Senator Carper Calls for Tax on Online Porn 1145
Better-living-thru-taxes writes "Senator Tom Carper (D-Del) is calling for a 25% tax on all internet pornograpy. The money is to help police fight online child pornographers. 'Carper says the bill will keep kids away from X-rated material.'"
Don't let the state nany, take some responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
to be shy about and really, rather than demonising it, we should be celebrating it. It's one of the activities that transcends all cultures on this planet and that is universally enjoyed.
The Christian faith (who's political wing is the Republican party) for some reason believe that sex is bad and that pornography is somehow immoral. I don't know how they reached that conclusion, after all, one need only look as far as Job's daughters antics in the book of Genesis to see that the Bible is no authority on sexual morality.
I just think that Children are not as vulnerable as these people make out. As young as twelve or thirteen I was viewing pornography because I was curious and felt a drive to seek out such material. Far from damaging my psyche, it made me a lot less nervous about my sexuality. I look back and see that period of my life as an important part of my sexual development.
I'm sick of the "What about the children?" being used as a front to foist laws upon on us. This law isn't designed to protect our children, it's a law that takes the first bold step in pushing the Republican party's religious mantra on those who do not want and care about it.
Without wanting to be flame-bait, the Republican part engages in what I call "henry ford" freedom:
You can have any freedom you want, as long as it's Republican. The essence of freedom is about allowing people to do something you don't personally agree with. You may not agree with abortion or gay marriage but believing in freedom is about having the maturity to realize that the people who are gay or have abortions are consenting adults and are fully aware of the consequences of their actions.
Simon.
Cute Trick (Score:5, Insightful)
If you oppose it, then you must be someone who preys on children, right?
Great tactics on the part of the Senator. Think of the children!
Sex is natural (Score:3, Insightful)
Totally OT: Point of clarification (Score:3, Insightful)
Job's children died in the first chapter of Job when a wall fell on them. Perhaps you mean Lot's daughters? And the Bible called them evil. I don't get your statement.
Sorry for the off-topic post. I just like to make sure people who criticize the Bible at least get the stories right.
Tax or Censorship? (Score:2, Insightful)
The twisted logic of this is that he claims either instituting a tax would enforce the laws, or porn sites somehow encourage child pornography.
In other words, he really wants censorship without saying the bad "C word".
I hope all the porn sites move overseas (Score:3, Insightful)
The US just changes its enforcement of the record keeping laws (2259 it is called, if I recall correctly). It is a sword of damocles hanging over porn webmasters. See fleshbot.com for more info.
The sooner the online porn stuff just moves offshore (ala the casinos), the better. Then they can tell the Govt. to find a new whipping boy.
Isn't it obvious... (Score:3, Insightful)
Porn -- Pedo (Score:3, Insightful)
Children interested in sex doesn't correlate to children being groomed by pedophiles.
Get a friggin grip.
Great! (Score:2, Insightful)
age-verification software (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
Offshore (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Nevada ranches WANT to be taxed... (Score:5, Insightful)
So maybe this is a good thing for the porn industry.
Taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Down with stealth taxes!!!
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
Another proof at how the left wing doesn't know what its extreme left wing is doing.
This is the state of the Democratic party, sadly. They're trying to woo moderates back into the fold(Hillary Clinton etc) by imposing conservative morality. The lesson of the last 5 years is: the more people you threaten and alienate, the more popular you are to conservative voters. I hate seeing the Democrats give up like this, I wish they could find a smarter way to fight the insanity of the american voter.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
And we as a rather advanced society have finally separated church and state, thank God. We don't mandate morality, just non-freedom-hurting behavior. Two consenting adults doing horribly awful acts of sexuality to each other may be disgusting, but it's not anyones responsibility to "teach them morals". Government is not parenthood and the church can't call the police or the lynchmob. I hope it stays that way.
The logic here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, this is proposing some kind of direct link between adult porn and kiddie porn. The fact that there will be a bill linking it will be enough for a lot of people to see adult porn as causing kiddie porn...
Re:Ha! (Score:1, Insightful)
If pictures of naked people are to be taxed, then I purpose that only those who are violating their churches' basically-held principles in viewing the pictures be forced to pay the tax.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's just tax everything!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's tax life. And honor. And Commitment. And betrayal. And health. And happiness. And sadness. And depression. And intent. And thoughts. And air. And the sun. And the sky. And death.
Let's bloody tax everything!!
Re:Sex is natural (Score:4, Insightful)
Great Idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think everyone is missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone with at least half a mind can see that the Senator couldn't care less about pornography or child porn for that matter.
Taxing an industry does nothing to regulate said industry, all it does is take money from it. If he wanted to regulate it, and pay for the regulation, then he'd attach fines to the laws. But the truth is, what he wants is an easy way to "break into" the internet industries.
These people tax us in everything we do. We have ONE industry taht is currently not taxed to death and beyond and that is the internet.
This is an excuse. He and his friends have to be stopped cold right here and now. Don't think that it's just him either. I'll bet you anything a bunch of his buddies got together and thought this would be a great way to start a new "cause" and thus manage to rip us off in the process.
We have to stop this guy now. Unless of course, you like the idea of your local congressman and senator mucking about in even this part of our lives.
-ron
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:4, Insightful)
And who the hell mod'ed a racist insightful?
Don't tax porn, tax the churches... (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be a bit off topic,, but the article is so vague and short almost anything will fit into this discussion.
Some slashdoters may have noticed that the church has become a major player in politics recently. Part of their tax exemption is based on staying out of politics. The Bush administration is going after many conservation groups with the IRS because they have broken the politics rule.
Churches own billions of $$$ worth of prime realestate in the heart of our cities tax free and thus are a burden on cash starved public schools that depend on real estate taxes for survival.
I don't really need to go into the occasional priest's daliance with young boys, that's just an anomily.
So why try and tax internet porn, most of which is offshore, difficult to track, etc.? Tax the churches which have been getting a free ride in this country for far too long.
Churches need to be placed under the same guidelines as other institutions. They should not get any special benefits just for being churches. If they want some kind of benefits for nonprofit stuff/community service, then they should be under some guidelines for all nonprofits/community servers.
Here are a couple links to taxing the churches...
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/cal-tax-ex empt.htm [sullivan-county.com]
http://www.taxchurches.com/ [taxchurches.com]
Re:"I know it when I see it" is all very well but. (Score:1, Insightful)
Volunteer tax preparers undergo about 20 hours of tax training, much of it from IRS trainers. One lesson they learn is how to determine if someone can file for Head of Household or if they must file Married Filing Seperately.
Sounds pretty straightforward, until they start throwing out examples where a couple might not be legally divorced, but have been living apart for more than a year. If they haven't had sex in the past 6 months, the person caring for the child can file as Head of Household, but if they get it on just one time with their separated spouse, they must file Married Filing Separately. Their sex life actually determines how much tax they will pay.
That is, of course, without even touching on the same sex marraige issue.
I'm just saying the IRS already cuts its policies on sex, and yes, that creeps me out.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd just like to make the small point that morality does not require theology. There are lots of us atheists who have a very strong sense of morality which has nothing to do with illegality.
Follow the money. (Score:1, Insightful)
"We don't mandate morality, just non-freedom-hurting behavior."
Like Alimony.
It's a number from Hitlers hand book (Score:1, Insightful)
I hate quoting that asshole, but...
Re:Sex is natural (Score:4, Insightful)
If everyone involved consents and enjoys that gangbang, it seems okay to me.
People who do this, do it because they are paid to, and in some cases, because they're desperate for some kind of approval or attention. It's not normal. Now if doing this fulfills someone's psychological or sexual needs, then it's their business. But boys shouldn't grow up thinking that women orgasm from giving blow-jobs or they're going to be pretty disappointed with their partners (and their partners might be pretty pissed, too).
The problem is one of context. US society (and UK society to a lesser extent) is deeply repressed on the subject of sex. It's all very closed doors. And oddly enough, this is why so many boys grow up thinking of sex as being something purely physical. The only porn you get is brutal, wham, bam, say thank you ma'am stuff. There's no exposure to sex between two people who love each other.
So, I think that it's the moralising people who surpress normal exposure to sex, nudity and desire that are responsible for guys growing up thinking of it in the way portrayed in porn. Because if it's kept out of normal life, made illicit, then what else do they see but the porn?
I mean - which is going to prepare people for sexual maturity most - (Not work safe) This [domai.com], or this [pornstarmovies.org]? Maybe you see sex is just fucking, and hey - it's good exercise - but for most of us, the best sex we'll ever experience is with someone we love. If people want to protect children from corruption, they should let those children know that it's okay and to have sex with someone you love and that it doesn't have to be 8" this, 36DD that and treat the other person like an object.
I seem to have ended up arguing for more sincere and tender porn. Well, why not. It would appeal to a lot of people, I'm sure. But mostly what I am getting at is that US and UK society itself should be more open on the subject of sex.
And then maybe people wouldn't be using it as a sales technique everywhere I look as well.
Mod parent troll (Score:5, Insightful)
And the next thing we will see is beastiality becomming[sic] normal.
It is normal and accepted. In Sweden. And in fact its on the rise over there.
Maybe sex is a choice a 14 year old can not make, because they don't have the maturity to understand what it means.
A mere century ago, the usual age for marraige in most cultures was 12 to 16. Can you explain to me what has changed from that time, besides the views of society?
If you know anything, most catholics register as democrats
Most catholics aren't American.
Maybe if sex is something sacred, then the divorce rate and infidelity would not be so high.
Oh get over yourself. Sex is just a physical activity, the very same as sports. You can play in a team or by yourself, and it releases very much the same hormones. If you mean loving relationships, then yes, perhaps that should be seen as being important. But what would you have us do, codify what exactly qualifies as sex and when people are allowed to have it? One size fits all may be the mantra of the modern corporate, shiny, market-segment and demographically organised world, but believe me the truth isn't that simple. And as for porn, who cares? It's more okay to show a man getting torn limb from limb by explosions than to watch paid professionals do their dance? And if you are whining about impressionable young minds, I suggest that parents take some responsibility for what their children get to see and hear, and stop depending on legislation to do their damn jobs for them. Christ.
You are making out that your apparently severely stunted worldview is the definitive version, and backing up your perspective by hurling accusations of paedophilia, which should be added to the godwins law lexicon of failures in debate. What a boob. Just another troll that knows how to burble a bit of fire and brimstone and get the mob riled up.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans use religion as a stepping stone to gain office, but that ignores the commandment against using the Lord's name in vain, which seems to be the most misunderstood commandment. People seem to think it has somthing to do with not saying "goddamnit" which would have been relevant back when people thought that they could actually invoke the name of a god to curse other people.
In other words, you're breaking a commandment if you use the name of God to further your own selfish interests.
The guy requires a globe or atlas or something... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at gambling. The biggest centres are offshore in countries with loose (or non-existent) tax and gambling laws. The same thing will happen with porn. The people who run these operations are not stupid guys with their dicks flapping in the wind. They're smart, they're business savvy,and they probably make more than the senator in question. (Funnily enough, for the same job - sticking your dick in places it may or may not belong.)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
Which you were pretty much stood with how much money you made -- if you are rich or expect to be rich, vote republican. If you are poor, liberal, or know you aren't going to be rich, vote dem. The problem at this time is, the Republicans aren't *ACTING* like Republicans anymore (they used to stand for less taxes through less government and less debt, "the market will provide a solution"). The republicans have been taken over by these leech christian neocons (the neocon philosophy in one sentence is, "Might makes right.") who have driven the republicans control of all 3 branches of government, but who have completely sold out the principles of less government in favor for democrat like handouts, except the handouts are going to corporations and the wealthy. At least the new deal arguably helped the poor?
So long story short, is, if you believe in true republican ideals, right now you need to vote democrat.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
The genetically successful male breeds with as many partners as he can, as often as he can.
Re:Morality or Ethics? (Score:1, Insightful)
As such, i have to ask what purpose does the morality vs ethics distinction serve? Is it truly and deeply informative in the sense that it paints an accurate picture of the view or does it merely exist to create an "us vs them" mentality?
Now, I'm not saying that there really isn't a very good reason to divide up morality and ethics into distinct categories but I have to say that I'm not seeing it and as such, I have to ask, what is it?
Religion is worthless in this regard. (Score:2, Insightful)
Some stupid 2000 year old cult is not going to change opinions, and I am against having my tax money spent to further a dangerous idea.
Unless racist Bush just wants all the Africans to die so he can invade more easily.
Do the police really need more money? (Score:3, Insightful)
In my city the Chief of Police makes $151k USD and his lieutenants make at least $110k USD per year. I know primary care medical doctors that don't make that kind of money.
I say we tell the police to stop messing around with their "busy work" like arresting people for simple marijuana possession (the number one reason for criminal arrest in the US) that costs the taxpayer on average >$8k USD per arrest, cut back on the number of police officers, stop buying them a new >$30k USD cruiser every two years and do some real work.
While there are a lot of good cops out there, the system that governs them is corrupt and needs major overhaul. Sen. Carper's tax is just more pork (no pun intended) for Washington to give out.
Fuck that.
Re:Totally OT: Point of clarification (Score:4, Insightful)
Time for my clippy impersonation...
Sounds like you're referring to Gen:19 5-8 [skepticsan...dbible.com]
You might also be interested in the rest of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible [skepticsan...dbible.com] - a fantastic website containing the complete, unaltered KJV bible, that also happens to have sidenotes pointing out the contradictions, absurdities, morally questionable, and other interesting bits.
Finally, Lot is called "Just" and "Righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8, but the bible tells us on several occasions that There are no just or righteous people [skepticsan...dbible.com]
Good thing nobody bases their lives or morality around this book! Just think how confused they'd be!
Re:Morality or Ethics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who decides? (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you propose that the US "government" identify every single pornographic website that does exist, and will exist in the future, and block it, and keep this entire system up to date...
And to think, the criticism the "free" nations of the world give China for its Internet censorship...
Re:Usual /. idiocy... let me help (Score:1, Insightful)
It's all doublethink. Have you ever noticed that people used to get riled up about "child molesters", whereas now it's all about "child pornographers" and "pedophiles"? They'd like you to think -- doublethink! -- that they're all equivalent. But in fact, of the three I would argue that only child molesters deserve the ire that is currently heaped on the other two.
Remember, pedophilia is a THOUGHT CRIME! It's not the taking of any action, it's merely the existence of a desire! I thought we didn't punish people for their thoughts here in the Freedom Capaital of the World...
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:4, Insightful)
This is bullshit. Evolutionary success depends upon producing the most children who go on to have more children, not to spread the most of your genetic material around. A well cared for child that receives proper parental attention, who grows into a stable adult, is a greater "success" and will likely breed more and better children than five kids who are malnourished and mentally underdeveloped without the interaction and protection of the father.
I'm not disagreeing with your first statement. Monogamy can be hard, but don't pull that "men are hardwired for infidelity" crap. The notion that women are "supposed" to try desperately to hold on to one man while men are "supposed" to want to spread their baby batter everywhere is a product of our culture, and is a cop-out for both sexes.
25% tax on porn?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they have any idea how much money that is? I'm all for it - we could probably eliminate all other taxes the government collects and still double the budget.
Yes, take responsibility for your own actions. (Score:4, Insightful)
But to ban something because some people get addicted to it is nonsense. Some people are addicted to overeating, should we ban food next?
How about this, we all become responsible for our own behavior. The guy that you were responding to blames the porn for his addiction to it, instead of laying the blame on himself for no control. Moderation in all things is best, but some people have no control. So does that mean that since some peoples lives are ruined by alcohol, drugs, porn, gambling and food we should ban it all...you know...just in case?
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
Hundreds of millions of people have "easy access to pornography" and no relationship problems. Obviously, your utilization of on-line pornography was a symptom, not a cause, of your problems.
If you don't want to have easy access to pornography on-line, you have many ways of putting yourself in a position that you don't: get rid of your home Internet connection, connect through a filter, or join a monastery.
Re:They should keep kids away from violence (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:4, Insightful)
Likewise, there are lots of religions people who really have a limited sense of morality and just do or don't do whatever their church tells them. Morality is really an intellectual construct and a static "book" cannot cover every possible shade of gray.
I would hazard to guess that "athiests" are generally more intelligent than religious people, because at least they've thought about the plausibility of their beliefs and came to conclusions. Whereas, I would guess that most supposedly religious people are actually "athiestic" about religion (in the "not caring to ponder" meaning) because they have never invested much thought into either religion or morality and just believe and do what other people tell them.
Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Insightful)
People who dress up like Frodo Baggins do it because they are paid to, and because they enjoy the attention of being a celebrity. It's not normal. Now if doing this fulfills someone's psychological or sexual needs, then it's their business. But boys shouldn't grow up thinking that wizards exist or they're going to be pretty disappointed with the world.
The only porn you get is brutal, wham, bam, say thank you ma'am stuff. There's no exposure to sex between two people who love each other.
The only fantasy movies you get involve killing, fighting, and dieing. We need more fantasy movies involving Alan Alda and Beth Midler. Frodo and Samwise should be making love, not war.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is not the politicians. The problem is the populace: they value safety, security and middle-class family culture more than free speech and an open society. The politics are a reflection of these values.
Re:Sounds like you don't understand the industry.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not unless you give me money. See how this works? People do things they normally wouldn't do for money. It's called a job.
Re:Sex is natural (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not because of porn, that's because we're all just animals trying to satisfy an urge for pleasure.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:1, Insightful)
However, as a man who suffered from an addiction to porn for over a decade I can tell you that it is a lot like alcohol - harmless in someways and devastating in others. I drink socially but I've had friends go through long recovery processes facing their alcoholism. Both porn and alcohol should be legal but should be treated with care.
As for the hundreds of millions of people who have no relationship problems due to porn, I don't know 100mil people, but I've known twenty or thirty men very well. Once we're good enough friends and I bring up the story of my porn addition there is almost always a story from them to accompany it.
I believe porn addictions are more prevalent than
most of us would imagine.
Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem here is that you are not arguing for more sincere and tender porn, but instead making a bigoted argument against everything else.
Where in my post did I argue for restricting people's ability to create or obtain porn? I'll answer that question for you - nowhere.
Here's another one: where did I say people were wrong to enjoy it? Nowhere.
You have decided you know who I am (a moralising bigot) and have re-interpreted everything I said into something you feel you can have a good shout about.
The crux of what I said is that depictions of sex available to people are massively of the brutal, emotionless, subjgating type. If you find this so hard to believe have a look for some porn on the Internet (the primary delivery method of sexually explicit material) and see what you find.
I believe that if US and UK society were more open about sex then the act itself wouldn't be polarised into either gang-bangs or nothing.
You call me a bigot for suggesting that normal sex should be shown? The US is a place where sex is hidden from children, an unmentionable. If there is the slightest nudity on your television where children might see it there is hysteria, as if the sight of a naked breast will lead innocent youths straight to Hell.
Why am I a bigot for saying this is wrong? If you can argue that people have a right to fuck 30 men they don't know and sell the video, then why can't I ask for normal sexual relationships to be portrayed explicitly? Would I want my children's formative impressions of sex to be mostly acts that the participants did because they were paid to? Because lets face it, in US society, the knowledge they get from porn would far outpace that from real life for a good while.
You saw me criticise emotionless sex with people who are paid to do it and decided to have a rant at the "bigot." But I don't fit into your stereotype. If that emotionless sex that doesn't reflect the sexual behaviour of most people is the only available depiction to children, then I am right to critisize. Children should be presented with an accurate view of life and the world. And right now, it's either gang-banging subjugation of women or ignorance. That's a Hell of a choice, so don't have a go at me for suggesting there should be another option.
If you found my argument "meandering" then perhaps it is because you had trouble seeing the connections.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to vote democrat on occasion. I might again if they would stop trying to put me out of work. I used to have a good job in mining. The Democrats demonized that industry right out of the country, as far as I can tell, to provide high-quality low-cost vacations for the urban elite.
My current job depends on low-cost hydro-electric power, so what do the Democrats want now? To tear out the 4 dams on the lower Snake River and at least one on the Columbia, in order to "save the salmon" which are supposed to create a booming "eco-tourism industry". (Not just minimum wage, but seasonal minimum wage at that. Starve slowly for six months, quickly for the other six. What a deal!) That would raise electric rates enough to close down this job too. (Ironically, we make silicon for solar cells.)
So, once the democrats start saying people are more important than fish, trees,and so on, as well as stop nannying and otherwise trying to micromanage my life, I'll consider voting for them again.
Here's to Bill Proxmire, the last Democrat I voted for for a reason other than "lesser of two evils."
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me see if I follow this discussion.
P: Aghh! It's censorship. Nasty censorship! Gah, evil Republican censorship!
Q: Um, actually it's evil Democrat censorship.
P: Well, the guy's obviously not a real Democrat.
Quite a brilliant argument -- your party is always right, because anything it does wrong doesn't really represent your party.
So, uh, are the Republicans also the people who've tried to ban Huck Finn from schools for "racist" content?
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many, many, MANY Christian men who struggle with addiction to pornography. I'm not one of them (thank God!) but the ones who are tell all kinds of stories about wanting to quit viewing it, but simply cannot. I can think of some reasons why this is a problem:
1. Christian women expect their Christian men to be monogomous and faithful to only them. Having their men look at porn is extremely offensive to them, it makes them feel inadequate.
2. Porn gives men unrealistic expectations of what sex should be like.
3. We believe that God created sex to be a PRIVATE expression of love between a MARRIED man and woman. Pornography violates and distorts this in the most complete manner imaginable.
Jesus said, (in Matthew 5:27-28) "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery;' but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." This is the problem for Christians -- it is IMPOSSIBLE to look at porn without violating this.
I can see why it is a bigger problem for Christians than non-Christians. Non-Christians are simply absorbed into the sex-focused culture of our day, and don't see anything wrong with it. And frankly, that is their problem. I am not going to preach to a non-Christian about proper sexual viewpoints -- if they reject God anyway, what is the point? They might as well live like they want.
Christians also must battle between what their flesh wants and what the spirit of God in them wants. Paul goes on a long lament in Romans 7 that he keeps doing the things he knows he should not do, and does not do the things he knows he should do. This is exactly what porn addicts experience.
I will also point out a great Christian ministry that helps men (and women) get out of this trip. Setting Captives Free. [settingcaptivesfree.com] The site has a number of testimonies about how porn has wrecked their lives, and how they were able to find freedom.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not normal. Neither is being blonde-haired or black-skinned in the US (or blonde-haired and black skinned). Normalcy is a statistical concept, not a moral one.
If someone likes getting money for sex or being watched during it, good on them. It's their choice to make, not yours or mine.
Sounds like a good idea for music and movies! (Score:1, Insightful)
At least there'd be a causal link between these industry's products and the crimes, and they are always whining and wasting taxpayer money enforcing their unsistainable business models.
Nick
Re:Sex is natural (Score:3, Insightful)
For crying out loud. The whole point of my comment is that entertainment does not have to be about reality.
Do not meddle in the affairs of LotR fans, for they are unsubtle and very pedantic.
I understood your point, and it is well made. I'm getting jumped all over here by people who seem to think I'm an porn-burning fanatic (woe to those who tread the middle ground, for they shall piss off both sides), but at least *your* point addressed what I actually said.
My answer to you would be, fair enough. You want entertainment in your fantasy, why not. If I fantasize about a romantic weekend in Paris, doesn't mean someone's going to take me there - it's still a fantasy as much as you getting into bed with three super endowed porn-stars. (I'm making an assumption about your lifestyle here).
But what I would say, is if we're going to go with the Frodo and Sam analogy (and I really don't think it's wise in a discussion on porn, but we'll risk it), then the situation is more like this:
There is only Lord of the Rings movies out there. You can't find anything that isn't Lord of the Rings.
This is important because unlike LotR, where few people growing up are likely to start worrying about being attacked by CGI orcs, or think that it's an accurate portrayal of real life, this will happen to some extent with porn. People will probably be watching porn for some time before they experience actual sex. And if this forms the basis for their fantasies and expectations, they're going to get a hell of a shock. I'm not saying that people wont do extreme things together. Of course many will. But intimate, emotional sex is (should be) very satisfying and this isn't explored in modern US culture. You get gang-banging or you get nothing.
So why isn't genuinely emotional sex portrayed graphically? I'd say because it undermines too much. Sex is used to sell every magazine, every show, every shirt. The basis of loving sex is trust, feeling okay about yourself and your partner, intimacy. It's hard to sell to someone who has that.
So yes, watch LotR if you like, admire the size of the Oliphant's trunks or the way the blonde elf takes on five orcs at once. But just keep an eye on those who are getting too into it and turning up to showings in Elf ears, eh?
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
Than covering a boob on a famous statue? Shirley, you jest. It seems to describe everything wrong with censorship and exposes small-mindedness and the evil hardcore Christians have in their hearts. By hardcore Christians, I mean those who would impose their will on us, rather than turn the other cheek.
I used to worry about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
2) no, it doesn't. It only sets "unreasonable expectations" if you (or your partner) are too narrow minded to enjoy the activities you want to enjoy. The people in pornography are not cartoons - they are real people actually doing those things. Some of us do those things without a camera handy.
3) BFD. You have your beliefs and I have mine. You're free to your beliefs so long as you don't try to legislate them on me.
I am sick of living under the thumb of the american taliban. You fuckers have got to go.
Re:Don't let the state nany, take some responsibil (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, just so we're absolutely clear... it's the porn that's screwing these people up?
Back when I was a Christian (okay, technically Mormon, so you'll probably say it doesn't count), I thought I was "addicted" to porn. But when I finally realized that Big Daddy wasn't looking over my shoulder, ready to smite me, when I realized that there was nothing particularly shameful about enjoying porn, and that it was just a timesink that needed to be limited so I could do more productive things, my addiction ended.
You Christians have such problems with porn because you have to struggle alone with these deep-seated repressions. Get over them, come to terms with the idea that you're meant to enjoy these lascivious thoughts, and stop spoiling things for the rest of us.