Internet Porn

Well I want that one for the record. My call for a person to get data from academic resources, rather than ones which have not only no good vetting of data, but have a biased audience, is being called poisoning the well.If I were to tell a creationist not to get data regarding rock strata from creationist literature, would you seriously call that poisoning the well?You see contra, that right there is called ad hominem. And in this case it is totally unsupported by any other argument. Thanks for proving you have no leg to stand on this argument.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thanks for the additional stat review.Hey by the way do you have the internal specs of men which can allow me to maximize my emotional potential? I missed it in Popular Mechanics. Or was it Men's Health?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Heheheh. Okay, I'll admit it might be easy to have misread what I said, but you did misread it.You will notice that I said no BOOKS from feminist authors and/or marketed for the consumption of women. This means mainstream publishing which while it may contain refs to studies does not itself have to and very often does not.I went on to state that it must be academic literature, which was to suggest something which has started and gone through tight vettting. It can certainly have come from a feminist author, though in this case such a person would generally be referred to as a scientist and not just "a feminist author".I think you ought to leave Schraf to defend herself on this point. I believe I have seen her use this same requirement when talking to creationists, and I am sure she would have understood my point. Jumpy jumpy. Didn't say it, and didn't mean it. By all means let the flood gates open! Open Sesame! Here we go now!Anybody?Let's see the data now that you appear to claim it is out there. Others? Okeydoke. Here is a nice little synopsis for all you peoples.Feminism is a large group (much like porn). It also defies clear definition, except that the group has a goal of empowering women (or equalizing them).There was a large anti-sex and anti-porn contingent and kind of became the stereotype of feminism. Manhating, and ball busting. This was not all of feminism, but it should be noted that they themselves tried to paint as NONfeminist, those who moved outside of sexual condemnation and prudish trappings.I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED ONCE TO YOU ALREADY that what I initially said regarding feminists, was in a context which pointed to the antiporn contingent. That is the people making the ridiculous claims I was hearing were always feminists. That is true. They were a subset of the entire feminist movement, but that does not make my statement wrong, and it should be obvious I was not taking about proporn feminists (they would not make anti-porn nor antimale claims).But from now on I will be very careful. I will always say antiporn feminists, so we can all be sure who I am talking about.Given that my posts have excoriated people like Dworkin and given thumbs up to people like Betty Dodson, you'd think I'd get some credit for not lumping all feminists into one boat.But that said, I dislike the conclusions of antiporn feminists because they are not based on anything beyond purely anecdotal data and very poor correlation studies. If you are about to say anything different, just show me the data instead, I am sick of seeing nothing from you yet getting all these assertions and (false) claims I don't have any data.Just to let you know I was assembling a documentary on this subject, as well as studying it in college, and have a pretty good knowledge of the field. Surprise me if you can.On the other hand I do like the conclusions of what I would call modern feminists. They have successfully cut the ties that bound them and have the courage to analyze data beyond those coming from women's crisis groups alone. To be fair I will always refer to them from now on as proporn feminists.It appears to me you don't like their conclusions since you bad mouth them all the time. Of course just like the antiporn fems of old, you consistenly produce nothing but anecdotal info and assertion.Dworkin is defunct. Long live FREE WOMEN!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Wow, you must have a great data set. Any time your ready.Although one should point out that when a change occurs, correlated tightly with another that does suggest something. When that correlation is found in other entities that adds to the suggestion.While correlation DOES NOT mean causation, I have yet to see you bring ANY data to present a correlative picture much less a causative one which supports your theory. Now what does porn have to do with that again? You may have missed the other link (it was in one of the posts I cited) which discussed the state and history of Porn in Japan.These are great anecdotes and question raising. Got some data? You are equivocating and you know it. Not "everything" that goes on in the sex trade is voluntary? That is true of ALMOST EVERY TRADE!Yeah great, let's bust these people!But if you are talking about the great percentage PORN which gets made for sale or not, then that dwindles down to a proper perspective. We cannot talk about porn as inherently abusive or to some greater extent abusive.There is abuse and it gets tracked down. What else do YOU want?On your mainstream shelves and most of the internet is perfectly voluntary Porn. That is the majority. The vast majority. Huh? The people producing slaves for either sex or nonsex work are using people as products. Those using the slaves may have them touch machines or bodies. They may take pictures or not. Unless you believe pictures take away pieces of people's souls I am missing the difference.Anyone being forced to do something against their will is being abused. It's that simple. You would have to show that porn (as an industry) is more likely to produce this than others. In the end you'll find that it is in certain locations that such abuse is higher. Shit... Good thing I never said that. Guess who really cares about abuse in the industry, people like me and my gf who work in it, or assholes like you who talk about it? Next time you go to porn sets to make sure everything is fine, you let me know. No I didn't. Quit shoving words in my mouth. In the world you can find just about everything you want. The question is how big of a problem is this? Does use of porn contribute to it?The answer to the first question is that it is not that big of a problem, though that does not mean it is not important to address. It simply is not connected to the White Market in any way shape or form.The second is that using or purchasing porn does not feed this Black Market you like to go on about. Seymour Butts is not busy funding Kosovo slaves markets with portions of video sales.There is a false image being created that it is interconnected in some way. There is a black market, and there is a white market (and in prostitution there is a grey market). Most porn people buy (especially with credit cards) is white. You'll know if you are going into the black market.It's not like you get a VCA pictures video, and next week find out all the actors had been shipped in to make it using freezer containers and were killed afterward.The internet is relatively unregulated, legitimate business are. You are so outside reality. Hey, I am leaving this one on your doorstep. Show me any confirmed racist group which supports or recommends watching interracial porn.Or, find me any players in interracial porn which say they believe that these tropes are real and should be promoted.I know this is anecdote but I already said my gf does interracial porn. We have yet to see any racists, producers or consumers. Its a fucking joke to think one would buy it, especially to further their "cause". Snicker snicker snicker. As it stands I have already pointed out that interracial porn includes many races that never had slave relationships with each other.I mean damn it, you ask this question and yet have the BALLS to assert you know anything about interracial porn? People desiring to have sex with other races, or viewing people of different races having sex is symptomatic of racism?Hehehehehhahahahahahahaaaaaa!You are a pretzel maker by day aren't you?If you try to counter this with the now tired statement you don't mean ALL interracial porn, just a part of it, let me explain something to you very carefully. And I want you to think about this. Even the porn which includes "tropes" as part of the fantasy gimmick, involves in its creation and enjoyment the above reality.If you dislike the stuff I listed in my first statement... which is inherent to racism... you cannot move on to make or consume the porn which involves tropes as it involves the stuff in my first statement. That is unless you are seriously schizo and hate yourself in some serious way.Racists are crazy, some of them may even be THAT crazy, but it never gets into the fold and part of the movement. You ever see Monster's Ball? Give me some stats you fucking jerk. Privately they MUST???Me and my gf consume interracial porn, though not the stuff with tropes. She has been involved in making some stuff with tropes, and neither the producers nor the actors nor any of the customers we have ever heard from believe in them as realities.Have you ever been to a swingers club? Many love to swap with opposite races, and some play out scenarios. Gee if it doesn't make sense to use the most obvious ones when dealing with power issues between different races.Its all fantasy! Sexual FUCKING FANTASY!I want one simple stat out of you on this patently OUTRAGEOUS claim. I think you mean to say data tight. I haven't seen anything yet, despite asking for something.Nor have I rejected any claims other than the outrageous ones for which you have not only supplied NO DATA, but believe you have some mystical insight into.This has nothing to do with real specific issues within porn, for example abuse and health issues, which there are and I am quite concerned about. yet Tell you what. You argue with yourself for a while and get back to me when you have a confirmed position. I have already defined that such a choice may go beyond skin color, though that is correlated with it based on other issues.But the use of the word "racist" is to conflate and equivocate on that term to such a degree that it is simply fraudulent. Yes a person is selecting a partner based on and aesthetic racial preference, but that IS different than selecting someone (for benefit or punishment) based on IMMATERIAL racial preferences.Sex is almost all about aesthetics of a partner, who is working at the desk over in the corner is NOT.Choosing chocolate over vanilla is not the same as hiring someone of your own race simply because they are that. You certainly made some big claims about interracial porn, for someone who is clearly aware of what it is through theory alone.There are a lot of interracial sites, many involve races that have NO history of slave relationships between them. Of those that do, a small niche market is playing to the cuckold thing.You know what makes it easy for a person to find your product, or what they are looking for if you have a wide range of products? Labels. Interracial Porn allows a person to know from the outset that they will see interracial sex, tropes or no tropes. Its just like "big tits" and "Outdoor", or intriguingly enough "black", "latino", "oriental" (where there is no mixing of races).Yeah, there's a good question. So does a racist not watch porn of exclusively other races, or is that fine because it fits with his idea that its as long as races don't mix? Next interracial porn flick I or my gf help out with I'm going to suggest this goes on the "blurb". Thanks. Uh. Oh man you just keep my head spinning. Yeah, why can't it? That was my question to you.But on the second question. When one finds onesself repeatedly finding some particular trait a recurring part of one's attractions... its a fetish.That's why interracial sex becomes fetishized. Some people have a simple preference.If you want to know why it gets GROUPED together on a shelf or onto a site, I explained that earlier. Yeah, I'll take that one too. Once again, I posted it above. You argue with yourself and get back to me.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well its nice to have you admit you put words in my mouth for a change. This is too much. Are you telling me that figures like Dworkin and Solanas were simply male created stereotypes and did NOT take part in early feminist writings, nor try to exclude those (from using the term feminist) that began to accept their own sexual freedom and porn?Woman hating men made up Dworkin. That's a good one. Christ... As much as I loathe Dworkin I always gave her the credit of being human, and part of the movement she herself (and many other women) claimed to be a part of.Should I be taking notes? Is this part of some radical new feminist revisionism where Dworkin gets removed, even as her rhetoric is championed? Because that leads to confusion, like you just had. If I only called proporn feminists feminists, then the antiporn crowd would bash me.They are all fighting for the same cause. I find the proporn crowd better and on the right track, but the other ones exist don't they?They sure got a number of sites up, claiming to be feminists.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Nice scoop. I was just about to create the same list. You just saved me some work.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

By themselves no less. Look I didn't say they were the champions, and have made quite clear that in this thread by "feminist" I was referring to the antiporn crowd. They existed, they still exist. And they are feminists.While not ALL feminists make the claims I was criticizing, the only ones making the specific claims I was dealing with are feminists. Specifically the antiporn ones.If you want to keep beating a dead horse and ignore the clarification, then you are simply looking to prolong argument where there is none. I swear to god you must own a strawman production factory. I have already MENTIONED other feminist authors who I believe represent the more MODERN state of feminism. I think I even used that term, MODERN.I even said twice that Dworkin is defunct. How you get the above, when I am sidelining her in my commentary and discussing others as feminists, I am clueless. Okay I got ya now. This is just BS. Whatever I say you are simply going to attack, even if it means contradicting yourself and when you can't find something to attack you create a strawman.I don't choose who's a feminist, that was my WHOLE FUCKING POINT. ??????????? That was MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Glad to see you coming clean that you have no facts and just innuendo and anecdotes. What kind of concern? Concern that if you go online and buy an Amber Lynn vid, that you may be helping the slave trade? Concern that if you use porn you will want to join the slave trade? Concern that allowing porn to exist helps keep the slave trade alive?Those are the kind of cases people start building when vague words like "concern" are used. It does not matter what you mean, when you pose your statements so disengenuously.The reality is that people should be concerned about abuse, and that includes in the porn business. I have never said nor argued otherwise despite the strawman you continually build regarding my position.The reality is that abuse does occur, but it is like in any other industry, isolated from the mainstream. Most people making and using porn would have no connection to the abuse. Just because there is a justified concern that someone somewhere is being abused to make porn, does NOT mean that you picket VCA pictures to clean up the industry. There simply is no connection like that.It is fearmongering.There should be no vague "concerns" about the sex industry. They are concrete. Someone somewhere may be getting abused. You track down leads and prosecute those involved. Just like any other industry. Yes, your bizzaro-ideology regarding sex between races has been expounded quite comprehensively. If you habitually do not appreciate your sex partner as just a bunch of parts, and any parts will do, then you are a racist.Maybe you missed Custard's point. You need facts. I'm still trying to get how you know what everyone MUST be doing privately, though they all do something different publicly. Maybe you have Santa's list?Cust: Where, specifically, holmes has abused feminists.You: here:Me: Told you, that you couldn't tell a joke from reality.But, since you did take it seriously... nice job rebuilding your strawman through quote mining. My use of the word feminist in this thread, regarding criticisms of porn, has already been well explained. You simply choose not to get it in order to keep arguing. Well that leaves me out of the picture. Although I will say that all PORN IS harmless, it is not the using of porn which does the harm, it is people who make it that may cause harm during its production. This needs to be stopped wherever it is found. Speak for youself asshole. First of all we were talking about PORN, which is a wholly separate issue than TRAFFICKING. If this had been a thread on TRAFFICKING then I could have provided stats on that.Its curious that you hounded me for stats (regarding PORN), I show you they already existed in this thread, then you brush them off with "can't use them because they are over a 30 year period versus MILLENIA of oppression", and when confronted for stats yourself you switch goalposts in order to provide SOMETHING and for the actual issues under discussion say you don't have to provide jack.Fuck you. I can't believe you have actually made me angrier than I was with Darkstar's obfuscation but you did it.Then again, as I am beginning to suspect, that is your point? The subject was porn. If you want to expand it to all sex work then that is fine, but then you must still address the stats regarding porn as well to make the actual points that are the MAIN TOPIC of this thread and ALL I WAS ADDRESSING.Yet in the following links all you do is outline violence against sex workers, and connections of human trafficking to sex work, and the extent of human trafficking.Well blow me down! I don't even HAVE to address those because they have little or nothing to do with the topic!And, if anything, they will support my own arguments (if we want to get into a broad based discussion on the issue like we did I think a year or so ago)... If you are aware of research in this area then you already KNOW that human trafficking is a poverty issue, not a porn/sex worker issue.And where does the profit to use people in the sex trade, as well as violence against these workers stem from?Both are correlated to its ILLEGALITY. You bring me stats from New York? Sex work (in this case prostitution since you have moved the goalposts to that) is illegal in NY. That is the reason it is profitable, and that is the reason violence gets reinforced against these poor people (which actually includes boys though the study was not so up on that).Ohhhh, and then Britain? Same thing.The very beginning quote from the first study you link to points to the underlying issues of poverty, the fact that it is street prostitutes and their involvement with police points to the reinforcement problems.Street prostitution is BAD. Or at least the vast percentages lean heavily toward that generalization.If you saw in any of my arguments a support for street prostitution, or a denial that there is violence against sex workers, or a denial that there is a serious human trafficking issue, then you are totally delusional.And if you believe those issues make any serious case against PORN, even that we must be CONCERNED more about that industry than others, you are also delusional. You have made NO connection between any of the above and the majority and specifically mainstream porn. Persistent and organic. And an upgrade from concern to alarm.See what I am talking about? Fearmongering. Seriously, is there any reason to believe that your corner porn store is carrying many if any tapes made with human trafficked sex workers? How about the internet? Do you think a person can accidentally buy forced porn?While I agree it might be tougher to tell when you are dealing with sites outside of the US, don't you think YOU can tell when you are crossing from content in a white market, to a grey market, to a black market?Trafficking is alarming. Violence against sex workers is alarming. These issues are poverty and legality based, and not dependent on porn for there existence.Get some REAL stats to support your claims on misogyny, racism, or at least some credible link between general use and manufacture of porn and human trafficking, or go peddle your BS somewhere else.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Heavy on the nauseum. Your weird argument has no place in reality.Dworkin and the antiporn crowd were and are feminists. I have made clear that they are a branch of feminism. My use of the term feminist in the context of criticism of porn is against that branch.I have made that clear how many times now? Even if there was a misunderstanding at the beginning we should be wayyyyy past it.Not all feminists are against porn and it should be quite obvious that I understand this. Starting a quote mining business? No, no, sadly you are simply insane.Good bye contracycle. Let me know if you ever get around to dealing with my real arguments and have some research to back up any claims you make.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes. You use broad language which pretends knowledge that abuse can be anywhere. This is not true and acts to put the spectre of abuse in any porn one buys or views. It is a tactic used often in witchhunts. Generalize the fear through the unknown.For example. This is PATENTLY FALSE. No mechanism anywhere? I tell you what. Start a porn business (even an independent internet one) and run it LEGALLY.In doing so you will then have your ignorant mouth shut by the facts.If a person is ever in doubt and wants to make sure, absolutely 100%, that there is no coercion, all you have to do is look at 1) it's a US registered business, and 2) it has a nice little 2257 compliance notice at the bottom.Now I suppose someone could FAKE those things, but you know how easy it would be to find out?EVERY PROFESSIONAL AND INDEPENDENT PORN SHOOT IS CATALOGUED, WITH EXTENSIVE RECORDS UP THE YING YANG.So yeah, as you get into grey and black markets some may fake creds and some may have none at all. You want ASSURANCE? There ARE MECHANISMS.Thus YOUR UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS are FEARMONGERING. no read again... from me... Here it is again, asshole... You ever see the Manchurian Candidate? There are 200 card carrying communists in the Houses of Congress!Vague, idiot, vague. Its part of a guilt by association argument, which you do just dandy. Bob and weave, duck and cover, and shift them goal posts. No one can touch ya... then zoom out with a nice juicy "but you NEVER CAN KNOW." By which you mean to say you will be right no matter the truth. The rest of your arguments have had the consistency of a weather vane... whichever way the wind blows. There is a huge difference between different fields of sex work. While I never said uniquely free, your trying to pass stats off from one to another is ridiculous. Huh? And huh? I like how you tell me not to talk about the content of porn stores, yet are able to bring in sex workers and childporn because they are relevant to internet porn?Anyhow, I am trying to figure out how anyone mistakes buying childporn online, with buying adult porn from a legitimate business (indy or not).Its pretty obvious when you start crossing lines. And if someone wants to stay clear of any possible coercive content THE MECHANISMS ARE THERE.Hell you don't even need the 2257 stuff. Funny thing is, and maybe you should check it out, in the West it already is legal and is regulated. Overregulated in fact.That's why when you go to get that black market shit you keep talking about, you know when you crossed the line.About the only exception to this is FREE content which can hit you with mass popups and blindlinks. Then again, you are not feeding any industry by receiving free content they force into your computer.No childrape pornographer said I think I'll keep up this site and round up more girls and boys because so many people are seeing my popup page.Heck, it doesn't even encourage an industry in trades of such images. An industry (what your articles were discussing) was human trafficking and sex WORK. That is money and the people involve have no illusions they crossed legal limits... unless they live outside 1st world countries? See what I'm saying. Conflation and vaguery and indictment of PORN. Porn sells women. Wrong. Porn sells sexual entertainment.You will note that human trafficking is more than just women. You will note that porn is more than just women. And there is no MANIFEST connection between human traffickers and the porn industry at large. Mainstream is the majority of porn, including internet porn. Thus it has relevance... much more so than sex workers and child slave rings.And that's the key. You say there is a reason to be concerned and that there are NO MECHANISMS for one to know whether any image is coerced or not. Well that is patently untrue. There is a great amount... mainstream porn... for which there ARE MECHANISMS, and so free of this CONCERN of yours.People should not be concerned about the porn they consume, until they start deviating from the mainstream. Just as it is pretty fucking obvious that picking up a street prostitute where such things are illegal, is worlds apart from hiring an independent escort where sex work is legal. Now we're moving in to organized crime and sex work? I hate to say it, but by definition anywhere sex work is illegal, sex workers are a part of organized crime.Maybe you should let me know when you've decided where the goal is too.If you mean between human trafficking (actual slavery) and any sex worker, then the answer is still yes. According to your own stats you should know this is true. Look how many were trafficked in the US. Then think of the number of sex workers. Then do the math.And that's ASSUMING all trafficked people go into sex work which is also patently untrue.Again, a person getting a slave sex worker can't be too shocked. Normally they don't speak the language to well and are in surroundings that suggest hiding. They aren't in the phone book advertising as independent escorts.Persistent and organic. Find me some data, especially with the mainstream. Now remember I was talking about porn stores in this case, and you say unknowable. They better all have labels and those labels better all have 2257 notices and inside the tapes (when you watch) you will see 2257 compliance notices.That's your guarantee ignoramus. And indeed you don't even need 2257 (which personally I hate).If you find a store selling grey and especially black market material, why don't you just call the cops?There is no REASONABLE CONCERN for the white market, certainly not at this point in time. Buying is the only thing fueling a market in human trafficking. And as for yous second sentence, that is the third time in this singular post you make a statement which proves your ignorance entirely. Fourth. How can a hacker fool you into believing their business registration and 2257 compliance material?And again, you can always choose to buy white market stars... then you know for sure don't you? I just did, and my point was not the affect of accident/deliberation on a person who has been abused to make some porn. My point was regarding the fueling of the market. That is NOT accidental.And so without DELIBERATE customers, there is no trafficking in the material you are discussing.You can certainly bump into it accidentally through free content, but then I pose the question to you how that leads to a market in human trafficking? Seeing something for free never put money in anyone's pocket. You mean grey and black market ends of porn generally serves as a venue for gray and black market activity in general?If this is where the goal post is settling then I guess I will cross it. Yeah. And a more mundane and noncontroversial point it is. I certainly never fought it.Of course if that is supposed to drive some sort of CONCERN or ALARM about porn outside those markets (which are not as large as the white market) and allow people to believe they have no way of knowing if ANY image involves coercion or not... then you're way off.I guess this means you finally and belatedly concede everything else, regarding misogyny and racism. At the very least that you have nothing but your own hot air to try and fly that lead balloon. Good.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Willow, studies don't assert. And if something is not just an opinion, but a brute fact, then studies should end up supporting your position.That is a brute fact. Yes, kind of. They suck up all sorts of things, hopefully more than JUST porn.Here's your problem, kids must grow up to be sexual beings. By nature, they will explore their body (and bodies of others) before puberty, and more aggressively as hormones kick in during puberty.Sex is natural and seeing it will do what exactly? If you want to argue moral harm then that is something I think you should be able to claim as a parent for your child. Certainly if you have certain morals regarding sex they should be respected.But if you want to move beyond that and say real harm, like they WILL become maladjusted, they WILL dislike girls, they WILL become addicts, they WILL lose their eyesight and grow hair on their palms... it just is not supported by any data. And that should not be surprising as sex is part of the natural human condition.Does nudity count? Certainly just nudity is a major part of porn, yet there are children in nudist families who live or vacation in nudist areas. That means they see what most kids try very hard to get a look at all the time in porn. Yet these nudist kids do not show any harm... some are even quite religious (and so argue there is no moral harm to seeing nudity).If you believe kids are sponges, then perhaps you should be more concerned about violence. Not only is that less natural (as an everyday thing) than sexuality, but it actually has evidence to support that it leads to a temporary influence on children's behavior. Well I'm not the only one who has said this, even if I was the first here on EvC. If you want to rebut this, go right ahead, but please use some facts and definitions. Yeah probably, you certainly got me on that one. By the way I'm a he. Well now I never did address evil. That is a moral or religious argument. I have stated that I support parents in their ability to raise their children with the sexual mores that they believe in, not me. If parents felt sex is evil, because of their religion, then I think they have every right to teach their kids that and society should NOT be forcing them to tell their kids otherwise.I may very well seem amoral to you because I am not a Xian. But I do have a morality. I view sexuality as a good. It can be used in an unhealthy way if one forgets moderation, but otherwise cannot be defined as evil.So whose morality is supposed to be right? Yours? Why not fundamentalist Islam? It's coming from the same position as far as I'm concerned. But then that would be too far for you in the other direction I'll bet. Do we force society to hold the lowest common denominator's sexual mores?Moving beyond the question of good and evil, there is no real psychological or physical harm done to minors (and if you want to start with a definition start with that one) by viewing porn. That's just beautiful. Do you have any concept of not lying yourself? Judge not Willow, especially when it involves this much lying on your part. What difference does it make what I look like? Oh yeah, but you got me on the lifelong customer of prostitutes thing too. Right out of the womb I was macking on the nurses.Which of course goes in great with the pedophile charge you hit me with earlier.But let's say for argument's sake that I was a pedophile... what does that have to do with results of studies on the effects of porn? I'm not the one making the studies.... Oh wait, but they are all pedophiles too.Have you ever heard you shouldn't shoot the messenger? Or not to judge others?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, they're afraid if they don't move with the pack this way, they'll be labelled pedophiles.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah I remember the kid and his father getting blasted. But at least that had some NEWS behind it.I'm more puzzling how a bunch of people watching men brutalize each other, in between commercials including horses farting in people's faces and impotence drugs, get thrown out of whack when a girl's nipple appears.A nipple. The human body is that taboo now?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Breastfeeding? Not only is that damaging to others to view, but is obviously scarring to the child as it involves oral contact with a sexual organ of the female!Actually I had read a story on line (don't know if it is true) that some mother had her child taken away after she admitted to someone that the stimulation she received from breastfeeding was the same sensation as nipple sucking during sex and she did feel sexual arousal.What I can't imagine is how breastfeeding WOULDN'T have that same stimulation. Maybe girls who have been through this can write a post.If this is true, would that make breastfeeding a form of sexual abuse of the child?Breastfeeding... somebody think of the children!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Not only have I heard this myself, it also makes a LOT of sense. Swollen "udders" aside both men and women's nipples will get sore and eventually become a major turn off when they are touched, pinched, and sucked on for long periods of time over long periods of time.What I am talking about is at the beginning before a girl has been nursing quite a bit. It seems rather odd that pregnant girls can get pleasure from squeezing their own nipples, or having people suck their nipples (including getting milk) while pregnant, but as soon as a child is born that feeling goes away.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)