rightfully) resists arrest, defending his property, since he has done no wrong. The policemen then use guns.
The only thing making him pay the $1,000,000 in the first place is the threat of violence. He’s certainly not voluntarily paying it.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:28 am
“The first family who has lost a loved one to the pornography fueled sexual attack and successfully sues producers of this material will undoubtedly open the flood gates.”
Again…the questions remain.
I write a book that has violent overtones, and 4 murders are caused. Are the murders my fault? I just put words on paper.
I write a song that glofifies heroin, and people pump it into their veins. Am I to blame? Of course not.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:32 am
“how intrusive we want smoking to be in the lives on non-smokers. The same will happen with pornography. ”
How is pornography intrusive in the lives of people who don’t use porn? I dispute the causality of pornography and rape, and i actually think there’s a reverse correlation.
There’s a difference between cause and blame.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Yes, but that can be said of ANY legal decision.
Why do these decisions have credibility….because we the people sanction them…why do they have authority…because we the people sanction them. Your indictment is therefore one of representative government and the legal authority of government. It remains the case, however, that our granting of legal authority in this system is the fairest and most civilized way of resolving disputes.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Where does the government get the moral authority to use force?
Why do I not have the moral right to force a pornographer to stop, but the government does? Morals are objective and universal, so what is a moral right for one has to be a moral right for another.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Nusrat, what this all comes down to is that these conservatives-in-name-only want free markets only when they like the product or service being sold. They have lost all conception of individual responsibility and in its place have put their own moral crusade, notwithstanding the illogicality of it: if porn is so bad, then why hasn’t Japan erupted in flames yet?
July 16th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I really, really, really would like an answer to my question I’ve asked twice or thrice regarding the violent book and the druggy song.
Ban them? Prosecute the creators? After all, their products were blamed for the crimes.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:42 am
And by the way, for every “pornography fueled sexual attack” there are probably a thousand “alcohol fueled sexual attacks.” I don’t see you guys wanting to outlaw alcohol.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Because we already saw that banning something just makes more of it/makes underground crime, a la prohibition.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Ok, a couple of observations:
1. Justin Hart in #31, way to quote two non-believers for the proposition that religious standards should be imposed by law. Washington and Jefferson were, at best, deists (akin to Unitarians today), and were more realistically agnostics. Washington’s quote certainly doesn’t support government imposition of moral standards. Rather, it simply says that obeying the moral and religious obligations of one’s conscience will lead to greater “individual and national happiness.” Interpreting this statement to mean that religious groups should aim to impose their values upon the rest of the country is absurd for this reason: it would make a lot of people who don’t agree with those vaues very UNHAPPY, and therefore would not further the “individual or national happiness.” What Washington was referring to was the individual conscience and the importance of living as it dictates.
2. Nusrat is correct. These social conservatives who want government to pass laws imposing moral/religious value sets to prevent the “moral decay of society” are big-government liberals, not conservatives. They want to use the government to reduce the freedom of others of whom they disapprove, the same way that many people are OK with greater tax burdens on upper income individuals because they “don’t like the rich.” It’s sour grapes.
3. I don’t trust anyone who denies their masturbatory instinct exists and is natural (IT IS, DEAL WITH IT). Every other animal with the ability to do it, does it. Why human animals should be different is beyond me. Pornography is a healthy expression of simple human desires, and corresponds to our natural masturbatory instinct. It’s amazing all these people who talk about how pornography exploits women. Really, where are the female porn stars making that claim? If by ‘exploit’ you mean “make somebody rich for doing a job they enjoy,” then yes, I guess porn stars are exploited. Make no mistake, most porn stars love their job. Those who don’t love it still do it voluntaruily for the money. Child porn is inexcusable, but if people are willing to have sex on camera for money, and if there is a market for that product, who are we to deny the producers a living, the workers a wage, and the market what it wants.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:49 am
I should clarify from my last post. IT should read: “Child porn is inexcusable. (period) But if adults are willing to have sex on camera for money…yada yada.”
July 16th, 2007 at 11:53 am
“how intrusive we want smoking to be in the lives on non-smokers. The same will happen with pornography. â€
How is pornography intrusive in the lives of people who don’t use porn? I dispute the causality of pornography and rape, and i actually think there’s a reverse correlation.
There’s a difference between cause and blame.
But the wonderful thing is that you are entitled to your opinion…and I mine…and we get to sort it out in front of our peers in the legal system. If I win the first court challenge, you can fight back in the next one. Your point about authorship, poetry, etc. only is protected because the link between action (writing a book) and effect is a very tenuous one. However, if your wrote a book where you specified me by name and asked that I be killed…you could be held liable because the connection is very clear. With pornograpy, the action (producing of porn) and the effect is also tenous. It will take time to sort out like it did with smoking. It will require multiple legal decisions in multiple venues. It will remain disputed.
However, some associations are already strong between pornography and ethically/morally corrupt activity. For example, child pornography, by definition, means you’ve exploited a dependent person. It is illegal everywhere and possession of child pornography is already absolutely against the law…because it involves exploitation of minors.
For those who advocate and desire the ‘harmless’, in home, private, use of adult pornography. I predict that this would not ever be outlawed because of strong sense of privacy rights in our country. The real legal battle will be in the public interface between those who sell porn and potential “new customers”. If you really want porn you’ll always be able to get it but my preference would be that you did not introduce it to me with pop-up ads, porn laced spam, billboards, casual channel surfing on my home TV, or on my cereal box (haven’t seen it there yet), or trying to sell my kids on it.
That being said, if you’re willing to listen, I can tell you how it will harm your relationship with others, how in reality the adults who are featured in porn are exploited also, and on and on. This latter part I’m not willing to legislate but always happy to comment on.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:56 am
“However, if your wrote a book where you specified me by name and asked that I be killed”
Absolutely irrelevant, and not what I was asking at all.
In a porn video, they aren’t singling people out and saying, “rape them.” Way to completely miss my point.
July 16th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Just for the record when I made that comment about Japan I wasn’t aware of the earthquake.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Actually, you missed my point. I point out that legal culpability is related to strength of the association. Just because mass produced porn (like mass produced cigarettes) are “distant” from their effects, it does not mean that causility is not there. This issue is like any ’suspected’ harmful agent…be it cigarette smoke, a little asbestos in your walls, a bit of ‘binge’ drinking. It won’t be outlawed but society will ask for reasonable controls obtained by ‘legal’ force, not morally authoritative force but civilly authoritative force. Legal force that you and I decide on in our representative government.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
“Make no mistake, most porn stars love their job.” Really?
July 16th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Woah,
I leave here for a few minutes and what happens? Liberalism has run amok. Listen to what I’m reading:
Pornography is good. Regulations against pornography is bad. Holding pornographers accountable for the poison they create & distribute is bad. I can’t believe this? Has this site entirely become overrun by social liberals?
Nusrat,
If something is causing pain, death, disease, and crime, then it out to be severely regulated for the good of society. Society can never exist if it does not seek to protect itself from the things that cause it harm.
The problem with some of you social liberals is that you want all the freedoms (rope) so you can hang yourselves with it. That’s fine by me, your right to do so. It is just too bad that others get harmed as you are in the process of exercising your “freedoms.” My liberal hippie father was into porn bigtime. Cheated on my mother, and I have not seen him since I was eight. Did not pay child support or anything, needless to say – we were very poor. I can testify firsthand how this filth indirectly affects the lives of young children and as a result I hate it passionately. Nusrat, I’d love for Hugh & Larry to at least step up & share in some of the blame their “freedom of speech” caused to me & my family. Yes, my father owns most of the blame, but they are also accountable to some extent as consumers of this filth can lose their ability to properly govern themselves. These bastards profited off of our pain & suffering.
Your “freedoms” do not entitle you to cause pain & suffering at any extent to others. That is the selfishness of social liberalism / instant gratification.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I never once said pornography was good. I just don’t think that the government should prosecute (and persecute) those who peacefully create a product with a market.
Gun makers aren’t responsible for crimes of guns.
Porn wasn’t responsible for your father leaving your mother. Hate to say it, but your father was the only person responsible for that. People have free will, and you only have to look at all the people who have/do use pornography and stay in marriages and remaine mentally healthy to show that your father could have controlled himself. It’s unfortunate what happened, but to blame pornography is really missing the actual cause.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
“Yes, my father owns most of the blame, but they are also accountable to some extent as consumers of this filth can lose their ability to properly govern themselves.”
If someone had offered your father $1,000,000 to a) stop watching porn; or b) stay with your mother, do you think he would have? Of course! Therefore, there was free will involved, and he was in control of himself; he just chose to act upon his whims.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Great comments by CWPete. I think you nailed it. The shame is that most people don’t see porn as harmful, but like most things, some harmful actions, substances etc are not easily identified.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Once again, whether or not porn is harmful is irrelevant. The real question is whether we want the liberal nanny state going around telling us how to run our lives. If we outlaw porn because it’s harmful, then why not transfat, gambling, skydiving, alcohol, cigarettes, driving, airplanes, etc.? Many of those are far more harmful than porn.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Bingo, Phil M. I was just going to use the driving analogy myself.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Phil M, is it not ironic that they are calling us liberal for wanting to just leave people alone?
July 16th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Exactly. Not only that, but they are making the same mistake that liberals do all the time: ignoring basic laws of economics. If you artificially cut supply, you do nothing to cut demand, and you create black markets, which oftentimes are run by people who aren’t exactly the nicest folks around. Black markets flourished during Prohibition and in the former Soviet Union.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Nusrat, Phil M. all those things that you mentioned are not outlawed but are under legal control.
And they are controlled because society sees harm/risk in each of those activities. Porn already has legal controls in place and will continue to be regulated through legal challenges.
Nusrat earlier decried the use of legal means to challenge control these behaviors…yet I suspect that he would not have it any other way…it is by legal challenge that we set boundaries one another’s behaviors to protect the innocent and preserve tolerance. Yes…we preserve tolerance by unitedly agreeing on a legal framework for our public, civil activities.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
But using the “legal” framework is irrelevant if you are doing it against a peaceful behavior.
You decry those who “legislate from the bench.” Well, what is this?
Is it not immoral to use the court system to unfairly punish someone who has done nothing wrong? If not, then why not?
July 16th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Why is it irrelevant? Many peaceful behaviors are regulated via legal means: e.g. skydiving, driving, , smoking, drinking alcohol.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
And I oppose those governmental regulations, as well.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I see, do you also oppose mob justice when a drunk plows into your 15 year old daughter as she walks home from school?
July 16th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Of course not. Straw man argument.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_10_102/ai_91088627
July 16th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I think those types of regulations are all regulations that could be dealt with by private justice systems and the free market.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Porn is under control, it must have adult actors and be available only to other adults. The same people that want to outlaw porn are the same people that would throw a fit if you tried to outlaw Teflon bullets or any other weapons that fall under the “gun” heading. Or the fact that religion has caused more deaths world wide than anything other than plagues. Don’t forget the moat vs beam parable.
I’m all for religion, I’m a believer. I’m also a former MP so I don’t have a problem with guns. On the other hand I don’t want the government telling me how to live my life. That’s why I am a Social Liberal while conservative in most other ways. Keep the government out of my life and the life of my children.
Somehow the Republicans have become the party of the intrusive government instead of the small government.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I suspect you don’t mean what you say….you are happy to have folks driving around with a blood alchohol of 0.20?
July 16th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Exactly, Casey.
Of course not, Fim. I never said that. I think they could be dealt with by private justice systems.
Do you think I have an IQ of about 50? Yeah, you know? I think it would be wonderful if people just drove around with a BAC of .2. I can’t think of a damned thing that’s better!
Come on. Use common sense. Of course I think that’s reprehensible, but the free market could create negative economic consequences for doing so.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I think you have a high IQ…not an issue. I point out only what appears to be a discrepancy in the face of intelligent arguments that you have made. What ‘private justice systems’ are you talking about?
I really don’t think you mean that you would leave the regulation of blood alchohol up to the free market, why? because it has not worked. The reason MADD was successful is that the free market had not worked…the only think that worrked was a legal solution.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I have to disagree with Nusrat here. In all of those instances, as well as with porn, the government’s job is just to act as an umpire, not as a regulator. The government makes sure that people don’t hurt each other on the roads, and it makes sure that no one (especially children) is coerced into making porn. The same thing with businesses: the government makes sure that another Enron doesn’t happen, but it shouldn’t go around making businesses “equal.”
July 16th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Casey, no body wants to have Big Brother over the shoulder all the time. My point is that the legal system is the best place to work out issues of difference between parties on issues like this…it the acceptance of the common rule of law that makes us all willing to tolerate that thing the other guy does that bugs us. Why didn’t prohibition last?, because we, as a society, said it was too much regulation.
I think the point of a lot folks is that porn is not ‘under control’ when you have mass
producers who are really pushing it at kids, and in not so private ways.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
How are they pushing it at kids? I’m 16, and I have NEVER ONCE had porn just “pop up” at me. When you see polls saying that most kids say that that has happened, it’s probably that they’ve looked at porn intentionally. Tell me, what ever happened to the old-fashioned idea of parents taking care of their own children instead of the government doing it?
July 16th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
“I really don’t think you mean that you would leave the regulation of blood alchohol up to the free market”
I absolutely mean that, because roads should be left up to the free market.
Fim, why is it any of your business (Or Romney’s or Justin’s or anyone else’s) if someone makes porn and sells it peacefully on the free market?
July 16th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Actually porn isn’t being pushed at kids. It’s their parents/neighbors/babysitter’s sloppy habits that allow kids to have access. Porn is a billion dollar industry that is making enough money that it doesn’t have to try to bring in new users. They will get those consumers when they reach college or join the service.
Parents need to not hide it in their closets but under lock and key, like you would anything you want your kids kept away from. They need to learn how to operate their cable boxes so the kids don’t have the code to access adult channels. They need to take responsibility.
Like the old “guns don’t kill people” you can say “porn doesn’t go after children”. I’m addicted to sweets and have the body to prove it. I’m now on blood pressure medicine. Since I’m an addict I think I’ll take Hostess to court, as well as Ben and Jerry’s and Sara Lee. They should be making healthy snacks so I don’t get fat and my kids don’t pick up my bad eating habits.
July 16th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
No man is an island, entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent,
a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were.
Any man’s death diminishes me
because I am involved in mankind;
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for thee. . . .
It is my business insofar as I care about other people and in particular my family.
I prefer to LESSEN the influence of porn in society because I believe it is wrong.
Read both sides of the argument here.. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/talk/index4.html
The ‘peaceful’ purveyors of porn are not so peaceful to those who have been victimized the its influences.
Nusrat, I guess the question to you is why are are so against the courtroom as the place to settle this?
July 16th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Casey makes a good point. Regulation without teaching is nothing. But teaching without some
regulation can be a real uphill battle. Hence, some controls, as established in the courtroom are
warranted.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Nusrat,
The reason that social conservatives break with pure libertarianism on certain issues is that we believe that those issues have a negative impact on society.
It is obvious that you don’t believe that pornography has a negative impact on people not wishing to have that smut in their lives. You are being disagreed with, but you continue to argue that this side of the argument just wants to regulate other people’s actions. Not the case. We want to protect ourselves and our families, and we are of the opinion that they are under direct attack.
Most here can give anecdotal evidence of that fact. Pornography has hardly left a single family unaffected, in my opinion. Harder facts and figures are much harder to come by, which is why it is important such organizations as the one Justin belongs to exist.
If you believe that gov´t regulation of cigarrette advertising, gambling restrictions, etc. are bad, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree, just as social conservatives and libertarians have been doing for a long time in the Republican party.
If you would like to know why, for me, there is a difference between some of these things and the nanny state, I would mention that highly addictive behaviors and substances need to be monitored, especially as they are marketed towards children, because if they are not, they are literally bereaved of the freedom you so enthusiastically demand from your society. They are robbed of the free will you wish to protect.
That’s my stance, and the stance of many other social conservatives. I hope you can understand where we’re coming from, at least, and respect the difference between that and the welfare state we join with you in deploring.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Nusrat:
Why do you care what I care about?
July 16th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
*…need to be monitored, especially as they are marketed towards children, because if they (the substances and behaviors) are not, they (vulnerable markets like children) are literally bereaved of…
July 16th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Let me correct the for your, MellowFellow:
“It is obvious that you don’t believe that alcohol has a negative impact on people not wishing to have that substance in their lives. You are being disagreed with, but you continue to argue that this side of the argument just wants to regulate other people’s actions. Not the case. We want to protect ourselves and our families, and we are of the opinion that they are under direct attack.
Most here can give anecdotal evidence of that fact. Alcohol has hardly left a single family unaffected, in my opinion. Harder facts and figures are much harder to come by, which is why it is important such organizations as the one Justin belongs to exist.”
And by the way, porn works fine in Japan.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I would like proof that porn is being marketed toward children. Having raised two I haven’t seen it. I’ve not heard my school teacher sister or my other sister that works as a school secretary mention it, and we’ve talked about most things that are happening to children. My BIL, a retired Fire Chief with many police friends hasn’t mentioned this influx of porn into children’s lives.
Proof anyone? On the other hand, in Europe where “adult” programming is pretty standard and porn actually shown on television (as documentary’s) I can show lower incidence of sex crimes. A link was posted just recently.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
*Tail tucked under his legs*
Man, Phil, you sure are good at winning arguments when you don’t listen to the other side.
Alcohol IS very regulated. Alcohol IS at least relatively hard to come by for minors. Alcohol IS understood and respectd as a potential threat to society. There ARE high school assemblies every day begging students to educate themselves about it.
That is EXACTLY what is needed for pornography. Not libertarian mumbo-jumbo about live and let live.
The straw man you are fighting is that pornography ought to be illegal. What is being SAID is that it ought to be regulated, especially on the internet, to protect people that don’t want to be affected, in much the same way as other dangerous substances are regulated for the same reason.
So thanks for the useful alcohol analogy. BTW, I don’t know what porn “working” means, and how come Japan is so good at it.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
OK then, I misunderstood you there and I apologize for misconstruing your argument. By “working” in Japan I mean that porn is far more widespread in Japan than in the US and the results are no way as catastrophic as you seem to think it is.
As far alcohol, why don’t you look at the results of your regulations: more minors drinking than in most other industrialized countries, higher death rates by alcohol of minors, etc., when in most European countries the minimum age is 16 and they have less problems with it.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Here come the reinforcements, Nusrat!
Listen –
What I keep seeing here is that porn is “bad” and “immoral” and “ugly” against “against religious values,” and has “harmful effects on people.”
Okay, that’s nice? Then don’t look at it.
Let’s not kid ourselves. This is extremely arbitrary. I could apply all of the statements I just quoted to the computer game World of Warcraft, if the player is addicted. Ever watched those news reports about kids addicted to porn? Some kids get addicted to that game. So hey, c’mon, so-cons, let’s ban it!
July 16th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Where is the parent in all this? Why isn’t the parent watching where their kids are going on the internet? It goes right back to parental responsibility.
Yes it’s filth and I don’t like it. I don’t like a lot of things but that doesn’t mean I think I should control your access to it though. It means I make sure it doesn’t come into my home. It means I make sure my children know why I find it repugnant. As a parent one of my jobs was to teach my children how to take responsibility for their actions .
July 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Hahaha, MellowFellow in 82 — Alright, since I happen to be a high-schooler, I can tell you what’s really going on with alcohol: the vast majority of high schoolers have had a drink, a very high number of them have been drunk (perhaps not a majority, but at least a fifth) for entertainment, and most of them do it BECAUSE it is something that is banned for them, that makes them feel older, that makes them feel rebellious. (I’d say about a third of them have tried pot.)
By ignoring nature, people like you inadvertently lead teens to do this. If you’d leave the matter alone, alcohol wouldn’t look so appealing. Notice that most kids AREN’T doing cocaine. That’s because we LEAVE THE MATTER ALONE. It becomes MUCH more appealing to teenagers when they find out that they shouldn’t be doing it, when we make cheesy mascots and hokey campaign slogans. Once it becomes a media sensation, it looks almost like it’s a charade. The minds of teenagers are warped. Crusty old so-con Bible-thumper bureaucrats don’t know how to appeal to them in the least, and they need to stop pretending that they do. Yes, that’s how they’re viewed by rebellious teenagers — that is, if they were ever taught the word “bureaucrat” in between all of the ridiculous nonsense that passes for education these days.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Here’s what your alcohol regulation does:
http://www.stopaddiction.com/narconon_alcohol_deaths.html#
The percent of all deaths that are alcohol related is 3.5% in the US.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091
There are about 12 deaths per 100000 in the UK. A bit less the 3.5%.
Keep in mind that the drinking age in Britain is 5.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
And in 82 — “to protect people that don’t want to be affected”
It is protected! No one is forcing you to go any websites with pornographic content! If you don’t want to see it, then don’t enter the URL into your web browser!
July 16th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Actually, screw that last statistic from Britain, I was comparing two different things.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Phil M is right in 73 — Porn ads do *not* just “pop up” at you. You’d have to be on a site with other pornographic content first. The myth of random pop-up ads for porn is false. It’s simply not how the Internet works.
You would indeed have had to have been looking at pornography, and believe me, most (male) teenagers want to and have done it. In fact, they’ve been seeking it out since the beginning of time, whether on the Internet or digging through the trash for a used Playboy magazine. I’d be highly surprised if any of us on this board has never volitionally looked at a piece of pornography.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I’ve GOT to disagree with Nusrat over “private justice systems” — you’re now in anarchism, not libertarianism. A universally accepted justice system is absolutely mandated in my view, based on the rule that no initiation of force should take place, or else it all becomes arbitrary.
You surely didn’t mean that there should be competing justice systems? Did I misunderstand?
July 16th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Phil M,
I thought our side was supposed to be the one being presumptuous with our correlations! Regulations CAUSE higher alcohol abuse among minors? Now that would be hard to prove.
Catastrophe is in the eye of the beholder, and I enjoy living in a country that values human decency enough to keep private what should be kept private.
Do law-abiding adults have every right to deviate from that standard? Of course. But again, the issue at hand here is not restricting their access but reducing the prevalence of this filth in open society.
I DIDN’T CHOOSE IT! I didn’t choose it for me or my family. It doesn’t belong at town square.
TLG, welcome to the conversation. We are taking about regulations, not banning. I invite you to read some of the comments above.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Haha, thanks for the “reinforcements” guys.
I was just taking a nap, it’s nice to see that I’m not alone in thinking that it’s not the government’s business.
By the way, I just asked my friend what she thought of it…
“Some people think porn needs to be regulated.”
“Why?”
“Because they think it leads to rape and other violent behaviors.”
“Why does it lead to those?”
“Because it makes them horny.”
“They’re already horny. That’s why they got the porn.”
I think that’s the point. People are going to get those sexual feelings out somehow. It’s best that they get them out in a nonviolent way.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Good grief.
Do you want big, socialist federal government to solve these problems? Not me. The state can regulate these laws as they see fit, but the national government should not become involved. The last thing we need is big brother looking over our shoulders into the privacy of our homes. The closest we can come without crossing the line is by giving the parents or adults the options to filter this stuff out on their own accord.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
“Human decency”? Gee, why didn’t I think of that? Oh, wait, I know: because it’s, as you said about catastrophe, “in the eye of the beholder.” But the government’s got to adopt what you see through your eyes. Screw everyone else’s thoughts. It’s all about what you believe about this subjective matter.
Yes, regulations cause higher alcohol abuse. Teens create quite a backlash against cheesy slogans and hokey, ineffective advocacy groups run by middle-aged religious white guys. Is it right that they are dismissed? No. But when working with idiots (which comprises most of the teenage population), you’ve got to speak on an idiotic level. And 99% of advocacy groups do NOT understand pop culture, do NOT understand how to communicate with teens, and do NOT know how to convey a message to them. Teens dismiss the entire thing and lash against it.
I know it might hurt the precious little egos of some so-cons, but no, they do not understand how to communicate with teens or how they ‘click.’
PS — Please define “human decency,” “private,” “open” and “society.” Especially the first one, though.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
92 — Nusrat: You are correct!
93 — Tommy: Yep. And the free market has already taken care of that, as it tends to do.
July 16th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
MellowFellow, look at 86.
Now consider the latest development of the new drug cheese, a cheap and potent high. So what does the government and the press do about it? They advertise everywhere, “hey kids! There’s a new way to get a good high, so please be aware that cheese is dangerous.” Tell me, what do you think will happen?
All these presumptions about children being so innocent and being exploited is ridiculous. I’ve got news for you: your children aren’t perfect angels, and you can’t blame all of their faults on the government for not regulating stuff enough.
Oh, and when was porn in the town square? Did I miss that? Sexual images are on television, magazines, and the internet, all of which parents can regulate themselves at their own discretion. It works out nicely that way.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
And typically, when something inappropriate DOES get into the town square, it gets taken down out of protest. The free market works itself out. People protest and say they’ll make a big deal over it, and the market responds.
Example:
Recently in LA, a torture-horror movie called “Captivity” was being advertised on billboards that had four panels: “ABDUCTION/CONFINEMENT/TORTURE/TERMINATION” — Confinement featured a bloody finger coming out of a cage, torture had a woman with a cast over her face with a blood-filled tube going into her nose, and termination had a limp hand over a cart.
Needless to say, there was much outcry over it and it was … TAKEN DOWN … by the request of hundreds of … CONCERNED PARENTS.
See what the market does? And now, we won’t see that sort of thing again, because advertisers know what will happen if they do.
THE MARKET REGULATES ITSELF.
PS — The movie bombed at the box office and actually wasn’t very good (I’m a big horror fan).
July 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
TLG,
Having listened to you in the past, I know you have no respect for social conservatives, and can rarely have a civil conversation with one, but you are going to have to realize we come from different worldviews. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand.
You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t defer to your expertise because “you’re a high schooler,” but I actually know some others, and was one myself not too long ago. There are many reasons teenagers drink and yes, to an extent, one among those many is that it is a way to rage against the machine, as it were. But to blame alcohol abuse on regulation and education is asinine. I suppose teenagers speed because we have speed limits?
The rebellion of some teens is not at issue here. If that is to be addressed, it isn’t with regulations, obviously. But it is beyond dispute that knowing that alcohol has the potential to do severe damage in a person’s life enables that person to make responsible decisions, whether or not he chooses to do so.
Regulations protect against vulnerable segments of our population, like underage people and bystanders (the guy in the other car, e.g.). Both education and regulation can be improved, but the alternative to our imperfect system as proposed by some libertarians – let it alone, the magic market will take care of it – is unacceptable. It just doesn’t happen.
The cynicism displayed by some posters here is chilling, btw. That may be a great difference between certain people here and the social conservative perspective. We believe that society can be, and ought to be, improved upon.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
mellowfellow,
Being a socon is fine, but not at the expense of federalist principles. You can have laws that regulate the level of alcohol consumed before driving, but you can’t regulate the level of alcohol consumed by itself. Also, it is a stretch to put alcohol and legal porn (by legal, I mean non-child porn) in the same category.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Yes, teenagers speed, in part, because there are speed limits. If it says “40,” they figure “Oh, okay, well, 55 will do.” But 55, without that speed limit, might seem too fast otherwise, and they’d slow down. I’m not saying that we should do away with speed limits, but I think that you may have inadvertently had a point there.
Um, yes, alcohol does indeed have the potential to damage someone’s life. So does World of Warcraft, like I said. How do you propose to regulate alcohol even further? The under-21-not-allowed bit has clearly not done a thing.
You can hardly blame me for being a cynic when people like you constantly want to take peoples’ individual freedoms away. I cannot respect, on a philosophical level, you or anyone else that thinks that they have the license to regulate other peoples’ behavior.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Other peoples’ non-forceful** behavior.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
TLG,
Our principal disagreement is not over whether porn is good or bad, though we may very well have very different opinions there, but over whether or not it is currently doing damage against an unwilling population. You say it isn’t, I say it is.
The smut is in town square, its market loves it to death and will support it (unlike your billboard) until kingdom come, but we, whether or not we are the majority or minority, are subjected to it and it’s influence without our due consent.
“What influence?!” he bawls. The connections between broken families, violence, and abuse and pornography have been well-documented, and mentioned in this forum. They do not appear in hard facts and figures, yet, as I have already conceded, but I believe the connection is well-founded. Just as cigarettes in the past, it will take some time to connect the dots to everyone’s satisfaction. I believe that the connecting of those dots is a great service, and commend Justin for his work in that area.
As a hard-core libertarian, you don’t much care about societal movements, and I understand that. We’re different. Deal, bro.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Again, our differences are in what we think porn is doing to society. If we all agreed that porn destroyed families, etc., you might concede some of your libertarian ground here. I have seen enough to come to that conclusion, and fully expect there to be enough evidence in the near future to bring ya´ll aboard. If I’m wrong, you’ll get to say I told you so, but I don’t think I’ll be wrong.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
How is porn in the town square? I’ve never once seen a porn billboard, a casual conversation about porn on Larry King, a porn magazine at the gas station, hardcore porn it the doctor’s waiting room. In fact, the only time I’ve seen porn in public is in a magazine shop. And it’s covered.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
“You can have laws that regulate the level of alcohol consumed before driving, but you can’t regulate the level of alcohol consumed by itself. Also, it is a stretch to put alcohol and legal porn (by legal, I mean non-child porn) in the same category.”
Thank you, sir. Thank you. We can have laws that regulate that consumption of alcohol that is proven to have a direct and deleterious effect on others. That is the exact level to which pornography ought to be regulated.
Also at issue is new users, and how fair were the marketing strategies used to introduce vulnerable persons (especially children) to a very addictive and damaging behavior.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
*in the doctor’s waiting room
July 16th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
fair=ethical above, though I know TLG hates it when we talk about morals.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“What influence?!†he bawls. The connections between broken families, violence, and abuse and pornography have been well-documented, and mentioned in this forum. They do not appear in hard facts and figures, yet, as I have already conceded, but I believe the connection is well-founded. Just as cigarettes in the past, it will take some time to connect the dots to everyone’s satisfaction. I believe that the connecting of those dots is a great service, and commend Justin for his work in that area.
You can’t make the comparison between ciggerettes and porn. Smoking has a direct effect on the people exposed to it. Porn, no matter how it appears, does not. Alcohol puts people directly at risk when a drunk is behind the wheel. Porn does not. You get in a car after viewing porn, and more likely than not, it will have no direct affect on your blood level that can cause you to harm others. You can’t inhale pornography in a crowded room, so it can not affect those around you, if you act decently. You can’t inject somebody with porn with a needle and you can’t sniff it.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“Smoking has a direct effect on the people exposed to it. Porn, no matter how it appears, does not.”
What I meant was that you can’t inhale second hand porn.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Porn typically does *not* destroy families, though. That largely exists in social conservative lore and nowhere else. Can it? Certainly. Has it? Yes. Can World of Warcraft? Yep. Has it? I’ve seen a news report about an inept mother grieving that her teenage child is addicted to the game and plays it 10-12 hours a day. So I keep saying — why no movement against that game, which thousands of men are addicted to? Won’t anyone think of the children?
July 16th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
“Thank you, sir. Thank you. We can have laws that regulate that consumption of alcohol that is proven to have a direct and deleterious effect on others. That is the exact level to which pornography ought to be regulated.”
Yes, but specifics are regulated on a state by state level, not on a national one, if memory serves. Blood alchool levels vary from state to state, not nationally.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
“Our principal disagreement is not over whether porn is good or bad, though we may very well have very different opinions there, but over whether or not it is currently doing damage against an unwilling population. You say it isn’t, I say it is.”
Very nicely put Mellow Fellow.
TLG,
I think You’ve been playing too much Warcraft my friend.
If porn was completely harmless, or *only* harmed the willing participant, I would agree with your point of view.
I porn is everywhere and available to kids. I don’t know what world you’ve been living in. Any kid could go to any public library and have access to the full gambit. There are many URLs that I’ve mis-typed to popular websites which have landed me in porno-ville. This kind of marketing is devious and deceitful. I’m sure many younger kids have done the same thing given that most can probably spell better than I can.
Also, my nephew start his little porn problem by downloading free videogames. An Innocent kid downloading what appeared to be a silly little game actually contained hardcore porn and links to other porn sites.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Of course porn is everywhere and available to kids. What, is the government supposed to make the world into one giant safe bubble for suburban white children?
July 16th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
No, MellowFellow, I have no problem with talking about morals.
However, the difference is: you want to impose your morals on the world, and I do not. Your morals, to atheists like me, are arbitrarily defined and completely subjective. I’d like to ask you to leave your morals to Christian circles, but unlike non-believers, conservative Christians think it’s their duty to go and spread their beliefs around the country, regardless of what people with other morals might think. What possible right could you have to tell me — or anyone else — how to live my life? And how can people like you possibly decry the nanny state?
Liberals and conservatives both love government. They just love using it in different ways.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
“There are many URLs that I’ve mis-typed to popular websites which have landed me in porno-ville.”
sure. I’ve heard that one before.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
“You get in a car after viewing porn, and more likely than not, it will have no direct affect on your blood level that can cause you to harm others. You can’t inhale pornography in a crowded room, so it can not affect those around you, if you act decently. You can’t inject somebody with porn with a needle and you can’t sniff it.”
You are arguing that pornography does not produce a direct and instantaneous physical change in the body. I wonder who you would be arguing that point with, exactly? Not me, I expect. The deleterious effects of porn are not as easily measured as other drugs, which is why we are even having this conversation. It is my contention that we will eventually be able to better articulate the damage porn does to our society. You can disagree with that if you like, but I’d bank on my own fortune-telling abilities as soon as yours.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
cwpete — Way to divert the point. I’ve never played World of Warcraft in my life. But I’ve known of people who have, read of people who have — who have become addicted. That ruins families, right? So why not regulate it?
Did your nephew tell you that his porn problem was started by downloading free video games? Unless they were illegal ROMs — which could possibly come with pornography links — then he’s selling you a bill of goods designed to get him out of facing the responsibility of his problem. “Silly little games” do not come with pornography links.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Tommy:
Have to disagree with you on this on bud:
“What I meant was that you can’t inhale second hand porn.”
We inhale 2nd hand porn when we see that silly hottie half dressed in that beer commercial while watching football. Our daughters is influenced by it with the immodest dressing of TV stars and the like. Before you know it, they imitate that behavior then find themselves in potentially dangerous situations. Many are too young / stupid / parentless to know any better. The sad thing is that it is all around and few even recognize it any longer.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
“It is my contention that we will eventually be able to better articulate the damage porn does to our society.”
So you don’t even KNOW, and you’re just ASSUMING it does awful things?
Let’s be honest: you just don’t like the PRINCIPLE of pornography. You think it violates Christian morals, and you think that’s bad for society.
Way to give up the ghost: You have scant evidence. You just think it’s immoral.
No different than a Democrat who wants to raise taxes on “the rich.”
July 16th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
“We inhale 2nd hand porn when we see that silly hottie half dressed in that beer commercial while watching football. Our daughters is influenced by it with the immodest dressing of TV stars and the like. Before you know it, they imitate that behavior then find themselves in potentially dangerous situations.”
WOAH! That was a good slight-of-hand trick, but here’s what that really says:
1. We see a scantily-clad girl in a beer commercial (Which is now “porn,” I guess)
2. Young girls are POWERLESS but to dress like that, too. (Utterly powerless. Once they see the commercial, they are going to dress that way, whether they want to or not.)
3. Before you know it: Rape.
“Before you know it” meaning “I have no evidence, but here’s what I wish were true because if it were, it would promote my agenda well.”
July 16th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
TLG:
I think they were ROMs he was downloading. What’s the point? Fact is they were there for any kid to get. No regulation or enforcement. It proves that this is out there to ensnare kids. Don’t be so naive in thinking that it is not.
Tommy,
“I’ve heard that one before.”
Are you doubting me? There are two sites that I happened upon recently. I’d give the links but I’m most the other liberals here have more than enough porn already. Besides, hopefully this site has standards against giving links to porn.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
And they continue to give themselves up, folks:
“We inhale 2nd hand porn when we see that silly hottie half dressed in that beer commercial while watching football. Our daughters is influenced by it with the immodest dressing of TV stars and the like.”
That’s right, immodest dress is one of the greatest threats to our society. Our children are so helpless, it’s those nasty famous people who are corrupting them. We think it’s immoral, therefore everyone thinks it’s immoral.
And I would still like to know how porn is in the public square.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
TLG,
I won’t be lumped into your favorite so-con bogeyman. I force my morals on no man, and will never do so. I would demand an apology for the insinuation, but it would only send you into one of your famous fits of righteous indignation (ironic, no?).
Besides, I’m already playing the victim here, and we can’t both. It’s too wearing. To recap, I am asking you, and all society, to respect MY decisions. Explicitly, to allow me to define my own morals, and choose to rebuff porn based on my own worldview. As a libertarian, you would and should be on my side (though you’d depend on the market-god, rather than representative government), if you agreed that people were suffering from the decisions of others. Why, that’s your main bone to pick with so-cons in the first place. Again, our disagreement is over whether that is the case.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
TLG:
You are really failing to make the connection. I’ll dummy it down for you. Just has 2nd hand smoke may not be as harmful as the direct hit, immodest dress many not be harmful as full on porn. But they can all be harmful. Talk about slide of the hand! Sheesh!
Must drug users don’t start out on crack cocaine. They are almost all casual drinkers & smokers.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Hah! Yep, so they’re ROMs. The point is: they’re illegal. They weren’t some “harmless, silly little video games.” I’ve downloaded ROMs for my laptop of video games I own, and the sites are full of porn ads. Get over it. If you’re going to engage in questionable activity, you’re going to see some things that are questionable. It’s like getting viruses when downloading Mp3s from Limewire. “If you sup with the devil, use a long spoon.” Know what you’re in for. The real problem here is that people are impulsive and don’t get all the facts.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Tommy,
Your reliance on federalism as a defense against virtually every federal action, much like your candidates’, seems to be grounded in a woefully simplistic version of the federalistic system the framers created. The constitution was not our first attempt at a national document of governance. That honor belongs to The Articles of Confederation. When in 1788, many of the prominent state and national leaders, chose to scrap the Articles of Confederation and create a new charter, it was a decision of no small significance. These were men who’d vocally fought, hardly a decade earlier, to free themselves from a tyrannic government. That they felt the Articles were incapable of providing a strong enough central government, ought to be considered significantly in any evaluation of the charter we adopted.
The Constitution was meant to give broad leeway to the federal government, with some key restrictions, and some significant powers reserved to the states. I don’t mean to suggest that federal government’s power is unlimited, or even that regulation of porn in particular would be under it’s domain. I think that the Commerce Clause, at the very least, has been used to unduly expand federal power from the time of the framing. But, nonetheless, it requires more then a simple proclamation that a particular action should be reserved to the state’s, if you’re talking about federalism. Federalism was never intended to be that broad of a concept. As long as candidate’s and supporters are falling back on the “I think this should be a state issue, due to federalism” line, without any explanation or justification, they’re doing our constitution and government a great disservice.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Um, yes, MellowFellow, you are free to do as you please regarding porn. Ban it from your household. Call up porn distributors to complain. Wage campaigns against it. Be my guest — it’s your right, as it should be.
But don’t try to regulate it for other people, or say that it’s your right to define what “indecency” is. That’s how you force your morals on others.
People are always going to suffer from the decisions of others that they willingly engage with. Just like in a business, there are unforeseen circumstances — a wife marrying a husband she doesn’t know is cheating on her, for example — that can arise. But what can we do? We shouldn’t punish all of those who are using it appropriately just because of some morons. Unforeseen circumstances are up to individuals to deal with, not the government. We shouldn’t punish everyone for the actions of a few.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Again TLG, you completely miss the point- which is legal or not, it is out there even for kids.
Since you admit now that some games contain porn, will you retract you statement regarding porn not being marketed to kids?
July 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Matt — Just because the Articles of Confederation were scrapped, it does not mean that the principles behind it were. They didn’t do a total 180 on states’ rights. They just refined the system. Our Constitution wasn’t meant to make an overpowering federal government. In fact, some of our founders said that states could actually nullify unconstitutional federal laws if they chose to! The 10th Amendment is really the key here: anything not in the Constitution is to be left up to the states.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Dear lord, you’re not giving up immodest dress. Please, lighten up. If your daughter wants to dress immodestly, tell her why you have a problem with it or respect her decision.
MellowFellow: how is society forcing it’s views onto you? You don’t have the right to not see things you don’t like. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the right to not be offended. If I as an atheist used that same argument about God being on a dollar bill, you wouldn’t give me the time of day.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
ROMs are *not* marketed to kids. In fact, they aren’t even marketed. They’re not legal.
Porn isn’t marketed to kids. Sexuality is often marketed to kids, but not porn. Kids naturally like and want porn. It’s what happens during puberty. That’s nature. I knew about porn before I knew about ROMs. The Internet gave me access to porn. I just had to Google what I wanted, and there it came.
I didn’t need an advertiser to make me a horny teenager — just a bit of natural evolutionary processes!
July 16th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Sexuality is marketed to teens because they’re interested in it already — not because it’s being forced upon them.
Phil M — Don’t you get it? We silly atheists can be ignored, because we aren’t numerous enough to get our views seriously heard. Such is what happens in a majority-takes-all society envisioned by Christians for the rest of us to just shut up and deal with.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
TLG
Re 119: You are a master at having long, drawn-out conversations, only to ignore one major part or the other of the discussion in order to take some juvenile cheap shot.
If you had reviewed my posts before your arrival (as I had recommended in my post 91) you would have known that I “gave up the ghost”, if that’s what you want to call admitting to no hard evidence at present, in my first post, number 77.
I KNOW, to my own satisfaction, that porn destroys families and has many other terrible effects, but don’t claim to have figures to show to you. That is why I believe organizations like Justin’s are good, because eventually we will have proof for unbelievers like yourself. To me, though, the connection is indisputable, and based on real life, even though one of your favorite arrogant assertions is that Christians are far-removed therefrom (what a live-and-let-live attitude, from our resident libertarian!).
July 16th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
But here’s the irony of it, TLG- the people who think that immodest dress is evil are also a tiny minority.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
“Um, yes, MellowFellow, you are free to do as you please regarding porn. Ban it from your household. Call up porn distributors to complain. Wage campaigns against it. Be my guest — it’s your right, as it should be.”
Thanks, I think I will. Oh, and I believe the only way to do it is with regulation and greater awareness. It’s also my right to fight for that, and believe it moral, whether or not you agree.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Porn is legal. Porn, when not targeted at children, has been ruled a constitutionally protected form of speech.
All the other vices listed in this conversation are illegal.
I just don’t see how it compares. I think promiscuity is immoral, but I’m not about to pass laws against it.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
“ROMs are *not* marketed to kids. In fact, they aren’t even marketed. They’re not legal.”
Neither are mp3s or these other shareware sites which have anything & everything on them. Things things are out there, they appeal directly to kids through things such as games.
I can’t believe the number of porn defenders there are on this site. There ought to be certain things liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat that we all could agree on. Amazing…
July 16th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Sorry, MellowFellow, I wasn’t going to read 100 posts before I jumped into the conversation. I was hoping people would have the patience to type out a sentence if I missed something significant.
“Live-and-let-live” does not mean “Be a blank slate and exhibit no judgment or morality whatsoever.” I happen to believe that it is my place in the marketplace of ideas to spread what I believe in, which happens to be secular humanism — also known as “the truth.” You are free to indulge in whatever delusions you please, so long as it isn’t affecting others directly.
Sadly, it does affect others in some ways: the people who are sent through primaries and general elections, for example. Notice that I’m not calling for Christianity to be banned because I personally believe it has a harmful effect on “society” via election results? At least I have something solid to back my assertions up with regarding “societal harm” — and I’m not even calling for it to be regulated! You freely admit that yours are faith-based — which are based on other faith-based assumptions — and yet you call for porn to be regulated heavily.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Phil M,
Though you may disagree, the belief in God is not a highly addictive and damaging behavior. An apter example is putting slot machines in the halls of a high school, whether or not you demand the students not gamble.
It’s common sense.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
“Thanks, I think I will. Oh, and I believe the only way to do it is with regulation and greater awareness. It’s also my right to fight for that, and believe it moral, whether or not you agree.”
This is part of a series of bizarre statements by you, trying to pass yourself off as a live-and-let-live kind of person.
“Yeah, I’m a live-and-let-live kind of person: you just need to respect my right to use the government to get what I want that the market is unwilling to grant me!”
Okay, whatever you say.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
AHA, YOU FELL INTO MY TRAP!
“Though you may disagree, the belief in God is not a highly addictive and damaging behavior. An apter example is putting slot machines in the halls of a high school, whether or not you demand the students not gamble.”
I can easily argue that belief in god is a damaging behavior (I can save that for another time). You can argue that porn is a damaging behavior. So I guess that, by your argument that you have the right to not be offended and exposed to something that you perceive to be damaging, we should regulate both porn and mentions of God.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
“I can’t believe the number of porn defenders there are on this site. There ought to be certain things liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat that we all could agree on. Amazing…”
I am totally neutral on porn. It is a voluntary, consensual act. I look at porn. I’m sure most of you have looked at it, too.
Gotta disagree that a belief in God is an addicting and damaging behavior — in fact, since people who believe claim that their entire lives revolve around their religious beliefs: yeah, I’d say that’s highly addictive and damaging.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Haha, Phil, you got so excited that the point wasn’t driven home –
When people say that they have the right not to be offended based on arbitrary notions, then why doesn’t it follow that others of varying opinions don’t get to have the government regulate what they’re offended by, as well?
I’m offended by the notion that I need to submit myself to an imaginary god and that I cannot possibly be a good or moral person without his assistance. I’m offended by the assertion that I deserve eternal torture in hell for refusing to believe something without evidence. And I’m offended by Christians in general. Shouldn’t people who so heavily influence our culture based on their beliefs be asked to provide a little bit — just a LITTLE BIT — of evidence for their God’s existence, let alone Jesus of Nazareth’s divinity?
July 16th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
*Cue long raging debate over the existence of God*
July 16th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I wish. I’ve been waiting for one of those for ages. The Christians won’t engage me. Not that you can really engage them, it’s all ‘faith.’ You can’t have a rational, evidence-based debate about religion.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
A major part of my views on porn are faith-based, as a matter of fact. But I never said anything of the sort. I said they were based on life in the real world, aka, experience. My experience seeing the damage of porn in the lives of good people, plus the experience of others, plus others, plus others, equals proof that it damages society. I don’t need the whole lump to know, my own experience is sufficient. But since you don’t seem to have your own observations to draw from, you will probably be benefitted by the whole lump. Patience.
TLG, as soon as you came I told you you would have to remember we come from different schools of thought. You aren’t doing too well, or are trying to make me a straight-up libertarian. Listen, one of the basic tenets of your ideology is that people’s ideas and beliefs don’t necessarily have to have any effect on others. I believe that we make certain assessments of what is appropriate in public, and always have. We don’t leave our executed dead in the streets for people to see, like in the good ol’ days, because we judge it to be an affront to human dignity. That is my judgement in regards to PUBLIC porn. If most of Americans are of the same mind, there is no reason we should be subjected to that which we find reprehensible. Town square is no place to exercise your every private right.
Here we go again, our disagreement is whether or not porn is in the public square. But quit telling me that I’m trying to force my morals on you.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
This is the funniest thing I’ve read all day. After everything TLG has written in defense of porn, he actually has the nerve to state:
“I am totally neutral on porn.”
Too funny!
July 16th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Matt,
Read Kevin in 136.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
For the last time, what is public porn? Have I been missing out on this? I had a dental appointment last week, and I swore I didn’t see a single Playboy. Imagine that.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
My whole disagreement with this issue is that before you know it, we’ll be throwing dads in jail because Little Johnny found his stash of Playboys in the attic.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Phil and TLG,
Go for it! Let’s see you try to prove a causal relationship between a belief in God and damage in the society (damage here is defined by the majority again, drat!). It is common knowledge that you’re both brimming with examples and salivating at the prospect! Take it to the courts, to your legislators, to the White House, whatever! You actually wouldn’t be the first ones, would you?
Why has your ilk moved so little of that agenda forward? Because nothing’s been proven to anyone’s satisfaction.
If you truly believe the same will be said of porn, you have nothing to fear. If we can’t come up with any of the hard evidence TLG loves so much, we will be dead in the water, like you.
You want proof before action. Understood! That is the course that will be taken, since that is how our system works. That is how people are persuaded.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
“damage here is defined by the majority again, drat!”
You think that porn hurts a majority of people who look at it? This is news to me.
“Why has your ilk moved so little of that agenda forward? Because nothing’s been proven to anyone’s satisfaction.”
Because I believe that people should be responsible for themselves, in both the private and public squares.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
“Yeah, I’m a live-and-let-live kind of person: you just need to respect my right to use the government to get what I want that the market is unwilling to grant me!â€
Not a bad assessment of my position, actually! I am probably not the most classical conservative you know, and believe that the government is at times the only way to bring about appropriate social change. Because unlike you, I believe society has a health and a direction that can be benefitted by some (moderate) government involvement. Your’re a student of economics, right? You have to account for some “hidden costs” the market doesn’t notice, and gov’t is the only way, sometimes.
But I’m hardly alone here. This is the age-old difference between so-cons and libertarians.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Been fun, all, maybe I’ll check back later, but gotta go now.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Once again, I would like to be given an example of public porn. I’m not asking this rhetorically, I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Oh, and obviously we wouldn’t use the term “what we want,” but that’s splitting hairs, right TLG?
July 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Phil,
I am of the opinion that porn is too available, especially to minors. Too public, you might say. I want regulations to guarantee that only adults who intend so to do can access it.
But I really must be going.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Phil, you want an example? Google it.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
146 — The market takes care of that. Nobody wants to see dead people in the street. There’s no incentive to do it. Just like with that Captivity billboard — enough people complained about it to get it removed. Notice that there IS no porn in the public square? That’s because nobody wants it there. People are OK with sexuality in the public square, though: that’s why it’s there..!
147 — I’m not defending porn. I’m defending *choice*.
151 — I DON’T *WANT* to bring it to the legislators. Can’t you get into the mindset of someone who just wants to LEAVE OTHER PEOPLE ALONE? Haha, what am I saying? Of course not.
153 — Classical conservatism horrifies me. I’m a *future* economics major, but as of right now, I just consider myself knowledgeable about the basics of economics and economic principles, after reading some books about it. Anyway — fine, but just admit that that’s your position. Don’t say that you’re a live-and-let-live kind of person.
Phil M — There is no public porn. They’re lying.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I’ve also given examples on how it is tied to games and other media which children consume.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
The thing is, one of the biggest causes of problems in the family today is finances. It causes more fights than any other single thing. I say we put in a Constitutional Ammendment that everyone must adhere to a budget. No discretionary spending until all bills are paid. Fights will stop and the economy will improve so I think a law would only benefit the country.
Blaming porn on how your daughter dresses is a cop out. Don’t like how she dresses? Step up to the plate and forbid it. Put a safeware program on your computer to stop your kids from going to illicit sites. Most of all tell them WHY you dislike that behavior. An attentive parent can have far more influence than a porn site can.
I don’t watch porn, in fact I can’t tell you how long it’s been since I’ve seen any. I’m on the computer for hours a day and I’ve never, ever gotten diverted to a porn site in the past 5 years. Before that, yes it would pop up or come in emails. Not anymore.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
cwpete:
Where was he downloading from? If he was using a p2p networks, you’re going to get that kind of stuff and there’s nothing that can be done about it. If he was using a legit site, then you have an argument.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
In this TV ad, Mitt is preaching to his choir. Not only is he not expanding his base with this spot, but he’s turning off libertarian-minded Republicans, and alienating socially liberal/fiscally conservative GOPers; not to mention the many moderates and Independents Romney would need to rely upon to win a general election.
Instead of positioning himself as a viable top-tier candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, by myopically competing with Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee for the social conservative vote in Ames, Iowa, is playing down to the level of those second-tier candidates and inadvertently narrowing his own window of opportunity.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Tommy,
Don’t have all the exact details. Needless to say, my brother in law had me install some filtration programs to block out the bad links, but the games were still on the computer and had to be manually removed.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Tommy — I already caught him. He was downloading illegal ROMs.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I agree with Casey in #161.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
cwpete-
I asked this because it is impossible to filter things on p2p networks, and non-legit sites can also avoid detection. It is almost impossible for authorities to monitor p2p networks, because users have codenames that hide the material they are sharing. It is not possible to be able to sift through stuff like this, and a lot of them send viruses that automatically link your computer to porn sites. The best way to avoid things like this is to make sure the child doesn’t access these networks, which are fully legal.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Aggress Behav. 2007 Mar-Apr;33(2):104-17.
Predicting sexual aggression: the role of pornography in the context of general and specific risk factors.Vega V, Malamuth NM.
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA.
The main focus of the present study was to examine the unique contribution (if any) of pornography consumption to men’s sexually aggressive behavior. Even after controlling for the contributions of risk factors associated with general antisocial behavior and those used in Confluence Model research as specific predictors of sexual aggression, we found that high pornography consumption added significantly to the prediction of sexual aggression. Further analyses revealed that the predictive utility of pornography was due to its discriminative ability only among men classified (based on their other risk characteristics) at relatively high risk for sexual aggression. Other analyses indicated that the specific risk factors accounted for more variance in sexual aggression than the general risk factors and mediated the association between the general risk factors and sexual aggression. We illustrate the potential application of the findings for risk assessment using a classification tree.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Annu Rev Sex Res.
Pornography and sexual aggression: are there reliable effects and can we understand them?Malamuth NM, Addison T, Koss M.
UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1538, USA. nmalamut@ucla.edu
In response to some recent critiques, we (a) analyze the arguments and data presented in those commentaries, (b) integrate the findings of several metaanalytic summaries of experimental and naturalistic research, and (c) conduct statistical analyses on a large representative sample. All three steps support the existence of reliable associations between frequent pornography use and sexually aggressive behaviors, particularly for violent pornography and/or for men at high risk for sexual aggression. We suggest that the way relatively aggressive men interpret and react to the same pornography may differ from that of nonaggressive men, a perspective that helps integrate the current analyses with studies comparing rapists and nonrapists as well as with cross-cultural research.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Med Sci Law. 2002 Jan;42(1):51-7
The sexual profile of rapists in Singapore.Gwee KP, Lim LE, Woo M.
Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Republic of Singapore.
To our knowledge, this is the first paper that examines the sexual profile of rapists in Singapore. A semi-structured interview based on a questionnaire about sexual habits was conducted on 62 convicted rapists and a control group of 63 prisoners comprising 32 convicted for violent non-sexual offences and 31 for non-violent non-sexual offences. Significantly more rapists masturbated at least once a month and were exposed to pornography within six months before the offence when compared to non-violent controls. Violent controls did not differ significantly from rapists in any aspect of the sexual history. The greater similarity between rapists and violent controls lends support to the concept of rape as a violent rather than sexual offence. A subgroup of 17 ‘hypersexual’ rapists were identified who were either having sex or masturbating very frequently but had still resorted to rape. Compared to the other 46 rapists, the ‘hypersexual’ rapists were more likely to have fantasised predominantly about rape or bondage and to cite domination, aggression or hostility as reasons for committing rape, suggesting an even stronger element of power and aggression than in their less sexually active counterparts.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
1: Cyberpsychol Behav. 2005 Oct;8(5):473-86.
Exposure to internet pornography among children and adolescents: a national survey.Ybarra ML, Mitchell KJ.
Internet Solutions for Kids, Inc., Irvine, California 92618, USA. Michele@isolutions4kids.org
Estimates suggest that up to 90% or more youth between 12 and 18 years have access to the Internet. Concern has been raised that this increased accessibility may lead to a rise in pornography seeking among children and adolescents, with potentially serious ramifications for child and adolescent sexual development. Using data from the Youth Internet Safety Survey, a nationally representative, cross-sectional telephone survey of 1501 children and adolescents (ages 10-17 years), characteristics associated with self-reported pornography seeking behavior, both on the Internet and using traditional methods (e.g., magazines), are identified. Seekers of pornography, both online and offline, are significantly more likely to be male, with only 5% of self-identified seekers being female. The vast majority (87%) of youth who report looking for sexual images online are 14 years of age or older, when it is developmentally appropriate to be sexually curious. Children under the age of 14 who have intentionally looked at pornography are more likely to report traditional exposures, such as magazines or movies. Concerns about a large group of young children exposing themselves to pornography on the Internet may be overstated. Those who report intentional exposure to pornography, irrespective of source, are significantly more likely to cross-sectionally report delinquent behavior and substance use in the previous year. Further, online seekers versus offline seekers are more likely to report clinical features associated with depression and lower levels of emotional bonding with their caregiver. Results of the current investigation raise important questions for further inquiry. Findings from these cross-sectional data provide justification for longitudinal studies aimed at parsing out temporal sequencing of psychosocial experiences.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
There are commonsense things that can be done to limit the exposure kids have to porn. Porn sites could easily be banished from .com websites. They could perhaps have url’s that end in “.prn” or whatever.
TLG,
I actually would love for speed limits to be abolished on freeways and highways. I would rather have them be “speed advisory” signs. Perhaps this seems like a contradiction but that’s life.
Aron in #163-
You may be right but time will tell. Most of those he is turning off weren’t going to support him anyway and this may help with a lot of the religious right. He needs to perform well in South Carolina if he wants to win this thing and to do that he can’t just sit back and let Fred be the religious “savior”.
July 16th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Wow… I had no idea this would spawn such a discussion. I’m away from my computer until tonight but I’ll try to comment later.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Romney is right. A president can set the tone for a higher level of discourse, enourage
more civility and set a higher standard for family values and decency. Plus, there are some easy fixes to shield kids from porn etc… and we know Mitt knows how to get things down. Romney not only talks the talk, but walks the walk in his personal life. His record matches the rhetoric. It cannot hurt for our country to be lifted up on his moral, squeaky clean and broad shoulders for awhile. Nothing big may change, but maybe we can slow the slide down the drain.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
What is ironic about the Romney “Ocean” anti-porn ad (and much of this discussion) is that the one candidate in this race who has a record of accomplishment regarding effective anti-porn efforts is Rudy Giuliani during his first term as Mayor of NYC. Consider Times Square before and after, for example. Yet this was done by the local governing authorities, not by the Federal Government, as should be the case. I’m no fan of porn, but I believe that the federal government and specifically the president have more pressing priorities.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:28 am
[...] Justin Hart, who is on Romney’s Faith and Values Steering Committee addresses the ad, and the porn [...]
July 18th, 2007 at 10:30 am
[...] Justin Hart, who is on Romney’s Faith and Values Steering Committee addresses the ad, and the porn [...]