|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
jaganath69

Joined: 17 Jul 2003
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I stopped because the ranters got into full moonbat mode, tinfoil hats and all. It was pretty obvious from the start that Susy was out on an emotive tirade and I called her on that, asking how she could support her claims. The cavalcade of lunatics on this board is yet another reason why I post mainly on the 'other' board these days. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gorgias
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
@jaganath69 and @gypsyfish, beautifully calm, cheers.
But some of the other posters-- take a deep breath, and try to get over your pedophobia.
I never met a pedophile I didn't like.
30 years from now, the day after the big Pedo Pride Parade, and your son comes to you in tears and confesses that he is a pedo and is going to run away with his girl-friend-- what are you gonna say? "Burn in Hell son!"
Q: What do Socrates, Dante, Walt Whitman, Lewis Carol, Arthur C Clarke, and Alan Ginsburg have in common?
John wrote: |
Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth." -John 3:18 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gord

Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
EFLtrainer wrote: |
this is why I call you an idiot. I have never done that. |
Then present the evidence you claim exists.
Quote: |
Again, why you are an idiot. I never said that. |
Have you forgetten your early post when you said that watching porn leads to child abuse, and curiously enough that child abuse leads to watching porn.
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?p=643104#643104
And yet you call me the intellectually limited one in our delightful conversation.
Quote: |
Again, why I say you are an idiot. I never said that. |
You've clearly stated that watching porn is supporting exploitation, yet just two messages back you were saying that watching exploitation in non-porn mediums is fine (beer commercials and football broadcasts). So what you want to say is that you are selective in what you consider exploitation based on the context.
Topless girl kissing a beer bottle: Explotation. Bikini-clad girl kissing a beer bottle: A-ok!
Quote: |
This beyond even idiocy. |
A child-like insult after you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar? Shocked I am!
Or do you honestly hope that someone might actually believe you in that you really are ashamed that you stayed up all hours of the night to watch football games despite your posts telling us all about it?
Quote: |
Again, why I call you idiot. Has absolutely nothing to do with the type of media. |
So why is watching porn with possible exploitation evil yet watching mainstream TV shows with undeniable exploitation acceptable? Why do you have two standards?
Quote: |
How many will it take before you stop acting foolishly and actual think? |
Perhaps your score-card is broken. Your statements of claimed supporting facts were never presented, your logical fallacies were trounced, your reasonings were turned against you, and your insults are grade-school at best.
And you honestly think I'm the one acting foolishly without thinking?
Quote: |
That is something that is not likely to happen. Ever. I may be incorrect at times, I may be mis-informed, my analysis may be incorrect, but I am never illogical. |
If you are not illogical, then why are you avoiding my repeated requests for supporting evidence to your claims, refusing to answer my direct questions on your hypocritical stances, and continue to toss out grade-school insults in place of useful conversation in much of your postings which happen to be in the very places one would have expected answers to my questions I've placed to you that seem to have placed you in a very uncomforable position.
Quote: |
And where is the exploitation in the NFL? |
Institutional steroid use and half-naked women prancing around in front of millions.
Quote: |
Go back to your initial posts. |
So I did: http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?p=643170#643170
In my first post to you (and in this thread) I noted that correlation does not equal causation while noting that your claimed position has no supporting evidence which is recognized by peer reviews. Then I followed it up with an example using language and rice to demonstrate that correlation does not equal causation.
Insulting means calling you a poo-poo head. Politely pointing out your claimed evidence does exist and that your reasoning of correlation equals causation is fundamentally flawed is not insulting.
Quote: |
Irrelevant to me who you are or whether I "win" anything. You have mistated repeatedly what I have said, what I am thinking and what my intentions are. That is a stupid thing to do. |
Does this mean you will now admit that correlation does not equal causation, that your claimed evidence really does not exist as it's been seven pages now and you still haven't shown it to us, and that you will recant your hypocritical position on viewing movies equals exploitation but only when it's certain types of movies?
Or will you be skipping the logic and evidence train and just keep on with the name calling and automatic nay-saying of "I didn't say that, I don't care what I wrote and you've linked back to" and "I didn't mean for my words to be used like that"? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Zyzyfer

Joined: 29 Jan 2003 Location: who, what, where, when, why, how?
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gord wrote: |
Topless girl kissing a beer bottle: Explo(i)tation. Bikini-clad woman kissing a beer bottle: A-ok! |
Yeah, so? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gord

Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
That should have been viewed as his stance. My stance is that both are "Super A+ Ok!" and would welcome a complimentary poster of the event with every purchase. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
red dog

Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kermo wrote: |
Gord wrote: |
susy wrote: |
whether you like it or not having sex with a girl /boy under the age of 16 is illegal |
The age of consent in Canada is 14, for example. |
There are a few limitations:
The Criminal Code states that a person between 14 and 17 can consent to sexual activity as long as: no relationship of trust, authority or dependency exists; there is no payment or offer of payment for sex; and there is no anal sex.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb993-e.htm |
Thanks for posting this, Kermo!!! I take back what I said in the last thread about this subject. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
kermo

Joined: 01 Sep 2004 Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
red dog wrote: |
kermo wrote: |
Gord wrote: |
susy wrote: |
whether you like it or not having sex with a girl /boy under the age of 16 is illegal |
The age of consent in Canada is 14, for example. |
There are a few limitations:
The Criminal Code states that a person between 14 and 17 can consent to sexual activity as long as: no relationship of trust, authority or dependency exists; there is no payment or offer of payment for sex; and there is no anal sex.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb993-e.htm |
Thanks for posting this, Kermo!!! I take back what I said in the last thread about this subject. |
You're most welcome. I was glad to find that someone seems to be reading my posts. Otherwise I would have to decide whether to use my newfound powers of invisibility for good or for awesome. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
JongnoGuru

Joined: 25 May 2004 Location: peeing on your doorstep
|
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
The Criminal Code states that a person between 14 and 17 can consent to sexual activity as long as: no relationship of trust, authority or dependency exists; there is no payment or offer of payment for sex; and there is no anal sex. |
Authority and dependency seem clear enough, but trust? What does that mean? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Gord wrote: |
EFLtrainer wrote: |
this is why I call you an idiot. I have never done that. |
Then present the evidence you claim exists. |
I didn't make that claim.
It does. So, what's the point in debating it?
Quote: |
And yet you call me the intellectually limited one in our delightful conversation. |
Because you are.
Quote: |
Again, why I say you are an idiot. I never said that. |
Quote: |
You've clearly stated that watching porn is supporting exploitation, yet just two messages back you were saying that watching exploitation in non-porn mediums is fine (beer commercials and football broadcasts). |
No, I did not. You said it. I don't see how football can be called exploitative. Or beer commercials. Unless they are forcing women to make commercials these days. I hadn't heard of that segment of the slave industry.
Quote: |
So what you want to say is that you are selective in what you consider exploitation based on the context.
Topless girl kissing a beer bottle: Explotation. Bikini-clad girl kissing a beer bottle: A-ok! |
How is it exploitation to pay an actress or model to, uh, model?
Quote: |
This beyond even idiocy. |
A child-like insult after you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar? Shocked I am!
Or do you honestly hope that someone might actually believe you in that you really are ashamed that you stayed up all hours of the night to watch football games despite your posts telling us all about it?
Quote: |
Again, why I call you idiot. Has absolutely nothing to do with the type of media. |
So why is watching porn with possible exploitation evil yet watching mainstream TV shows with undeniable exploitation acceptable? Why do you have two standards?
Quote: |
How many will it take before you stop acting foolishly and actual think? |
Perhaps your score-card is broken. Your statements of claimed supporting facts were never presented, your logical fallacies were trounced, your reasonings were turned against you, and your insults are grade-school at best.
And you honestly think I'm the one acting foolishly without thinking?
Quote: |
That is something that is not likely to happen. Ever. I may be incorrect at times, I may be mis-informed, my analysis may be incorrect, but I am never illogical. |
If you are not illogical, then why are you avoiding my repeated requests for supporting evidence to your claims, refusing to answer my direct questions on your hypocritical stances, and continue to toss out grade-school insults in place of useful conversation in much of your postings which happen to be in the very places one would have expected answers to my questions I've placed to you that seem to have placed you in a very uncomforable position.
Quote: |
And where is the exploitation in the NFL? |
Institutional steroid use and half-naked women prancing around in front of millions.
Quote: |
Go back to your initial posts. |
So I did: http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?p=643170#643170
In my first post to you (and in this thread) I noted that correlation does not equal causation while noting that your claimed position has no supporting evidence which is recognized by peer reviews. Then I followed it up with an example using language and rice to demonstrate that correlation does not equal causation.
Insulting means calling you a poo-poo head. Politely pointing out your claimed evidence does exist and that your reasoning of correlation equals causation is fundamentally flawed is not insulting.
Quote: |
Irrelevant to me who you are or whether I "win" anything. You have mistated repeatedly what I have said, what I am thinking and what my intentions are. That is a stupid thing to do. |
Does this mean you will now admit that correlation does not equal causation, that your claimed evidence really does not exist as it's been seven pages now and you still haven't shown it to us, and that you will recant your hypocritical position on viewing movies equals exploitation but only when it's certain types of movies?
Or will you be skipping the logic and evidence train and just keep on with the name calling and automatic nay-saying of "I didn't say that, I don't care what I wrote and you've linked back to" and "I didn't mean for my words to be used like that"? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
[quote="Gord"]
EFLtrainer wrote: |
this is why I call you an idiot. I have never done that. |
Then present the evidence you claim exists. |
I didn't make that claim.
It does. So, what's the point in debating it?
Quote: |
And yet you call me the intellectually limited one in our delightful conversation. |
Because you are.
Quote: |
Again, why I say you are an idiot. I never said that. |
Quote: |
You've clearly stated that watching porn is supporting exploitation, yet just two messages back you were saying that watching exploitation in non-porn mediums is fine (beer commercials and football broadcasts). |
No, I did not. You said it. I don't see how football can be called exploitative. Or beer commercials. Unless they are forcing women to make commercials these days. I hadn't heard of that segment of the slave industry.
Quote: |
So what you want to say is that you are selective in what you consider exploitation based on the context.
Topless girl kissing a beer bottle: Explotation. Bikini-clad girl kissing a beer bottle: A-ok! |
How is it exploitation to pay an actress or model to, uh, model?
Quote: |
Or do you honestly hope that someone might actually believe you in that you really are ashamed that you stayed up all hours of the night to watch football games despite your posts telling us all about it? |
Is this supposed to be relevant? Does anyone here care if I'm sincere in what post? And why would I lie? What would be the point, my little troll?
Quote: |
Again, why I call you idiot. Has absolutely nothing to do with the type of media. |
Quote: |
So why is watching porn with possible exploitation evil yet watching mainstream TV shows with undeniable exploitation acceptable? Why do you have two standards? |
Why do you keep repeating this stupid lie, little troll?
Quote: |
Quote: |
How many will it take before you stop acting foolishly and actual think? |
Perhaps your score-card is broken. Your statements of claimed supporting facts were never presented, your logical fallacies were trounced, your reasonings were turned against you, and your insults are grade-school at best. |
Your existence appears to be a logical fallacy. I made no claims of supporting facts, I said others had posted facts, my little trollodite.
Quote: |
And you honestly think I'm the one acting foolishly without thinking? |
I honestly do.
Quote: |
Quote: |
That is something that is not likely to happen. Ever. I may be incorrect at times, I may be mis-informed, my analysis may be incorrect, but I am never illogical. |
If you are not illogical, then why are you avoiding my repeated requests for supporting evidence to your claims, refusing to answer my direct questions on your hypocritical stances, |
Because I don't give a shit what *you* want to talk about, trollboy.
Quote: |
and continue to toss out grade-school insults in place of useful conversation in much of your postings which happen to be in the very places one would have expected answers to my questions I've placed to you that seem to have placed you in a very uncomforable position. |
I am quite comfortable, thank you.
Quote: |
Quote: |
And where is the exploitation in the NFL? |
Institutional steroid use and half-naked women prancing around in front of millions. |
I wasn't aware anyone was forced to take steroids or to be a cheerleader, oh, trolling one. If they are doing this of their own free will and with full knowledge of the possible repurcussions, it would not be exploitation. If they are doing so because someone is preying on their weaknesses, this could be considered exploitation. But what is bizarre is your claim that I have said it's OK. Trollishly stupidicious.
And I said current technology doesn't allow us fo fully measure these things yet, and that there may never be a statitically provable causal correlation do the large number of non-criminally active people who watch/look at porn. Why are you still bringing these points up when you have been given asnwers?
Quote: |
Insulting means calling you a poo-poo head. Politely pointing out your claimed evidence does exist and that your reasoning of correlation equals causation is fundamentally flawed is not insulting. |
Sarcasm is insulting, trollilocks.
Quote: |
Quote: |
Irrelevant to me who you are or whether I "win" anything. You have mistated repeatedly what I have said, what I am thinking and what my intentions are. That is a stupid thing to do. |
Does this mean you will now admit that correlation does not equal causation, |
Are you really *that* stupid, to think you have convinced someone that a statistical and or logical abstract exists? I'm sorry, but I don't recall saying anything like correlation always equals causation, trolls-are-us.
Quote: |
Or will you be skipping the logic and evidence train and just keep on with the name calling and automatic nay-saying of "I didn't say that, I don't care what I wrote and you've linked back to" and "I didn't mean for my words to be used like that"? |
I'll be skipping you, trollasaurus. The logic train left you at the station a very long time ago.
Have a trollingly great weekend. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gord

Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
EFLtrainer wrote: |
I didn't make that claim. |
You have said it is true, so back up your claims.
Quote: |
It does. So, what's the point in debating it? |
No recognized studies agrees with your claim.
Yes, I'm quite clearly retarded by presenting how you contradict yourself and how refuse to back up anything you say.
Quote: |
No, I did not. You said it. I don't see how football can be called exploitative. Or beer commercials. Unless they are forcing women to make commercials these days. I hadn't heard of that segment of the slave industry. |
You're shifting the goal posts. You can not prove that the women are not being forced to model which has happened before than a person watching is supporting violence and their exploitation.
As for football, same deal with the cheerleaders. And the men (linebackers for example) are held to a distinct disadvantage if they do not use steroids as the NFL has done little to discourage it. Their recent decision to start a minimal anti-steroid monitoring program should have been done decades ago and done much more robustly.
Quote: |
How is it exploitation to pay an actress or model to, uh, model? |
I was specifically addressing the degradation issue, but hey, you want to move the goal posts then I can keep up. There is no more exploitation involved in having an actress model play a role in which she pretends to like a particular brand of beer than to do anything else normal. I could even go so far as to argue that being in a sex video where she is smiling is more genuine that the forced file she would have to put up for a product she may not have ever even tried and very likely does not enjoy it to the same level she is pretending for the photo.
Quote: |
Is this supposed to be relevant? Does anyone here care if I'm sincere in what post? And why would I lie? What would be the point, my little troll? |
Again you avoid the question of why you are using two standards to judge things.
Quote: |
Why do you keep repeating this stupid lie, little troll? |
It's hardly a lie when you've clearly taken the position that watching beer commercials is fine and porn videos are not when they feature what is quite likely the same percentage of expoitation.
Quote: |
Your existence appears to be a logical fallacy. I made no claims of supporting facts, I said others had posted facts, my little trollodite. |
Zing, you called me a trollodite. You are the champion of the universe. Now that you are champion, how about you step up and back up what you claim to be true such as how porn invariably leads to child exploitation.
Unfortunate that you have taken the path of self-denial.
Quote: |
Because I don't give a *beep* what *you* want to talk about, trollboy. |
What a curious excuse. Why not just give the real answer, that being that there is no evidence to back up your claims and what evidence that does exist directly counters your claims.
Quote: |
I am quite comfortable, thank you. |
You are comfortable with insulting with lines lifted from children?
Quote: |
I wasn't aware anyone was forced to take steroids or to be a cheerleader, oh, trolling one. If they are doing this of their own free will and with full knowledge of the possible repurcussions, it would not be exploitation. If they are doing so because someone is preying on their weaknesses, this could be considered exploitation. But what is bizarre is your claim that I have said it's OK. Trollishly stupidicious. |
They aren't outright forced to take steroids, but failing to take them in the past meant that they were at a disadvantage compared to other players. This could result in a lower salary through reduced results in games, increased injuries, and even earlier retirement through the lack of new contracts.
Quote: |
And I said current technology doesn't allow us fo fully measure these things yet, and that there may never be a statitically provable causal correlation do the large number of non-criminally active people who watch/look at porn. Why are you still bringing these points up when you have been given asnwers? |
But that is untrue. If there was a correlation, then countries like Denmark with practically no restrictions on porn would be awash in sex crimes when in fact it's much lower than most other countries. Or Japan where violent porn videos are available anywhere with ease (including buy-at-home TV programs), sex crimes are also quite low.
Quote: |
Sarcasm is insulting, trollilocks. |
There was no sarcasm. I cited a very clearly known explanation and explained with a very open example. You only got angry because it completely proved how your reasoning was flawed.
Quote: |
Are you really *that* stupid, to think you have convinced someone that a statistical and or logical abstract exists? I'm sorry, but I don't recall saying anything like correlation always equals causation, trolls-are-us. |
You've already said that watch porn leads to child exploitation and other sex crimes.
The example I used earlier: Correlation: People who speak Korean also tend to universally eat a lot of rice. But that correlation does not equal a causation that rice results in people speaking Korean.
Sarcasm: Zero.
Quote: |
I'll be skipping you, trollasaurus. The logic train left you at the station a very long time ago.
Have a trollingly great weekend. |
I find great humour how you simply refuse to support your claims but rather submit that they must simply be true because you said so while tossing out simplistic grade-school insults you've stolen from children, and yet you cite that I'm the one trolling you? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
shakuhachi wrote: |
EFLtrainer, I have to give it to you. You are completely beaten in every thread but you march on, oblivious. |
Would you care to elaborate? You seem to be making an error in logic: that you don't agree with me does not mean I have lost. Feel free to challenge me. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I "lost."
http://www.news.vu/en/news/inter/0508010-Porn-fuels-prostitution.shtml
Porn 'fuels prostitution'
By Anna Hodgekiss - The Australian
Posted Wednesday, August 10, 2005
The growth of internet pornography has seen the demand for prostitution in Australia soar.
Sex abuse expert Mary Anne Layden will tell a NSW parliamentary forum today how Australia's increasing appetite for prostitution has led to more women being trafficked into the country than ever before.
Dr Layden is a psychotherapist at the University of Pennsylvania who specialises in treating victims and perpetrators of sexual violence and addiction.
"Internet pornography and the legalisation of prostitution have driven up demand through a set of beliefs that imply that this behaviour is normal, acceptable, common and doesn't hurt anyone so the person has permission to continue to behave in that way," she will tell the forum, hosted by state Labor backbencher Kristina Keneally and the NSW Working Party on Illegal Non-Citizens in the Sex Industry.
"Examples include 'All men go to prostitutes', 'Women like sex mixed with violence', and 'Children enjoy sex with adults'."
Dr Layden warns that as the demand for prostitution increases, with internet porn being both anonymous and available 24 hours a day, supply is failing to meet demand. "There are not enough women in Australia who have been raped as a child, are homeless, or have a drug addiction, to be prostitutes, because in reality these are the women who end up in this situation.
"In this case, you have to deceive or kidnap women and children from other countries, take their passport, beat them up and put them into sex slavery.
"And not only is the demand for harder pornography rising, but people who use porn are much more likely to commit sexual offences. It's a dangerous circle." |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gord

Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your newspaper article is not a peer accepted review. It has no useful numbers other than anecdotal claims and does nothing to substantiate the claims made. Assuming that the number of prostitution usage is going up (which it offers no actual evidence of), is it because of the Internet, increased sexual imagery in the media removing a once-taboo of visiting prostitutes, increased standard of living allowing more hire prostitutes, reduction in policing of prostitution, and so forth.
It tells us nothing other than someone's opinion who does not appear well informed. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do consider the source.
http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?aboutUs/background.htm
1. WHAT ARE PORNOGRAPHY AND OBSCENITY?
Whether pornography has any significant harmful effects on consumers continues to be a controversial issue, not only for average citizens but also for behavioral scientists. This is not surprising in the light of the fact that two national commissions—the Majority Report of the 1970 Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography and the 1986 Attorney General's Commission on Pornography—came to diametrically opposed conclusions about this matter.
Some social commentators claim that pornography is mainly a form of entertainment, possibly educational, sometimes sexually arousing, but essentially harmless. Or, they claim, at the very least, that there is no good scientific evidence of harm. Other social commentators claim more dire consequences and give as examples recent cases, played up by the media, of sex-murderers who have claimed that pornography "made them do it."
To ascertain something about pornography's effects, we first need to define it. The word "pornography" comes from the Greek words "porno" and "graphia" meaning "depictions of the activities of whores." In common parlance, it usually means, "material that is sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal."
"Obscenity," however, is a legal term which was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1973 Miller v. California decision. For something to be found obscene, and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment, a judge or jury representing a cross section of the community must determine if the material:
Taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient (sick, morbid, shameful, or lascivious) interest in sex;
Depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner (i.e., goes beyond contemporary community standards with regards to depictions of sexual conduct or activity); and
Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.
The material has to meet all three tests before it can be found obscene in the eyes of the law and its distribution prohibited. This means that something could be regarded as "pornographic" but still not be obscene, such as an explicit sex film produced and used to teach medical students about human sexuality, or a film or book with serious artistic and/or literary value which has some explicit sexual content.
Thus, the Supreme Court has protected a wide variety of sexual matter in movies, books, magazines, and in other formats from being prohibited for sale and exhibition to adults (there is a stricter standard with respect to minors). Under the Miller test, however, the distribution of pornographic material which is obscene, such as most of what can be called "hardcore," can be prohibited and penalties proscribed.
The distribution of obscenity is prohibited on the federal level and on the state level in over 40 states. While the enforcement of obscenity laws increased after the Attorney General's Commission issued its "Final Report" in 1986, particularly at the federal level, enforcement is at best sporadic in many parts of the nation.
This lack of enforcement, especially at the state and local levels, may be attributable, in part, to the view of many people and, in particular, public officials that pornography is essentially harmless or, at the least, that there is little or no real evidence of harm.
2. EFFECTS ON ADULTS
In reviewing the literature on the effects of pornography, there is a variety of evidence suggesting risk and the possibility of harm from being immersed in repeated exposure to pornography. These data come primarily from three sources:
Clinical case history data
Field studies
Experimental laboratory type studies
As a clinical psychologist, I have treated, over the years, approximately 350 sex addicts, sex offenders, or other individuals (96% male) with sexual illnesses. This includes many types of unwanted compulsive sexual acting-out, plus such things as child molestation, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sadomasochism, fetishism, and rape. With several exceptions, pornography has been a major or minor contributor or facilitator in the acquisition of their deviation or sexual addiction.
FIRST STEP - ADDICTION
The first change that happened was an addiction-effect. The porn-consumers got hooked. Once involved in pornographic materials, they kept coming back for more and still more. The material seemed to provide a very powerful sexual stimulant or aphrodisiac effect, followed by sexual release, most often through masturbation. The pornography provided very exciting and powerful imagery which they frequently recalled to mind and elaborated on in their fantasies.
Once addicted, they could not throw off their dependence on the material by themselves, despite many negative consequences such as divorce, loss of family, and problems with the law (such as sexual assault, harassment or abuse of fellow employees).
I also found, anecdotally, that many of my most intelligent male patients appeared to be most vulnerable—perhaps because they had a greater capacity to fantasize, which heightened the intensity of the experience and made them more susceptible to being conditioned into an addiction.
One of my patients was so deeply addicted that he could not stay away from pornography for 90 days, even for $1,000. It is difficult for non-addicts to comprehend the totally driven nature of a sex addict. When the "wave" hits them, nothing can stand in the way of getting what they want, whether that be pornography accompanied by masturbation, sex from a prostitute, molesting a child, or raping a woman. These men are consumed by their appetite, regardless of the cost or consequences. Their addiction virtually rules their lives.
SECOND STEP - ESCALATION
The second phase was an escalation-effect. With the passage of time, the addicted person required rougher, more explicit, more deviant, and "kinky" kinds of sexual material to get their "highs" and "sexual turn-ons." It was reminiscent of individuals afflicted with drug addictions. Over time there is nearly always an increasing need for more of the stimulant to get the same initial effect.
Being married or in a relationship with a willing sexual partner did not solve their problem. Their addiction and escalation were mainly due to the powerful sexual imagery in their minds, implanted there by the exposure to pornography.
I have had a number of couple-clients where the wife tearfully reported that her husband preferred to masturbate to pornography than to make love to her.
THIRD PHASE - DESENSITIZATION
The third phase was desensitization. Material (in books, magazines, or films/videos) which was originally perceived as shocking, taboo-breaking, illegal, repulsive, or immoral, in time came to be seen as acceptable and commonplace. The sexual activity depicted in the pornography (no matter how anti-social or deviant) became legitimized. There was an increasing sense that "everybody does it" and this gave them permission to also do it, even though the activity was possibly illegal and contrary to their previous moral beliefs and personal standards.
FOURTH PHASE - ACTING OUT SEXUALLY
The fourth phase was an increasing tendency to act out sexually the behaviors viewed in the pornography, including compulsive promiscuity, exhibitionism, group sex, voyeurism, frequenting massage parlors, having sex with minor children, rape, and inflicting pain on themselves or a partner during sex. This behavior frequently grew into a sexual addiction which they found themselves locked into and unable to change or reverse—no matter what the negative consequences were in their life.
Many examples of the negative effects of pornography-use come from the private or clinical practice of psychotherapists, physicians, counselors, attorneys, and ministers. Here we come face to face with real people who are in some kind of significant trouble or pain. One example from my practice might illustrate this.
I was asked to consult on a case where a Phoenix-Tucson area professional person, president of his firm and head of his church's committee on helping troubled children, was found to be a serial rapist who had violently raped a number of women at gun- or knife-point in the Arizona area. In doing the background study on him, I found him to come from an exemplary background and trouble-free childhood. He was an outstanding student in high school and college.
His wife, children, business and church associates had not the slightest inkling of his double life or dark side. The only significant negative factor in his life was an early adolescent addiction to pornography which, for the most part, was kept secret from others. This gradually escalated over a period of years, eventually leading to spending many hours and incurring great expense at "adult" bookstores, looking at violent video-porn movies and masturbating to these.
His first rape was triggered by seeing a close resemblance in the woman he assaulted to the leading character in a porn movie he had seen earlier in the day. Reality and fantasy had become extremely blurred for him as he acted out his pathological sexual fantasies.
In my clinical experience, however, the major consequence of being addicted to pornography is not the probability or possibility of committing a serious sex crime (though this can and does occur), but rather the disturbance of the fragile bonds of intimate family and marital relationships. This is where the most grievous pain, damage, and sorrow occur. There is repeatedly an interference with or even destruction of healthy love and sexual relationships with long-term bonded partners. If one asks if porn is responsible or causes any sex crimes, the answer is unequivocally, "Yes," but that is only the tip of the iceberg. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|