The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I thought about that today, after reading this article:

http://citypages.com/databank/19/893/article4117.asp

The article is fairly long, and there's some nasty language in there, so be careful if you view it.

Anyway, what sent chills down my spine is the fact that this article is from 1998, ten years ago. Assuming the article is telling the truth, how much worse do you think things have gotten since then?

No, it should not be completely banned, nor partially banned.  Consenting adults should do what they choose, even if it's getting their assholed ripped open for a few bucks to buy meth.

HAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for the laugh Dave !  ;D

Gotta agree with Dave here. No one is making these people do porn. I've known a couple of girls that did porn, and it seems like they were able to say what they would and wouldn't do.

With that said, you would have to take my porn "from my cold, dead hands." Damn do I love porn!

I'm sure there are extreme cases and what would even be considered rape happening in the porn community, like illegal things done in any industry.  Those things need to be regulated and the people who break laws held responsible.  But I don't think that banning is the solution.

I have to say I agree with you.  Would it be better for society as a whole? In my opinion yes but I don't think we should force that on law abiding people. 

On a personal note ... when they changed the law and closed up the full nudity/anything goes bars around here people like myself certainly got into doing better things with our time and resources.  A lot of money meant for other things as well as many lies to significant others were sparred as a result.

As someone who has given up porn (yes, it is true...),I don't see anything really wrong with watching porn,I don't feel it necessay to Ban it....

We must just be very different kinds of people.  They have nudie bars here, and I just exercise restraint and don't go.  Rather than go spend money and lie about it, I don't go.  But that decision rests with me, not the state.

It's good if you're finding better things to do with your time (and don't take this the wrong way), but if you are unhappy with the choices you make, why not work on changing yourself, rather than laws?

^ Never hurts to have the law as an incentive.

Then why have parents?  Turn your kids over to the state and have the government raise them.

Parents don't have power over you once you're an adult.

Good call...we should pass some laws against overweight people too. You know, as an incentive for them to lose weight. ;)

^ Well said. I concede that there is an absurd side to my comment.

But being overweight is a different vice altogether from the sexual ones. Overweight-ness never caused an abortion to happen. Or an unplanned pregnancy. Or AIDS to be transmitted. Or emotions to get caught in the tangle of adultery. Or a family to break apart (maybe it did, I dunno). Or love to begin. Or so so so many other things. There's a difference there. I'll admit it's razor thin. But it's there.


PS: How 'bout them Padres?

I don't think I agree with this.

I think the main problem is that porno, like any other vice, isn't BAD.  Maybe too much of it is bad.  But porn does have benefits, as well, as do other things, like alcohol, gambling, FOOD, etc.

Like anything, over-indulgence will fuck you up.

That's why I like the decision to lie with the individual.

On top of that, I just don't trust people.  I think people are idiots, for the most part, and I don't want them to be able to make decisions about what is good for me, morally or otherwise.

----

If you're trying to argue that there's a difference between sex and food -- you got me.

Of course there is.  But I don't think it's a gimmie that one is dangerous and one is not.  You can have an unhealthy relationship with either.  You can also have a healthy relationship with either.  And you can be good for the most part, and indulge yourself in a cheeseburger now and then (or the equivalent gangbang flick).

My point is this: I don't want the government telling me what to eat (even if it's unhealthy), nor do I want them telling me what to do with myself sexually.  I think that food and sex are actually pretty closely related in terms of how vices go -- they can both be misused, but they are both necessities.

The only reply is:

Who sets the limits?

And where are the limits set?

You could say every individual sets their own limits, but if an individual is overcome with his own vice, then he won't self-discipline, and there then has to be some sort of net with which to force him to discipline himself. That net is the law. Who sets the law in a liberal democracy? Well, the elected officials as long as they stay within their constitutional bounds.

---

As for sex and food being different, I think the distinction's clear as day. Food has no generative power. It's just sustenance. It keeps you alive, but it doesn't make new life. Sex makes new life. The greater the power, the more heavily regulated. Thus, nuclear weapons are regulated more heavily than, say, handguns.

Not really, no.  There are no laws against being an alcoholic, porn-addict, glutton, etc.

Agreed. There are no laws against "being a prostitute" either, just against prostitution. The law deals with acts, not with statuses (stati?). That's where the net's placed. It is external to your self.

OK... instead of "overweight" in the above proposition, substitute "alcoholic" or any other "____" that affects human judgement and causes all of those traumatic factors you listed. Razor-thin becomes microscopic. I also feel that the width of the line varies based on personal perspective, and personal perspective should NEVER be an aspect of jurisprudence.


I object...irrelevant and argumentative. ;)

Sunstroke, you are always my best critic.

All I can say is that the generative function of sex lends it to be more highly regulated than anything else. Life being the highest value in a civilized society, whenever something attempts to manipulate the mechanics of life, or fiddle with the process through which life comes, then they're going to be put under a microscope.

I just think it's impossible to separate completely fertility, life, and sex. It's a pleasurable experience, no doubt, just like the consumption of alcohol, or television, or cigarettes. But beyond the pleasure is the potential for the creation of something new. And not just something, but someone.

This, to my mind, is what causes sex-addiction to be in a whole different category from other petty vices.

---

As for personal perspective not becoming part of jurisprudence. Hm, well, I agree to an extent. I don't think judges should legislate from the bench, unless, like in Miranda v. Arizona, they have the power to do something akin to legislation. But, somewhere along the line, personal perspective comes in. Either in some part of the statute is ill-defined, and thus allows a judge some leeway in understanding the term. Or the statute lacks the direction on how to apply it. Or a time-honored legal tenet, when applied to a fact pattern never imagined when it (the legal tenet) was formulated wreaks a harsh result that just isn't right.

Then and there judges can draw the lines as they see fit. And I would hope they do so. You cannot barricade personal perspective out of the law. And I think it's kinda ironic that you're (I admit, an assumption I'm making) advocating for the personal choice of people to use pornography, but advocating against judges using their personal experience in drawing up the law.

[Edited for Splomma Cices]

That's not very liberal of you.   :P

Everytime we as humans have tried to legislate morality it fails miserably. It would be better to legalize things, tax it accordingly, and use some of the tax dollars to help the % of people who will invariably become addicted. We spend exponentionally more in enforcement, prosecution, incarceration, and a failed policy of interdiction, than setting up free clinics to help addicts would ever cost.

Ah yes, like slavery.

Here is where our journey to a reasonable agreement could hit the proverbial fork in the road. I don't see sex, in as it relates to pornography, to be generative in nature at all. The pornography I espouse, the pornography I enjoy, and the pornographic media that I've actively earned a freelancers' paycheck by writing is a non-generative, victimless endeavor. Fetishes, role play, BDSM, multiple partners, midgets in fedoras, etc... are not crimes, but a natural exploration of human sexuality. Since my kinkiness doesn't beget any offspring, the last thing in the world I need is some puckered-tight prude in a robe telling me how to get my freak on...


(Just a little further down the road, another fork was encountered...)

I think that the vast majority of people (please note that I didn't say "all") who claim to have a "sex addiction" don't have any addiction at all...just a compulsion toward something that's very physically enjoyable. Doctor Sunstroke prescribes a regimen of gut-checks and increased exertion of self control. Please see the receptionist on the way out for your bill.


The only line I could possibly see any judge drawing in the sexual sandbox is for non-consentual sex. No one should ever be forced to do anything they don't want to do. As far as the consentual variety goes, I don't see any need to have another person tell me which sexual stimuli is legally and socially acceptable.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go. It's "Spank your Spouse" night at the Caligula Club, and I'm running really late.  :P

I wouldn't have an issue now but I wasn't too excited when they closed them down. They went well beyond "nudie" bars.  We started going as early as age 15 as the drinking age was 18 then and the laws were way more lax than today.  Sex was kind of habitual to a young man.  Looking back I'm not sure when I would have quit going had they not stopped me but I'm pretty sire I wouldn't still have an issue.  At least I don't think I would. The moral voters kind of helped me to clean up my act.  I wasn't too excited then but certainly see benifits today.

The only difference between now and 30 years ago is people are taping it and others are watching it. 

I mean, I guess if that's the way you want to put it, then sure. But I don't think the logic is there, just the rhetoric. If all those things are "natural" and innocent "exploration" then, yes, there should be no law against them. But I highly doubt that's what those things really are. Consider this statement from a pornographer's blog:

"The smart porno whores — or the ones who have smart agents — keep their “do” list slim at the onset of life in porn. A life, I might add, that usually runs about 6 months, and can be significantly lower, but usually not too much higher. Some girls go a year or two or three, but not many…mainly cause it’s a tough biz, with creepy people; that or the girl gets “shot out”.

[...]

It’s a Catch-22, really, cause the girls wanna make a ton of money, and their agents wanna make a ton of money, and the quickest, easiest way to make a whole bunch of money is do it all right away: solo, hj’s, bj’s, swallow, g-g, b-g, b-b-g, gang bangs, bukkakkes, anal, interracial, double-vag, double-anal…which is just about everything I can think of off the top of my head.

Throw a new cutie-pie into Porno Land doing all that, and she’ll work until her pussy breaks…or her mind breaks — whichever comes first."

http://www.ishootporn.com/index.php?s=mind+breaks&submit=Search

Does that sound innocent to you? Does it sound like mere exploration? Sounds more like an industry worried about the bottom line rather than the people who work in it. Calling it exploration, I think, is a nice euphemism, but not truthful. At least de Sade could admit to himself what he was doing.

Thus the law could regulate consumption and creation of porn, because of these ill effects and because it is an industry like any other, with banning it one of a panoply of options.

-On a side note, if you think that the people who advocate against such things are merely "puckered-tight prudes" then you're just buying into stereotypes. Is that how you see me? 


I would hope you'd see the judge having a little more leeway than that. Otherwise you just wiped out the existence of laws against consensual incest, statutory rape, and perhaps even kiddie porn.

What the hell is the world coming to?  First we have Dave pushing personal restraint and now 'Stroke is pushing self-control?  The damn conservatives are taking over!

 ;D

Hey, could the "sex-addiction is just a lack of self-control" brush be used to explain alcoholism, compulsive eating, etc, etc, etc?    

I hear you, SC...but think you just closed the door on hearing me. I can pull some really nasty examples of people talking about the industry of politics or religion just as easily as you pulled a far-right viewpoint of the porn industry for your example.

And as far as the incestual, kiddie porn examples...not even worthy of a response.

I bet you could.

My quote was actually pulled from a pro-porn website.

HAHAHA this is the best you can come up with? When did we have universal laws across this country outlawing slavery and yet people kept going to clandestine meetings to purchase their fellow human beings agianst their will to use them as slaves? So the prohabition against slavery in this country has been a stunning failure due to people's overwhelming desire to own another human being?
Someone size him up for his clown shoes.

No.

Yes please.

Ever sit next to someone on a plane or in a movie theater or a sporting event that couldn't fit in their seat and took up part of yours?  ;)

I know plenty of people not overweight that do the same thing.  If your 6'2" and a fit @ 225lbs you can't fit into a seat on a plane or sporting event. Most places are designed for 5'10" 170lb people in tight quarters which is far from the norm.

Yes, but that's more of a temporary inconvenience than a huge burden on society.

CF is right about this world being designed by, and for, midgets uhhh, little people.  Threading the seatbelt through the back of the carseat comes to mind.  A man's hand simply doesn't fit.

Well, no, all I meant was that we've legislated morality before: with slavery. Slavery had some great reasoning behind it: a whole economic system was based on it. So, were slave owners just gonna roll over and die because of the morality of a few Yankees? No, they weren't.

Then, after the civil war, we instituted the 13th amendment, the only one that (currently) affects private conduct, and the 14th. For years and years we hedged around the absolute, unflinching equality those amendments required. Now we don't. Brown v. Board happened. Separate is no longer equal.

It all started cuz of a few Yankees and their "damned" morality, trying to change federalism.

Except for clothing.  I keep having to buy smaller and smaller sizes and I know I am not shrinking.  Relaxed fit?  More like : made bigger so you can say you wear a size smaller than you really do.  Pretty soon I will be shopping in the children's section.

How many times have I gone to a t-shirt night and been handed a large or XL shirt that I could wear as a dress?  Good thing I don't go for the t-shirt.  Maybe the ones they handed out to kids would actually fit me.

Then they cram in smaller and smaller seats so they have more to sell, not taking into account our increasingly larger populous.

/end rant

Slavery is a very different concept, because again, it's a zero sum game.  For one person to OWN a slave, another has to BE a slave.  There is a direct victim of someone who's rights are violated.

The argument that most of us are trying to make are the things that are thought of that only directly affect the person doing it.

This is the real reason for the horrible seating arrangements.  I have to take my cell phone off to sit in the Orlando Arena.  There is a ton more room in the newly built UCF arena than Orlando but of course the Magic need as many empty seats as they can get.  It looks more inviting on TV that way!

Isn't that true of most of parent's behaviors?  Alcohol & drug use, children out of wedlock, job vs welfare, educaton, etc, etc, etc.

Is there a #2 on this list?

Inquisitive?  Logical?  Intellectually superior?

What's with the attitude today?  Problems at home/work or something?

Oh yeah, you're always like this.   ::)

The pot calls who what now?

It's "damn it", not "dammit".  ;)

You cannot completely ban something that has been around since the beginning of time,it will always be with us,sadly,in some form or another.

Prostitution, drugs, religion, etc.

You can ban anything.  Not that you should.

You can ban anything, but can you really keep people from it?

It's "dammit" if you live in Alabama.

The problem is that America is a country that deals in excess and gluttony, crossing the lines with almost everything.

Soft porn is used in this country to sell trucks, cars, insurance and just about everything else. I've always wondered what a half naked woman has to do with selling a Chevy S-10 truck.

Most of the pop music provides images of porn and please, lets not even talk about the majority of rap.

My favorite city of the world is Amsterdam where prostitution is legal and they have set up laws to provide procedural guidance on getting paid. You can go to Amsterdam, get what you want by looking in the glass window, go in, get paid, satisfied and eat some Pollo Frito and do it all over again.

Even though I don't have porn magazines, there's nothing wrong with it at all. Personally, I prefer relationships but the feminist are hell bent on destroying that in American society by projecting to the rest of the world that American men beat their women, are clueless and are domineering when it's the opposite in many cases. American men are finding other ways to have relationships, such as, getting brides and girlfriends that don't live in this country.

I believe that a human beings sex drive is spiritual in nature. Some people have strong drives...some people less. Porn is a way of people trying to fufill that desire.

Many people aren't made for marriage so what are they gonna do?

I think that a minor should not be allow in any capacity of the porn industry unless he or she is 18 years old.

Don't ban pornography!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands

Three inches of cleavage qualifies for "half-naked" these days? That's a rough dress code you're working with there, ethurst... ;)

In real life, what does three inches of cleavage have to do with getting your dishwasher fixed?  Is that "soft core porn" for housewives?