Join 3,377 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Coalition of the Chilling
July 6, 2004 10:00 AM   Subscribe

Hot on the heels of the critically-acclaimed War on Drugs and its blockbuster sequel, the War on Terror, an alliance of U.S. and Canadian organizations sets its sights on yet another noun, this time with the War on Pornography. The first salvo in the conflict was, naturally, fired in Utah.
posted by mr_crash_davis (81 comments total)

 
You may not have noticed, but we're also waging a War on Illiteracy, too.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:02 AM on July 6, 2004


Nevermind educating our youth on the realities of sex. Ban all filth!
posted by Down10 at 10:05 AM on July 6, 2004


What ever happened to the War on War
posted by Outlawyr at 10:07 AM on July 6, 2004


Utah, whose antidepressant prescription rate is nearly twice the national average. Go figure.
posted by gottabefunky at 10:11 AM on July 6, 2004


I know! Let's go back to Victorian times, and make it impossible to admit that even our tables have legs!
posted by WolfDaddy at 10:12 AM on July 6, 2004


mostly accidentally while doing homework - good one.
posted by gottabefunky at 10:12 AM on July 6, 2004


Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and his staff are developing an online child-protection registry that is scheduled to be up and running next year. Utahns will be able to register for the service, which will place their e-mail addresses on a list that prohibits companies from sending pornographic material.

Ahhh... Another faith-based initiative, it seems.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:16 AM on July 6, 2004


I love how some of the waronpornography.com site's claims are sourced and others are not. This one stuck out to me:

Pornography is much more addictive than alcohol, cigarrettes, or drugs - in many cases it is instantly addictive.

How on earth do they come up with this aside from pulling things out of thin air and stating them as if they are true?
posted by mathowie at 10:16 AM on July 6, 2004


Pornography is much more addictive than alcohol, cigarrettes, or drugs - in many cases it is instantly addictive.

Which makes me worry even more about the war on illiteracy, since, as we all know, illiteracy is even more addictive than pornography, alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs... COMBINED!
posted by tittergrrl at 10:21 AM on July 6, 2004


The 'Did You Know?' section is pitiful

Seriously through for a site setting out grievances against porn there's no actual harm attributed to the users of porno; this could be an objection on the basis of aesthetics!

On preview: how on earth do they come up with this aside from pulling things out of thin air and stating them as if they are true?

Because repetition of cant infers the status of fact given enough time - while morally odious it's an effective way of singing to the choir and galvanising the support of your core demographic
posted by dmt at 10:21 AM on July 6, 2004


Wait till they find out how addictive Metafilter is. Then you'll see the Utah hammer come down hard.
posted by Outlawyr at 10:25 AM on July 6, 2004


This often comes up. Is there anyone who is able to explain the mysterious dichotomy of the positive violence of Christian soldiers marching onward with the negative biology of life?

What psychology perpetuates groin shame?
posted by the fire you left me at 10:27 AM on July 6, 2004


Maybe it is a mental disability, one in which religion was created to contain lest it destroy the human race.
posted by the fire you left me at 10:28 AM on July 6, 2004


Adult movies are a hugely profitable business -- the only beef I have against it is that way too much unprotected sex is performed oncamera. and catching (or giving someone) AIDS is the least sexy thing ever.
posted by matteo at 10:31 AM on July 6, 2004


So you're saying, Outlawyr, that Metafilter really is more addictive than crack?
posted by WolfDaddy at 10:32 AM on July 6, 2004


Oh, man, that's just begging for photoshop.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:33 AM on July 6, 2004


I just wonder, are the feminists gonna hop in bed with the fundies this time, like Andrea Dworkin(PDF, NSFW) did back in the Meese Commission days?
posted by jonmc at 10:35 AM on July 6, 2004


I wopld jopin in but I am a conscientous objector. Can I do community service instead? ps:P why did we let Utah into the nation?
posted by Postroad at 10:37 AM on July 6, 2004


Separated @ Birth?
posted by yerfatma at 10:42 AM on July 6, 2004


"Amy Hartvigsen of Alpine doesn't let her young sons watch TV unsupervised anymore. The reality shows that blanket the airwaves might as well be porn, she reasons. "

Anyone who thinks reality shows on network television even remotely resemble pornography has obviously never heard of a butter dog.
posted by cratchit at 10:46 AM on July 6, 2004


I was going to say something about starting a 'war on violence', Outlawyr, but I like 'war on war' much better!
posted by PigAlien at 10:47 AM on July 6, 2004


Unfettered sex for all!

except for those who like being fettered!
posted by PigAlien at 10:49 AM on July 6, 2004


They can have my porn when they pry it from my cold, dead hand. Who's with me? Shall we form the NPA (national porn association)? I see many similarities between the gun control issue and the porn control issue. What's interesting is that the constituencies advocating each issue are so very different. In fact, the pro gun people, I would imagine, are the anti-porn people and vice versa. Bill of Rights cherry picking.
posted by pejamo at 10:51 AM on July 6, 2004


Utah, whose antidepressant prescription rate is nearly twice the national average. Go figure.


Gets even scarier when you look at the instance of spousal abuse per capita in the Bee hive state.
posted by prodigalsun at 10:54 AM on July 6, 2004


For the life of me, I cannot understand what is wrong with porn. I saw it when I was a kid and it never lost its charm for me. People who develop addictions to it were probably going to end up being addicted to something anyway, and people like Ted Bundy would still be psychopaths even if they never laid eyes on pornography.
posted by Zulujines at 10:55 AM on July 6, 2004


When do we get to have a war against assholes that keep delcaring war against nouns?
posted by spilon at 10:57 AM on July 6, 2004


jonmc: i'm going to venture a guess and say no, feminists probably won't jump into bed with fundies this time around. many feminists came out (as it were) in support of the first amendment, and in the past ten or so years a new wave of sex-positive feminism has crested (see also: bust and bitch magazine). plus, a few women who identify as feminist have started making their own sexy entertainment (like candida royalle and tristan taormino).

i could be wrong, of course, but this is how it looks now.
posted by pxe2000 at 10:58 AM on July 6, 2004


Horray for tittergrrl who nailed the problem : illiteracy ! or taken as a whole, plain old ignorance and its psycological companion fear of the unknown.

Problem is one can't beat ignorance (every day thousand of ignorants are born) while a number of firebrand bufoon preachers / marketers exploit ignorance to gain illicit profit (monetary/political/publicity/whatever kind of). But one can wage a war on bufoons :) expecially by exposing their hypocrisy.

Did you know...

1. That 9 out of 10 moral leaders commit immoral acts while in the secrecy of their houses ; or that they leave the cities in which they're well know and go sometimes to other states, hoping that nobody will see them doing the immoral things they say are immoral, but still want to do ?

2. That confession is the way used by pastor to know everything about their community and that they routinely abuse the secrecy of confession among them ?

3. That a number of pastors have sexually abused childrens by exploiting their natural curiosity for sex and their ignorance ? Of course they don't want the kids to know about sex, otherwise they couldn't as easily trick them.

4. That all humans beings are, according to many, sons and daughters of God, yet many pastor discriminate between homosexuals and heterosexual ? Do they think they can disobey the same God they say you must obey ? Who do they think they are, holier then you ?

5. That many predicators/pastors/politicians blame imaginary devils for their sins and expect you to excuse them, but if you "sin" you're guilty guilty guilty because they think it was you , it wasn't the devil ?

6. That a lot of money collected by predicators doesn't go to charity, but is routinely stolen by predicators to buy themself expensive jewelery, cars and sexual releief with hookers ? The predicator couldn't collect as much money without pornography, so they live out of pornography.

And so on...of course education works best against these hypocrites.
posted by elpapacito at 10:58 AM on July 6, 2004


mostly accidentally while doing homework

Two things jumped to mind immediately.
One: Oh yeah, I remember using the "accident" clause when I was a teenager. A lot. And this was before the internet.
Two: Hey, they're doing their homework. That's something.
posted by lumpenprole at 11:01 AM on July 6, 2004


i could be wrong, of course, but this is how it looks now.

More or less. And I'm glad that the Susie Brights and Tristan Toarminos seem to be getting more airtime than the Dworkins and MacKinnon's. But the yo-yo's are still out there muddying the waters.
posted by jonmc at 11:06 AM on July 6, 2004


Amy Hartvigsen of Alpine doesn't let her young sons watch TV unsupervised anymore. The reality shows that blanket the airwaves might as well be porn, she reasons.

Are reality shows appropriate programming for kids in the first place? How many 8 year olds should watch folks on Fear Factor eat hog anus for a few hundred bucks?

Reality programming doesn't come off as the least bit sexy to me, but then I avoid almost all of it. If she was referring to the latest terrible Fox show like "who wants to marry a midget on tempation bachelor island" perhaps they are close to porn, but still, not something I would think kids should watch in the first place.

And that's not aversion to porn talking, that's just good taste.
posted by mathowie at 11:08 AM on July 6, 2004


I just wonder, are the feminists gonna hop in bed with the fundies this time

C'mon jon. Because all feminists are against porn? Links NSFW (your work anyway) Because feminists now and then were one monolithic block taking instruction from the Supreme Council?

You're smarter than that.
posted by dame at 11:08 AM on July 6, 2004


They can have my porn when they pry it from my cold, dead hand.

Shouldn't that be your warm, moist hand?

That's usually what ..er.. never mind.
posted by deborah at 11:11 AM on July 6, 2004


But apparently not smart enough to avoid blaming an entire loose coalition for the behavior of people who belong by virtue of saying they belong.

Does that mean I can dismiss men for all those sexually harassing assholes "muddying the waters"?

Yay for (good) porn
posted by dame at 11:12 AM on July 6, 2004


I think "War On Pornography" would make a great skin-mag title.
posted by tpl1212 at 11:16 AM on July 6, 2004


odd how neither of the so called canadian organizations seem to have any canadians associated with the ownership and running of their respective domains. both are owned by the consulting company in las vegas that owns waronpornography.com & their respective "about us" & "contact" pages really have no true information at all, nothing that would identify who the members are or who's in charge... the only thing that's apparent is that both 1 million canadians & united mothers are the same "organization", not actually 2 separately functioning orgs, who are primarily interested in having bill c250 repealed... so basically that pegs them as some church group out west.

"who wants to marry a midget on tempation bachelor island"

isn't that debuting this fall on ABC...?
posted by t r a c y at 11:17 AM on July 6, 2004


Hmm...or maybe "Fundies In Undies"
posted by tpl1212 at 11:18 AM on July 6, 2004


dame, I said in my second comment that I don't blame feminism as a whole, or even most feminists (although when barroom conversation where the woman starts a sentence "As a feminist I...," I usually take it as a sign I wont be getting laid). Merely the extemists like Dworkin, McKinnon and Valerie Solanas, who despite the lunacy are still respected in the feminist community. And plenty of mainstream feminists are still guilty of incredibly wrongheaded thinking about men as a whole. But that's a whole other discussion.

I was merely pointing out that the last time there was a "War On Pornography" some feminists did in fact jump in bed with the fundies. Am I not right on that score?
posted by jonmc at 11:22 AM on July 6, 2004


For the life of me, I cannot understand what is wrong with porn.

Look at porn, beat off, temporarily lose the drive to go outside to meet real women and cause things to actually happen to you in real life, rinse and repeat, slowly grow older.
posted by dydecker at 11:22 AM on July 6, 2004


"We commend our nation’s leaders for their strong commitment to the War on Terrorism, but we also feel that there is a foe within our own nation and homes that is producing equal, if not more carnage than terrorism – Pornography."

Did anybody else catch that one? Carnage?
posted by crazy finger at 11:30 AM on July 6, 2004


Look at porn, beat off, temporarily lose the drive to go outside to meet real women and cause things to actually happen to you in real life, rinse and repeat, slowly grow older.

Not everyone has the privilige of traditional sexual relations, for a variety of reasons. That's where porn and prostitutes come in.

I'm not saying that everyone who uses porn does so for that reason, merely that many do.
posted by jonmc at 11:35 AM on July 6, 2004


jon, you said nothing of the sort. Unless I'm misinterpreting which comment is your second. And you said *the* not *some*. Which was my point. It was a light rebuke, mostly because I think it's odd that your addition is about *the Feminists (TM)*. And I know you're smarter than that; we all need to be reminded sometimes.

(even more off topic) Whenever anyone beings a sentence with "As a . . . ," I'm pretty sure they aren't getting laid.(/emot)

On preview: Did anybody else catch that one? Carnage?

All those little deaths, silly.
posted by dame at 11:36 AM on July 6, 2004


And now for something completely different: The War Against Pornography.
posted by hoskala at 11:40 AM on July 6, 2004


This comment is my second, where I make a clear delineation between the Taormino/Susie Bright/Camille Paglia feminists and the MacDworkinites (thank you, Nadine Strossen). What's disturbing to me still is that the anti-porn and (there's no other way to say it) anti-male feminism of Dworkin & MacKinnon is still infecting a lot of gender disourse these days.
posted by jonmc at 11:41 AM on July 6, 2004


When do we get to have a war against assholes that keep delcaring war against nouns?

Um, most wars are defined using nouns (Vietnam, Iraq, Korea). Although mr_crash_davis didn't distinguish, I think the real criticism is war against abstract nouns. Also adding to the confusion is Jon Stewart's commencement address in which he criticized the war on terror by (incorrectly) claiming, "It's not even a noun."
posted by pardonyou? at 12:04 PM on July 6, 2004


Nevermind educating our youth on the realities of sex. Ban all filth!

What, exactly, does pornography have to do with reality?
posted by weston at 12:10 PM on July 6, 2004


You did not say you didn't blame feminism. You said, and I'm paraphrasing here, Well, yeah, I guess there are some who agree with me, but look at those anti-male fuckers ruining it for everyone.

But you know, this is niggling. I just wanted you to admit that it's not The Feminists. Anything else we can argue about in August at the Beer Garden.

Back to something we can all enjoy: porn. Remember everyone, it's not just for alone time.
posted by dame at 12:11 PM on July 6, 2004


For the life of me, I cannot understand what is wrong with porn.

Common arguments include that it objectifies women, and reinforces the belief that women are subservient creatures who exist solely to provide sexual pleasure for men. The industry also comes under fire for being male-dominated. On the other side of the spectrum, many believe that sexuality should be solely for procreation -- man and wife, missionary style under the covers. Anything else is immoral and embarassing.

I don't find either argument remotely convincing. But then again, I likes me my porn.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:14 PM on July 6, 2004


*spews jizz in utah's general direction*
posted by quonsar at 12:14 PM on July 6, 2004


How on earth do they come up with this aside from pulling things out of thin air and stating them as if they are true?

On the contrary, they believe that they have the science to prove the claim.
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:16 PM on July 6, 2004


We are at war with pornography. We have always been at war with pornography.
posted by majick at 12:22 PM on July 6, 2004


Common arguments include that it objectifies women, and reinforces the belief that women are subservient creatures who exist solely to provide sexual pleasure for men.

Well, I'll admit some does, like the Max Hardcore variety. But I don't think they do so out of an evil desire to subjugate females, they merely cater to the desires of those who do out of a desire to make a buck, and they'd gladly degrade men, children and three-toed hermaphroditic tree sloths if it was profitable enough.

Truth be told, I find most professional porn pedestrian and most "hardcore" to be somewhat gross, for lack of a better word. The amateur stuff is the only porn that succeeds really. Nothing is sexier than an ordinary woman discovering the thrill of being desired.

and for the record, I don't blame feminists for the anti-porn crusade, that's still mostly the fundies and the erotophobes. I only have a beef with a small but mouthy strain of feminism that falls into the anti-porn camp.
posted by jonmc at 12:25 PM on July 6, 2004


What ever happened to the War on War

Yeah, how about a War on Violence? (maybe not with that particular title). Plenty of that around, and it causes actual harm to others, I've heard.

This war here, it's easy, because failure is assured.
posted by attackthetaxi at 12:27 PM on July 6, 2004


I think 2pac said it best:

And still I see no changes can't a brother get a little peace
It's war on the streets & the war in the Middle East
Instead of war on poverty they got a war on drugs
so the police can bother me

posted by diVersify at 12:38 PM on July 6, 2004


They can have my porn when they pry it from my cold, dead hand.

Shouldn't that be your warm, moist hand?

That's usually what ..er.. never mind.
posted by deborah at 11:11 AM PST on July 6


No, its a warm, hairy hand on a vision impaired guy. :-)

Now, who's gonna tell Fox News that they're outta business?
posted by nofundy at 12:42 PM on July 6, 2004


What, exactly, does pornography have to do with reality?

well, some of it has a lot to do with reality, mostly the reality of fucking. seriously.

some of it is simply John and Jane Doe filming themselves having sex. sure, most "mainstream" pornography still features airbrushed airheads and is a far cry from *my* reality, but thank god for that interweb. pornography has much more to do with real sex than any other form of media, no?

we gotta tell this country about Utah. cuz nobody se-ems to know.


Susie Bright is great. don't forget Annie Sprinkle (boobs, NSFW, perhaps).

since jonmc needs some support (and i rarely get that chance) i'll say that it was *very* frustrating to see a coalition develop between religious anti-porn zealots and *SOME* feminists back in the 80s. however, there has always been a good amount of debate within feminist organizations.

in 1995, Jon Blumen wrote a very good analysis of the anti-porn (Mackinnon), pro-porn (McElroy), and let-freedom-ring (Strossen) viewpoints among three prominent female activists.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:45 PM on July 6, 2004


I read the dateline on crash's 'War on Illiteracy' link and had a crappy reaction to it. I have no idea why we'd want to declare 'war' on anything anymore. Low-level panic, maybe...getting organized about the porn menace can be so soothing. Especially when you get to fling barely-concealed leprous hatred at others under the banner of public hygiene.

See also Eric B. & Rakim's Casualties of War for more on useless violence.
posted by attackthetaxi at 1:00 PM on July 6, 2004


A newer small argument against some (mostly mainstream) porn: it makes guys disturbed/confused when girls actually have pubic hair. There are people who (anecdotally, no links) totally blame the lack of hair in porn for the assumption among younger folks that girls will be shaved. Girls who don't like shaving get kinda pissed.

Nothing is sexier than an ordinary woman discovering the thrill of being desired.

Amen. Hey, jon, I have a business idea I think we could both enjoy. (Plus we could really stick it to those anti-porn feminists; my f-credentials are totally in order)
posted by dame at 1:06 PM on July 6, 2004


A newer small argument against some (mostly mainstream) porn: it makes guys disturbed/confused when girls actually have pubic hair.

Well, as a really good band puts it: some like it shaved, some like it bushy, everybody likes..... The alternate strangeness of porn inthe internet age is the sheer quantity of it. After a while, it starts to seem like every woman on earth has posed in deshabilly, yet the only time I saw someone I know, it was a male co-worker. Odd paradox.

Amen. Hey, jon, I have a business idea I think we could both enjoy.

Well, I'm sure it's tempting, but neither my loving girlfreind and Catholic mother wouldn't approve, I'm sure.
posted by jonmc at 1:22 PM on July 6, 2004


I've got a couple of questions about all these Wars On Nouns.

How do you declare victory or defeat? How will we know when the War On Whatever is over?

I think these questions apply equally well to the Wars on Drugs, Terror, Illiteracy, Poverty, Satan, War, Porn, and Whatever-else-you've-got. The only noun I can think of that was ever defeated was Smallpox. And now they aren't completely sure about that.
posted by ilsa at 1:31 PM on July 6, 2004


Well, jon, the argument was that some people feel that boys don't like it bushy anymore. I'm just the messenger.

P.S. It wasn't a proposition for a team performance on our part, just to be clear; more of a back-end partnership. (That's dirty too, isn't it? Damn.) Yet I think my Catholic mother would approve.
posted by dame at 1:35 PM on July 6, 2004


Well, jon, the argument was that some people feel that boys don't like it bushy anymore. I'm just the messenger.

Over the years, I've done some informal polls of my boys, and it's always worked out aroun 50/50. Women themselves seem to be particular about it, too. At Haulover Beach, I overheard a young lady complain to her freind that the only bad thing about the place was having to see all the "bushes from hell."

But probably the best thing you can say about 'net porn is that if someone wants to see it, there's a site for it, which will be easy to stumble across thus actually doing America's libido a favor, in widening the erotic buffet.
posted by jonmc at 1:41 PM on July 6, 2004


people who . . . totally blame the lack of hair in porn for the assumption among younger folks that girls will be shaved. Girls who don't like shaving get kinda pissed.

This sounds to me like something to bitch about rather than a real issue. Kinda like guys whining that women have a predilection for making snap judgements on men based on the look of their shoes.
posted by deadcowdan at 1:46 PM on July 6, 2004


Banning porn via legislation, in any way, shape, or form, is a shallow and doomed effort, much like banning file sharing and drugs. If we really want to decrease porn's effect on our society, we have to start realizing why we even like porn to begin with. When you think about it, there should really be nothing arousing about watching a computer screen or reading a magazine. I think the reason why so many in our culture find sexual release in viewing pornographic media is because we program them to do just that.

Remember the Super Bowl? People fucking flipped their shit over a nipple for half a second. I'm not saying that whole display wasn't a hellish barrage of mixed psychological messages, but it was just a nipple! Ask any hunter gatherer and they'll tell you there is nothing inherently disturbing or dangerous about seeing a nipple. Yet it becomes both disturbing and dangerous when parents and censors treat it as such, which just perpetuates the same taboo that generates stunts like that in the first place.

I believe the whole sordid relationship with porn we endure has less to do with the availability of said materials and more to do with parents too chickenshit/sentimental to actually tell their children what sex is.
posted by Laugh_track at 1:48 PM on July 6, 2004


How on earth do they come up with this aside from pulling things out of thin air and stating them as if they are true?

They rely on research by people like Dr. Judith Reisman (Ph.D. in Communications from CWRU), not exactly the most reliable scientist herself.
posted by hades at 1:59 PM on July 6, 2004


Common arguments include that it objectifies women, and reinforces the belief that women are subservient creatures who exist solely to provide sexual pleasure for men.

As a feminist, I'm pretty pro-porn, to a point. The issue with porn objectifying women is not, it seems to me, a function of porn, but of the way the entire spectrum of mass media tends to portray women. I'm not really sure it's fair to demonize erotic material for it's portrayals when the same nasty objectifications are also popping up in cartoons, sit-coms, beer commercials, billboards, reality shows, etc.
posted by Karmakaze at 2:02 PM on July 6, 2004


I'm sure what they really want to say is: "all of you, quit looking at fucking on the internet, goddammit!"
posted by yeahyeahyeahwhoo at 2:06 PM on July 6, 2004


When you think about it, there should really be nothing arousing about watching a computer screen or reading a magazine.

Well of course there should be. Pictures and words give rise to many feelings; that's why we like them. When you think about it, what's really odd is that we would think arousal would be the one thing two-dimensional representations couldn't do.

I think the reason why so many in our culture find sexual release in viewing pornographic media is because we program them to do just that.

And this is bad why? Of course forbidden things are titlillating. It's one of those dimensions of humanity. We forbid things only to make them sweeter.
posted by dame at 3:04 PM on July 6, 2004


man, like none of these people never stole their dad's dirty magazines and jacked off as a kid.
posted by angry modem at 3:27 PM on July 6, 2004


oh, I sent a fake one full of spelling errors and racial slurs and the results came back like this:

Goal:
10,000,000 Members
by Jan 01/2005


And the actual amount of participation:
Letters Sent 383
posted by angry modem at 3:34 PM on July 6, 2004


How do you declare victory or defeat? How will we know when the War On Whatever is over?

It's never over, which saves you the trouble of repealing all those wonderfully repressive laws that you invented the war for, in the first place.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:23 PM on July 6, 2004


I was merely pointing out that the last time there was a "War On Pornography" some feminists did in fact jump in bed with the fundies. Am I not right on that score?

Yes, despite the protestations of some radical pro-sex feminists who remembered how laws against pornography were used to prevent the dissemination of reproductive health information by early feminists. And of course, what happened when the McDworkinites got into bed with the fundies and got some of those laws passed? Why the fundies tried to use those very same laws to shut down feminist bookstores in several cities, that's what happened. No, I don't think the majority of feminists will be working with the fundies on this particular campaign.
posted by echolalia67 at 9:57 PM on July 6, 2004


What ever happened to the War on War

Mojo Nixon stopped being funny. *cries*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:15 PM on July 6, 2004


YEAH! WHOO! ANOTHER WAR! GIMME THAT PORNOGRAPHY AND LET'S FUCK IT IN THE ASS! BUT NOT BEFORE A BIT O' ORAL ACTION!! OH YEAH BABY!! I GOT A BIG FACIAL CUMSHOT FOR PORNOGRAPHY RIGHT HERE!!!

Ahem. Or what Laugh_track said.
posted by sharpener at 11:56 PM on July 6, 2004


A third for Laugh_track's perceptive comment. America in particular seems to have crossed wiring when it comes to sexual politics although we Brits are little better and the same problems are evident throughout the west.

For instance, it's rightly accepted that it's awful to have sexual relations with the underage. It's also considered participating in your local community to go and watch the local college sports game where that forbidden fruit is dangled in form of teenaged cheerleaders. I mean, huh? Similarly, Britney Spears’ early career – ‘I’m a Christain virgin so I’d never do that, but wait a mo I’ll get you all got and bothered in meantime.’ Wha?
posted by dmt at 4:39 AM on July 7, 2004


Legislating morality - it's bound to work.
posted by emf at 6:56 AM on July 7, 2004


I wonder if they'll find any WADs (Weapons of Ass Destruction)?
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:35 AM on July 7, 2004


* Nine in 10 children ages 8 to 16 have viewed porn online -- most of them by accident.

right. accidentally looking through daddy's internet history, maybe?

* The average age of first exposure to Web porn is 11.

sure, but what's the average age of finding playboys under your older brother's/dad's/uncle's/cousin's bed?

* Pornography is more addictive than alcohol, cigarettes or illicit drugs.

perhaps because wanting to reproduce is a biological necessity for the perpetuation of any species? gee, kind of hard to call that a bad thing, but i also take issue with calling it "addictive" - you don't have to have previously been exposed to sex to find sex intriguing, as thousands of loveless horny pimply-faced teens can attest, but i've never seen anyone who had never been exposed to nicotine having any cravings for a marlboro.

* Nearly half of all children ages 11 to 17 with an Internet connection surf for porn sites.

what percentage of them do so simply because mon'n'pop told them porn was bad, and they went online and googled to see what the big deal was? it's not like we can pretend prepubescent kids spend more time surfing porn than 40-year olds with valid credit cards, right?

* One in 5 children ages 10 to 17 has received sexual solicitations while on the Internet.

4 out of 5 people in cnat rooms who say they're under the age of 18 are really those 40-year old men again. or cops/vigilantes pretending to be a little kid so they can bag themselves a pervert, prosecute, and sleep better at night.

* Kids can bypass most blocking software with a single click of the mouse.

proving once again that the average 12-year old knows more about the computer than the parents who rely on software to keep the sin away rather than actually paying attention to their kids. or doing something obvious, like moving the computer to the living room - i mean, come on. how many kids will surf porn when dad is in the room, even if all he's doing is watching tv?
posted by caution live frogs at 10:18 AM on July 7, 2004


Utah is the state where they use the Patriot Act to investigate strip clubs, after all.
posted by homunculus at 10:28 AM on July 7, 2004


I'm with jonmc regarding quality porn and the specter of fake feminism. The trouble with your analysis, as I see it, jon, is that you assume everyone who calls herself a feminist is truly feminist.

Dworkin et all are what I call neofeminist: they fly the flag of feminism, yet use their power to diminish the freedoms and limit the options available to women. Neofeminists play right into the hands of social conservatives, and contribute to the feminist stigma.
posted by squirrel at 12:17 PM on July 7, 2004


wonder if they'll find any WADs (Weapons of Ass Destruction)?

I like to refer to sizable breasts and any accompanying cleavage/tight top as WMD's: "Weapons of Mass Distraction".
posted by Dick Paris at 6:55 PM on July 7, 2004


« Older Benefit Concert: Calexico in Calexico....  |  Croatian Properties for Sale... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments