Censorship and Pornography

... Now, about your position:  
Re: Re: My position on Truthtrees Position . . . another part -- Ronfucius Post Reply Top of the thread Forum
Posted by: Crossbowman
09/29/2008, 18:54:49

Author Profile (About author)

Edit
The "cold reality," as you put it, is that if you want to make a statement like that and have people believe it, you're going to need to come up with hard evidence. Right now, all you're doing is stating a hypothesis: why you THINK porn is harmful. Once you've actually gone out and done the data collection, seeing whether things actually happen the way you think they happen on something like a consistent basis (rather than just in one or two cases) then - if there is enough evidence - you can upgrade your hypothesis to a theory.

Here's the problem, though. Other people have gone that route, and their findings so far are, well, equivocal. There's some evidence suggesting something of a problem in some people under some circumstances, but not enough to generalize to most people or most circumstances, nor to predict what if any the extent of harm will be on those few occasions when it does occur. In other words, people seem to be a good deal more variable, complex, and - surprise of surprises - intelligent than you give them credit for.

Here's what we've ACTUALLY found about porn: like alcohol, like gambling, like food, it can in SOME cases be harmful - in rare cases VERY harmful. However, in MOST cases it is no more harmful than an occasional drink or a single particularly indulgent meal. For those people not afflicted with a compulsive disorder or a regrettable tendency to place a moment's personal pleasure ahead of long-standing relationships, it is perfectly safe.

When you speak to raised expectations, my response is this: seeing pictures of the meals available at four-star restaurants may well make you aware that there are some excellent meals to be had out there, but for most of us it does not mean we appreciate the wife's fried chicken any less. To the contrary, MOST of us are DELIGHTED that our wives took the time and effort to make fried chicken, and it means FAR MORE to us than any fancy meal bought and paid for from some highly skilled chef who doesn't give a damn whether we live or die. It CERTAINLY means more than a PICTURE of such a meal!

Now, there are a few poor misguided souls to whom it doesn't. I feel sorry for that sort, but that's a weakness in character, and you aren't going to solve the problems of the world by banning everything that a few weak-minded souls can't manage to resist. If you happened to marry such a weak-minded soul, my sympathy. If you ARE such a weak-minded soul, my pity - but don't expect me to turn the world on its ears just to protect you.

Your skydiving example's a good one: you might harbor a brief fantasy of doing the same after watching it, but MOST people do not then run out and jump out of airplanes. Most of them go on to live ordinary, happy lives without ever strapping on a 'chute - or climbing a mountain, or bungee-jumping, or romping with 4 chicks, or getting stuffed by a 10-inch penis. If you've got the freedom to taste a bit of exotic life, good for you, but any poor fool that dumps his family's hard-won savings into a parachuting course just so he can have his own personal jollies has got far more serious problems than his passion for altitude.

If your 8-inch feller is suddenly finding that his size isn't up to snuff, then perhaps he's spent too much of his life relying on that size and not enough building up the SKILLS necessary to satisfy a woman. If one woman can leave another skyrocketing with delight with nothing more than fingers and tongue - and no toys - than your feller ought to be able to get them begging for mercy. Size might pique curiosity a bit, but after you've left them screaming in ecstasy a few times, they become quite happy with the "bird in the hand" - unless you've managed to destroy the relationship in its non-sexual aspects. If you've done that, then 12 inches and the skills of Adonis won't save you.

'nuff said.

"Robbins’s claim fails because the Hobbs Act does not apply when the National Government is the intended beneficiary of the allegedly extortionate acts."

WILKIE ET AL. v. ROBBINS. David H. Souter, Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
with John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito concurring.


Post Reply | Email Friend | Alert Where am i? Original Post Top of the thread Previous | Next | Current page
Followups

Censorship and Pornography